A Bangladeshi view – Lahore resolution: The misread political agenda

Posted by Raza Rumi
This piece by M.T. Hussain makes an interesting read. He cites the Lahore Resolution as the ‘proud heritage of Pakistan and Bangladesh” though the logic of the full argument is circular at best. PTH

Nearly seven decades ago, a history was made in then British Indian empire. The All India Muslim League made it. The venue was the historic city of Lahore. On the day, 23rd March 1940, the League had a grand convention of representatives, delegates and enthusiasts assembled there to chart out the future of the Muslims of India along with the future independence of India from the British colonial rule then nearly 177 years running. The main heroes of the convention happened to be Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the President of the League who presided over the session followed by A.K Fazlul Haq being the fortunate one to present in the convention the historic resolution that made another history in the making that not only for Pakistan but also for Bangladesh had their genesis of foundation.

A relevant background of the convention may not be out of place to mention. 1935 Indian Administration Act of the British rulers opened further opportunity for self-rule of India. The self-rule provided for people’s elected representative to take on to the administration. The first general election that followed the Act in early 1937 produced results in eleven provinces in such a way that only Bengal could have formed the Muslim League (then 31 years in existence) Ministry headed by A.K. Fazlul Haq, the popular Bengal leader, crowned in Lahore some time back as the Shere Bangal or the Tiger of Bengal, in Bengali version, Sher E Bangla. Three provinces had coalition ministry of conglomerates but in seven other provinces the ministries had been purely of the Congress, then over 50 years in existence and dominated by caste ridden and ‘high born’ Hindus.

In these seven provinces, unfortunately for the Muslims, the ministries started to put up action programs that in fact turned to be aggressively Hindu communal against the beliefs, values and practices of the minority Muslims extending even in school class rooms forcing the Muslim boys and girls against their free will to bow down to certain portraits, singing Bande Mataram, etc as these amounted to somewhat polytheism and against Islamic monotheist belief. The Muslims naturally reacted and protested against Hindu communalism at state level dealings. But they cared little that obviously made the Muslims to think more independently about their future political status in the Indian sub continent should the British leave giving independence to the Indian empire. The Congress took the opportunity to have the Hindu dream of AKHANDA BHARAT or reunited India under their control leaving the Muslims as a ‘permanent minority’ in post British independent India.

Having the vicious Hindu communal scenario (See, Shila Sen, 1973 and Joya Chatterjee, 1993/2003) all around, the All India Muslim League convened on the day a grand convention in Lahore that was attended by leaders of the Muslim League and their supporters from all over the country. It thus turned out to be a decisive moment to chart out programs for future action for dignified survival of all Muslims in the sea of caste ridden Hindu communalism. Thus in midst of high expectations, the two-day convention at the concluding session on the 24th March passed a unanimous resolution presented by Bengal Premier A K Fazlul Haq that read as follows:

‘It is the considered view of this Session of the All India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principles, viz. that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are a majority, as in the north-western and eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute ‘Independent States’ in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign’ ( S.S. Husain, 1995, P.218, quoted from Pirzada).

If one may look at the geographical position in 2009 of the three countries Bangladesh, Pakistan and India, one must not miss the pertinent point that they are in fact what the Lahore Resolution had resolved to attain in the post British period. However, there had been detours in between 1940 to 1947 and then again in 1971.

The detour of the 1947 could have been averted provided the 1940 Resolution would have been fully implemented. The harsh fate of the people and particularly of the populously Muslim provinces like Bengal and Punjab made the detour obvious and non-implementation of the Lahore Resolution in full. Who’s to blame is a matter of debate still bangs on our ears, but the fact remained that on insistence of the Congress both these populous provinces faced certain partition (See, H.V. Hodson, The Great Divide, 1968). That plan for partition ahead of independence of the two provinces ditched particularly East Bengal in danger having no possible viability as an independent country surrounded by hostile neighbor from all sides in the immediately pre1947 perception of the leaders of the Muslim League.

Having the drastically changed political scenario of imminent partition of the two provinces on religious communal divide, the leaders soon after the provincial general election of 1946 convened another session of all the Muslim legislators of all provinces to meet in Delhi on the 9th April 1946. In this crucial historic session, the legislators took another decision somewhat revising the 1940 Resolution abandoning the term ‘Independent States’ that meant clearly not for two Muslim majority countries but one independent Pakistan. In fact, the 1946 election campaign was absolutely and clearly marked by the slogan for Pakistan, and one Pakistan.

The resolution adopted in Delhi on the 9th April, 1946, is a very long one that everything stated there may not be relevant in this item. What is most relevant, as I see, read as follows:

‘That the zones comprising Bengal and Assam in the North East and the Punjab, the North West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan in the North West of India, namely the Pakistan zones, where the Muslims are a dominant majority, be constituted into one sovereign independent state and that an unequivocal undertaking be given to implement the establishment of Pakistan without delay’ (S.S. Husain, 1995, P.222, quoted from MHR Talukder, 1987).

The resolution so adopted had no lack of clarity whatsoever and was in response only to the popular will and demand of the Muslims who feared to suffer in future as they had suffered in the past in the joint evil hands of the British and their local henchmen so much so that the Muslim in utter desperation demanded the united and powerful one Pakistan. One typical slogan for the commoners had been ‘HAT ME BIRI MU MEN PAN LARKE LEGE PAKISTAN’, ‘Holding in hand biri or a local brand cigarette and in chewing in mouth pan or a sort of local variety of betel leaf with cracked local nut mixed with locally made calcium carbonate, we fight for establishing Pakistan’. The leaders as such at the end of the 1946 provincial election had no scope to go for two Muslim majority states but to demand and establish one and only one united Pakistan and so hopefully for a powerful country to face up to the bigger Hindu India.

Later on, some claims were heard that one leader from Bengal protested the revision of the Lahore Resolution in Delhi session presented this time by the other sitting Premier of Bengal once again, Husseyn Shahid Sohrawardy, but as evidence suggested, the opposition voice was so feeble that that was lost in overwhelming majority roaring sound.

The Lahore resolution conformed to the reality in 1940 and then again the 1946 one as well responded appropriately meeting the latter political development and situation created mainly by the Congress. That is how one Pakistan was founded in mid August 1947.

The vulnerable and fragile condition Pakistan started its journey in 1947 (See, Brainbatti, 1963) naturally had little optimism for survival. Even so, the united country survived for 23 years but failed at the end of about two decades to hold on together; thus the British East Bengal/ East Pakistan broke away from the federation taking identity as independent Bangladesh. Many explained the post 1971 Bangladesh as the practical realization of the Lahore Resolution of 1940. This explanation holds well as long as it meets the spirit of the same resolution, but not if the spirit of Muslim nationhood is lost.

Unfortunately, there is a group here in Bangladesh who condemns the partition of 1947 and yet wishes to rationalize sovereign Bangladesh. Are they right in reason or wonders in fallacy? Had there been no partition in 1947, it would remain one India in the region that the British and the Congress seriously pursued for to the end. Had they succeeded and the Muslim League failed in 1947 could there be any land called independent sovereign Bangladesh in 1971? Not, at all.

It is thus only logical that to be patriotic Bangladeshi one must accept the rationale of one Pakistan of 1947 that formed the genesis of independent Bangladesh. Thus it can be stated in conclusion that to be a patriotic Bangladeshi believing in its perpetual dignified existence, there is no scope to deny the rationality of the 1940 Lahore Resolution. That is the proud heritage of both Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Advertisements

70 Comments

Filed under Pakistan

70 responses to “A Bangladeshi view – Lahore resolution: The misread political agenda

  1. Majumdar

    ….. That plan for partition ahead of independence of the two provinces ditched particularly East Bengal in danger having no possible viability as an independent country ……

    This is indeed the good reason why Pakistan was born as one state and not two. Independent East Bengal was an unviable state and would have been vulnerable to India. That is why once United Bengal was rejected by Hindoo Bengalis and INC, there was no call for two separate states by Bong Muslim leaders- even those who had none too cordial relations with MAJ (pbuh).

    Regards

  2. Nice Bharatiya

    It is important to understand what lead to Lahore resolution and what was achieved by Muslim League? Please note that Muslims in majority area never demanded separate land for Muslims. It was those Muslims living in Hindu majority area were living in insecurity and were looking for security in utopian land. What was finally got was a separation for Muslim majority area but not security to Muslims in minority. When Pakistan was formed, Pakistan was not handed over to a native leader. Jinnah, a man from India, took this Pakistan? Even Sohrawardy was not given his due! The fears that were spoken of during Lahore resolution that Muslims would suffer in free India were proved to be true for Bengalis in Muslim-Pakistan but not for Muslims in Secular India!
    You said it right that had Muslim League failed in getting India partitioned there could not be Bangladesh. But I am sure you will not understand that there would not have been a need for Bangladesh.
    Earlier you realize that the Lahore resolution was meant for benefit of politicians like Jinnah and not for Muslims. If not IML would not have left the fate of 50% Muslims to Hindus and accepted partition.
    I am of the strong opinion that if there was no partition, Muslim of united India would have been much better of. More than 30% Muslims would have dictated much better and would have had a big say in our parliament.
    Just watch, Kashmir is predominantly Muslim area, its government is always in the hands of Muslims (whatever may be the party they belong to). If there was no infiltration and terrorism Kashmiris would have lived more happily. And if it were to join Pakistan at the time of partition it would have been another vivisection similar to Bangladesh!

  3. yasserlatifhamdani

    I personally don’t think it is circular at all…

    Lahore Resolution is the founding document of both Pakistan and Bangladesh… and the current reality fits the Lahore Resolution well.

    Poor delusional Indira Gandhi thought she had undone the idea of Pakistan in 1971… had she known a bit of history… she would know that she only managed to undo the deviation from the Lahore Resolution… partly in form of the Delhi Legislators convention… and partly on Nehru’s insistence on not allowing Bengal go its own way in 1947.

  4. yasserlatifhamdani

    Bhartiya,

    Afreen hai the way you Indians argue without checking your facts.

    “Please note that Muslims in majority area never demanded separate land for Muslims.”

    This is a historical fallacy. The known-proponents of a separate Muslim state i.e. Pakistan- Iqbal, Ch. Rahmat Ali, Barkat Ali, Khattak and Kifayet Ali were all from Punjab. The prime mover of Lahore Resolution, AK Fazlul Haq was a Bengali… and the authors of the Lahore Resolution… Sir Sikandar Hayat and Sir Zafrullah were also from Punjab.

    It is true that the League had natural support in what is now India… but despite winning almost all the Muslim seats in Hindu Majority Areas in 1937…. they realized that they couldn’t be an all India party untill they win the Muslim majority areas… which is why the League adopted the Lahore Resolution which was essentially a scheme prepared by Muslims of Muslim Majority Areas. The results were electric…. by 1946… Muslim League was the majority party in Muslim majority areas… and had won all Muslim seats.

    “Jinnah a man from India”

    Once again little knowledge is dangerous. Jinnah did spend much of his adult life in Bombay… but he was born and bred in Karachi … and was a resident of this region.

    Also… I suggest you read H M Seervai’s “Partition of India: Legend and Reality” … you would see that the only power hunger at play was that of Nehru and Gandhi…. otherwise AIML had agreed to the Cabinet Mission Plan.

    And not that it is of any consequence but it is not 50% of the Muslims… the total Muslim population was 90 million… out of which some 60 million lived in proposed Pakistan Areas (East + West). Out of the remaining 30 million as many as 8 to 10 million Muslims moved to Pakistan. That left around 20 million or so Muslims in India in 1947.

    The situation is the same even today… Pakistan has around 170 million people out of which 158 million are Muslim. Bangladesh has around 130 million… out of which 110-120 million are Muslim… the total number in the erstwhile Muslim majority areas is about 280 million… as opposed to 140 miillion in India.

  5. Dominic Lapierre

    Also… I suggest you read H M Seervai’s “Partition of India: Legend and Reality” … you would see that the only power hunger at play was that of Nehru and Gandhi

    Who the f***k is HM Seervai? I thought I wrote the definitive book on the Partition of India with Larry Collins..

    power play…nehru and gandhi … nice. And Jinnah was the internationally revered saint wasn’t he?

  6. YLH

    Lapierre/collins and Definitive? How can a book written before the transfer of power papers were declassified be definitive? It was based on anecdotal evidence and was poorly sourced…written in a journalese manner.

    H M Seervai was India’s foremost constitutional lawyer and expert and his book on partition is considered an authority.

    And almost every book written in the west since the TOPP were declassified has rejected this “definitive” crap. Examples include “Liberty or Death” by Patrick French… or “Sole Spokesman” by Ayesha Jalal… even Shameful flight despite being soft on Gandhi is a good response.

    It does not matter if Jinnah is not an internationally revered saint. The facts have now been accepted by all major historians both in India and the West.

    So you keep reading this “definitive” book and praising your internationally revered saint who was actually a fraud.

  7. ashutosh

    @ yasserlatifhamdani

    According to your own calculations, since 1947, the Muslims in pakistan & bangladesh have grown 4 times ( from 70 million to 278 million) but the muslims in India have grown 7 times ( From 20 million to 140 million)

    Seems like either India is doing an exceptional job at protecting and growing its muslim community ( better than Pak atleast)or there is something wrong in the history written by your great historian: Mr. HM Seervai.

  8. yasserlatifhamdani

    Aww… Pray tell what it is that you think Seervai said which you are referring to here? Have you read the book? Or you also a Lapierre type?

    By your logic… Europe must really be a very bad place to live because the birthrate in many of those countries is net negative.

  9. yasserlatifhamdani

    Rubicon,

    No. Please don’t put words in my mouth. You have no understanding of what I actually said and I don’t appreciate being misquoted. There was nothing divisive about the Lahore Resolution- if anything it was a solid basis for reconstitution of a truly Indian federation based on Hindu-Muslim unity. If some of you were to come out of your mould and try and understand what it was… I will be happy to indulge you in a discussion.

    However to be privileged enough to enter into a dialogue on this you would have to do your homework … or else I’ll simply not respond to your comments.

  10. yasserlatifhamdani

    Rubicon,

    I had to delete your comment for your use of expletives. Sadly it seems that you don’t have th stomach for a debate based on facts.

    Even before the transfer of power papers….and by his worst critics like Lapierre etc and Louis Fischer… Jinnah was always recognized as incorruptible…. indeed the author of the Indian constitution, Dr. Ambedkar said that there isn’t a politician to whom the word incorruptible may be more fittingly applied.

    However.. since the transfer of power papers have come out, there has been a general reversal of view in the west that saw Jinnah as some sort of a fallen angel of the Indian independence movement. Indeed… now it seems that Jinnah was not the darth vader that Indians want to present him as but rather it was the inability of Gandhi and Nehru to come to terms with a dissenting view that was the issue that led to partition.

    So you can go on deluding yourself… but the world is no longer ready to buy your lies anymore.

  11. ashutosh

    @yasserlatifhamdani
    I was only pointing a glaring discrepancy in the data you presented on behalf of Mr NM Seervai.

    However, if you dont see the discrepancy, and prefer to compare Pak & Bangladesh to Europe in terms of controlling population growth of Muslims, then i rest my case and bow to you 🙂

    I have nothing for or against Mr Seervai, and this debate has increased my curiosity in terms of reading him

  12. peace guys – we are here to add value to the debate and not to score points or ‘convert’ each other…
    R

  13. yasserlatifhamdani

    ashutosh,

    I think there has been some confusion.

    H M Seervai’s book is about the politics surrounding the events of partition. How are you linking it with the population numbers… indicates to me some sort of deep seated emotional issues and scarring.

    The statistics on the numbers that I have given are from the censuses of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. You are the one who is claiming some credit for the reproductive rates of Muslims (apparently good ol’ Varun Gandhi’s bapuji was concerned about this trend).

  14. Raza Rumi

    G,

    We are deleting all your comments because your language is intemperate and unacceptable.

    In the future please don’t visit PTH and if you do, know that we will delete your comments.

  15. Nice bharatiya

    Yasser seems to be good in catching naïve and advantageous points. When I said Muslims of majority area I meant people not leaders. The leaders from any area might ask anything for their personal benefit. I meant there was no need for majority area Muslims to demand separate country. If Muslims of majority area demanded separate country it only means the leaders there were bad enough!

    Jinnah was born in Karachi is a fact but his father was from Kathiawar! He was neither Sindhi nor Panjabi! Let me ask you as a leader, was it not the duty of Jinnah to stay back in India and protect the remaining Muslims? Did he believe that governing the newly formed Pakistan was more important? He was in such a hurry to take the seat. He did not have the courtesy to allow Mountbatten to continue as was done by Indian leaders.

    About facts, the figures are good to keep in fool’s paradise. Statistics regarding Muslim population in Ashutosh reply was enough to you.

    Just look at what is Pakistan and what is India today. What was demanded in Lahore and what you got?
    Just watch what Jinnah said before Lahore resolution.
    “Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither inter-marry nor inter-dine and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations that are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their concepts on life and of life are different….To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.”

    Now tell me what you got? You got Pakistan for Muslims with different sects within the same Muslims. Are the sects different in terms of philosophies, social customs, literature etc? Then how are you yoking them together. May I say is breaking up of Bangladesh a result of such ideas? May I continue to ask that is it the reason why military takes over Pakistan often?

    Quid also said that Mussalmans are a nation according to any definition of nation. If those definitions are true, there must be many nations in Pakistan by the same definition!

    All the arguments were coined to be in hot seats by politicians.

  16. Pakistan and Bangladesh are a reality on the map of the world and Akhand Bharat a dream. Lets live in world of reality and not in the world of dreams. India is doing a good job with its Muslims and Muslims of Pakistan & Bangladesh are happy in their countries.
    Why is that whenever i meet or hear any Indian they start talking about us being the same people and blaming Muslim politicians of that time for creation of Pakistan. Indian’s delight is barely concealed when something bad happens in Pakistan or Bangladesh like an eternally jealous cousin.
    This is my request to a democratic country like you to respect the will of the people and let us live in our country and stop dreaming or being scornful towards us. We want Pakistan and not happy to become ‘Muslims in India’.

    http://real-politique.blogspot.com

    By Sikander Hayat

  17. yasserlatifhamdani

    When I said Muslims of majority area I meant people not leaders.

    Once again… you are sorely mistaken my friend. If Jinnah and the AIML came to the Muslim Majority provinces – after having spent a lifetime in Hindu Majority provinces- and took up a demand that had currency there… that would imply that it was people who supported the demand and the leaders merely represented them.
    Sir Sikandar Hayat who I mentioned earlier was the Premier of Punjab… he was forced to draft the Lahore Resolution because he realized that he was against a flood. So why don’t you make up your mind.

    “Jinnah was born in Karachi is a fact but his father was from Kathiawar! He was neither Sindhi nor Panjabi!”

    If Jinnah was born and bred in Karachi.. he was a Karachite. Where his father was from is frankly none of anyone’s concern.

    “Did he believe that governing the newly formed Pakistan was more important?”

    Yes he did.

    “He was in such a hurry to take the seat.”

    Ha ha May I remind you are not talking about do takay ka log like that power hungry Jawarharlal Nehru or a fraud like Gandhi my friend. You are talking about Jinnah who was held to be the most incorruptible politician by your own politicians. B.R. Ambedkar wrote about Jinnah: “It is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Any one who knows what his relations with the British government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune” (Pakistan and Partition of India; 1946; page 323).

    And this is what H V Hodson had to say :

    One thing is certain, it was not for any venal motive that he changed. Not even his political enemies ever accused Jinnah of corruption or self seeking. He could be bought by no one and for no price. Nor was he in the least degree a weathercock, swinging in the wind of popularity or changing his politics to suit the chances of the time. He was a steadfast idealist, as well as a man of scrupulous honour.” (Page 39- the Great Divide)

    Even your Gandhi told Louis Fischer that Jinnah was absolutely incorruptible and brave… who could not be bought by anyone. Gandhi would know… between 1942 and 1947… Gandhi tried to buy off Jinnah with the premiership of independent India atleast three times and Jinnah refused…surely the premiership of Indpendent India– and a Muslim to boot- the largest democracy in the world- would have been a much greater “seat” than the governor general of rump state that he didn’t want (read Ayesha Jalal’s Sole Spokesman) …

    Jinnah chose to become the GG only after Bhopal’s Hamidullah Khan could no longer be available for Pakistan. Jinnah had no intention of leaving Bombay but forced by circumstance… and what was that circumstance? Well that brings us to your next inane point.

    “He did not have the courtesy to allow Mountbatten to continue as was done by Indian leaders.”

    Indian leaders were toadies who were paying back Mountbatten for his partisanship against Jinnah and the Muslim League. Mountbatten literally managed to deliver to the Congress what they had failed to do so … use Jinnah’s own scheme against him and make it implode. Nehru and Gandhi were deeply indebted to Mountbatten so much so that an Englishman… and a member of the Royal Family no less… became the Governor General of “Independent India”… what a joke. Had Jinnah allowed Mountbatten to be Pakistan’s first governor general not only would it be a negation of the independence that was won… it would have allowed Mountbatten to further destroy Pakistan as was his plan.

    “You got Pakistan for Muslims with different sects within the same Muslims. Are the sects different in terms of philosophies, social customs, literature etc?”

    No.

    “Then how are you yoking them together.”

    Already answered above.

    “May I say is breaking up of Bangladesh a result of such ideas?”

    You may… but you will be ill-informed. It was Nehru who had insisted on one Pakistan state… Jinnah on the other hand had very clearly agreed to an independent United Bengal in 1947. Read Wolpert’s “Shameful Flight”. Bangladesh’s breaking up was a result of a negation of Jinnah’s vision for a secular democratic Pakistan. Had Pakistanis followed Jinnah’s vision… Pakistan would have survived as a confederation along the lines of 1940’s Lahore Resolution. In any event the creation of Bangladesh is a re-affirmation of the spirit of Lahore Resolution … North West and North East as “Independent States”.

    “May I continue to ask that is it the reason why military takes over Pakistan often?”

    Now this is obviously a soundbyte with no basis in reality. The Military takes over not because of Lahore Resolution but because Lahore Resolution has not been implemented in letter and spirit … creating a vacuum.

    “Ashutosh’s answer is enough for you”

    Ashutosh’s answer is based on his misconception about what I was trying to say. Why don’t you fellows try and argue in a step by step fashion instead of switching arguments… surely … the cry of the Hindu fundamentalist that Muslim birthrates are way too high is not a counter-argument to what I have said… or are you too dunce to see it.

    You claimed that AIML left behind 50% Muslims in 1947… now when you are proven wrong, you are taking credit for Muslim reproductive rates in India… do you see how you are hoist your own petard.

  18. Mr.X

    When you use phrases like ‘Indian toadies’ or ‘fraud like Gandhi’, it immediately diminishes you own argument, and makes you sound like a rabid fanatic, rather than the articulate lawyer you claim to be.

    Your arguments would be a little more palatable and a little less emotional. Why don’t you try that?

  19. yasserlatifhamdani

    I have no problems calling a spade a spade. Indian leaders were toadies… that is why they appointed Mountbatten as the governor general…

    And Gandhi was a fraud… that is just a fact of history.

  20. Mr.X

    Fair enough, if that’s what you believe.

  21. yasserlatifhamdani

    Damn straight… now could you tell me why you are trying to post under different names… RSS Prachanakandaklak or whatever… what does that make you ? Do you want me to post your IP address?

    It is beginning to make you sound like a dishonest crook and not the voice of reason you are claiming to be.

    Now apologize and be on your way.

  22. Serious question

    I also posted as as Serious question.

    Thing is, my comments keep getting deleted for what seems like no reason (except the few times I swore, but what the heck). I find that quite annoying, and the easy fix is to post under different names.

    I am sure you will understand.

  23. Serious question

    I am not claiming to be the voice of reason.

  24. yasserlatifhamdani

    Your posts keep getting deleted because you keep pretending to more than one person… and trying to have a conversation with yourself.

    I am sorry I don’t understand except that people like you need to get a life and get over whatever inferiority complex it is that you Indians have vis a vis Pakistan which makes you interact the way you do.

  25. YLH and the nameless visitors

    Please end this thread. YLH, your views on Gandhi have been expressed – they are strong but it is a matter of conviction. Let me also state that PTH takes note of Gandhiji’s mixing of religion into politics but does not subscribe to YLH’s views in toto. These are his considered views based on his thorough research and interpretation of history.
    And, there is no ‘single’ history.

    YLH, Pls do not respond to this provocation time and again. It is a waste of your time and our space here.

    RR

  26. yasserlatifhamdani

    Raza bhai,

    Agreed. I just found it interesting our nameless friend was dispensing advice in such a dishonest fashion.

  27. Serious question

    I try to continue a single conversation with you, or whoever else, but each time the comments keep getting deleted. It is quite easy to keep posting as the same guy, except when i keep getting blocked.

    you seem like a nice boy, but with a lot of pent up rage inside, about a lot of things, starting from 1940 to today. We could have had a great argument if it wasn’t for the constant deleting.

  28. Serious question

    agreed. thanks Raza.

  29. Serious question: why are you so scared of using your real name. What is going on here?

  30. Serious question

    a. Not scared of using my real name or anything, I hardly ever do it in forums
    b. I would gladly stick to using a single, identifiable nick (something on the lines of Milind Kher, but something more interesting perhaps)because it would save me the effort of having to think up silly names each time i post. This is quite hard when my comments keep getting deleted.
    c. In the future I will give PTH as little reason as possible to delete my comments. Stop swearing for starters. Lets hope that keeps the deleting to a minimum.

    Thanks
    SV

  31. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear Serious Question…

    The only post of yours deleted was under the name “RSS Prachanak” in which you “welcomed” me to the RSS club for hating Gandhi.

    Now that was clearly loaded… RSS hates Gandhi for allegedly being too soft on Muslims… and I hate Gandhi because in my view he has the unique achievement of being the spiritual father of groups like RSS…

    Now you don’t sound like an “RSS Prachanak”… why don’t you try and argue fairly.

  32. SV: ok that was a reasonable response.

    YLH: In Punjabi it is said that ‘hath holaa rakho’. Don’t use the hate word so easily..it is not always effective.

  33. SV

    Oi..the name’s SV (at least the initials are)

    Firstly, earlier comments of mine were deleted today, and on earlier days. Now i understand that it is possibly because these comments were also ‘loaded’. I thought only bad language (and unnecessary provocation) was banned.

    I used the silly RSS Pracharak nick to try to show you how ridiculous it seemed to me that the RSS and you agree on exactly the same thing, despite being on opposite ends of the fanatical spectrum. Lets not get into your ill informed views on Gandhi – as Raza correctly pointed out, these are your views, and you have clearly arrived at these after hours of reading and research.

    Anyway, please tell me if i should be careful about ‘loaded’ comments. However, i can argue that many of your comments are just as loaded. But then again its your blog and your prerogative.

  34. SV: Enough – you are repeating yourself now.

    yes intemperate language and swearing are not permissible here.

    No more of this please

  35. nice bharatiya

    Mr. YLH,
    1. ‘…it was people who supported the demand and the leaders merely represented them.’
    Although I respect democracy, I frankly admit it has its own demerits. People can be carried away to swing to wrong direction. Religion is one such subject which I am sure you must have realized better in your country. Jinnah played this card in Muslim majority area very successfully. And then you believe it was the demand of people!

    2. If Gandhi said good words on Jinnah, it was his greatness but not of Jinnah. But a statement by fraud must be fraud! If Gandhi was a fraud, Jinnah must also be so? Well BR was another Jinnah. He got several points from Jinnah to divide India on cast basis. No wonder he said so.

    3. Quid was intelligent enough to refuse premiership of India. Acceptance would have doomed his fame among Muslims too.

    4. None of Pakistanis will praise Mountbatten. It was he who vivisected India to suit to Jinnah. This favor was naively distorted to hate him. In fact Indians were unhappy with Mountbatten for the vivisection. He was revered not for vivisection but for his personality.

    5. ‘No’ was your unhesitating answer. By saying there are no sects different in philosophies….in Pakistan, whom are you trying to fool? If so what made your country to pass a law declaring Ahmedias as non-Muslims. Do you want me to list sects and their philosophies? I know you said so, just to say there was no problem of yoking. Why hypocrisy! If there were no such a thing why Jinnah talked about of secular Pakistan?

    6. ‘Jinnah on the other hand had very clearly agreed to an independent United Bengal in 1947.’
    Did Jinnah believe that two nations in Bengal could be yoked together? What a double standard! As per AIML, Bengal State should be divided in British-India as Muslim and Hindu states but should be together to form a separate country! Who prevented East Bengal from forming North East state as per the spirit of Lahore resolution? I know you will say it was Gandhi/ Nehru/ Mountbatten. And hence you kept East Bengal with you and suffocated them till they got out.

    7. I am not referring to productive rate, I am referring to statistics. Please get them properly. The issue I raised was about AIML deserting Muslims in India and we need not concentrate on percentages and growth.

    Looks you have a lot of time at your disposal to write so many replies here. I hardly find an hour in a day!

  36. Majumdar

    Some matter of statistics:

    West Pakistan’s population in 1951 was 34 million, assuming that 97% was Muslim in wud be 33 mio.

    East Pak had 44 million, of which 75% or 33 mio were Muslim.

    India had 350 million of which a little under 10% or around 35 mio were Muslims.

    Partition resulted in 66% of IMs getting under Pak flag. Besides, the remaining had a choice to go to Pak until mid 1950s. So to say that Partition benefited less than the majority of IMs is hogwash is factually incorrect.

    Re: Dr. BRA

    Those who think that Dr. BRA was an unqualified admirer of AIML, MAJ (pbuh) and Muslims shud read up his book “Pakistan: Thoughts on Partition”. It is available on the Net. Some of them would even make Hindutvavadis blush.

    Regards

  37. yasserlatifhamdani

    Nice bhartiya…

    I am afraid you have no real arguments but are going in circles forced by your inability to appreciate a counter of point of view.

    1. “Although I respect democracy, I frankly admit it has its own demerits.”

    How much faith you have in people…

    “People can be carried away to swing to wrong direction. Religion is one such subject which I am sure you must have realized better in your country. ”

    It was Gandhi who introduced religion into politics and misled the people against Jinnah’s advice.

    “And then you believe it was the demand of people!”

    Jinnah for your information tried to the end to alter the demand of the people to reconcile their “Pakistan” with a “United India”. The demand emanated from the people and it is an accepted fact of history…

    2. If Gandhi said good words on Jinnah, it was his greatness but not of Jinnah.”

    What nonsense really.

    “Well BR was another Jinnah. He got several points from Jinnah to divide India on cast basis. No wonder he said so.”

    You owe much for your fine Indian constitution to this man. I think Majumdar above has deflated your balloon well.

    “3. Quid was intelligent enough to refuse premiership of India. Acceptance would have doomed his fame among Muslims too.”

    Jinnah was not Gandhi to be concerned about popularity contests. He could have accepted the post of the Prime Minister and gone down in history uncontroversial… he instead chose to stand by the principle. He was man of towering integrity… not a pygmy like your leaders.

    4. “It was he who vivisected India to suit to Jinnah.”

    Oh my god what ignorance. Mountbatten vivisected Punjab and Bengal to please the Congress. They were the ones who asked for it. Jinnah and the League had opposed the partition of Punjab and Bengal to the end. Mountbatten was in bed with Nehru … and enough evidence exists of British-Congress collaboration at this point. I suggest you read some history impartially… you will see that Mountbatten was completely partisan to the Congress… and what is more is that all Indian historians admit it.

    “This favor was naively distorted to hate him.”

    Distorted how?

    “In fact Indians were unhappy with Mountbatten for the vivisection.”

    No. Again this is your ignorance speaking. Mountbatten is revered by the Indians for partitioning Punjab and Bengal and reducing Pakistan to size… and then presiding over an unfair distribution of resources and then enabling India to get Gurdaspur and then Kashmir.

    “He was revered not for vivisection but for his personality. ”

    Pray tell what was so great about his personality… I know Majumdar might have an interesting answer to that one.

    “5. ‘No’ was your unhesitating answer. By saying there are no sects different in philosophies….in Pakistan, whom are you trying to fool? If so what made your country to pass a law declaring Ahmedias as non-Muslims. Do you want me to list sects and their philosophies? I know you said so, just to say there was no problem of yoking. Why hypocrisy! If there were no such a thing why Jinnah talked about of secular Pakistan?”

    Hain? Excuse me? The Ahmaddiya ex-communication is the biggest sin of Pakistan. There was absolutely no need for it. Infact Ahmadis were in the forefront of the Pakistan Movement (and Jinnah had come down hard on those who wanted to excommunicate them from the League)… and you can’t tell an Ahmadi from a Sunni culturally … the difference is purely theological on a single point. Otherwise Ahmadis follow the Hanafi Islamic jurisprudence. The difference between Shias and Sunnis is ofcourse a little wider… but in terms of South Asian Muslim culture and ethos…. you can’t tell a Pakistani Shia from a Pakistani Sunni… as the difference is mostly historical and not even theological.

    6. “Did Jinnah believe that two nations in Bengal could be yoked together? What a double standard!”

    No mian… Jinnah believed that the two nations could live in one India together as two nations without having to be “yoked” together in a fascist manner. You should really read some history.

    “As per AIML, Bengal State should be divided in British-India as Muslim and Hindu states but should be together to form a separate country”

    Where and how and when did AIML ask for the division of Bengal ? Infact AIML opposed the partition of Bengal and Punjab to the end.

    “Who prevented East Bengal from forming North East state as per the spirit of Lahore resolution?”

    East Bengal in 1947 could not exist as an independent state without Calcutta… it could barely do so 25 years later.

    7.” The issue I raised was about AIML deserting Muslims in India and we need not concentrate on percentages and growth.”

    And you were proven wrong about the 50%. Just accept it and be on your way.

  38. SV

    YLH, I see that you continue to bang the ‘fraud gandhi’ whenever possible.

    I am quite curious as to how you have arrived at this position. Could you please suggest some references that I can read up?

    I totally agree that Gandhi was shrewd, and that his entire philosophy and take on life and politics was firmly rooted religion. However, I am unable to make this leap of faith and take this to mean that he was the ‘spiritual father of groups like the RSS’ or that he was a ‘fraud’.

    I know this is not related to this post, but your views on Mahatma Gandhi are very intriguing. It deserves a seperate article and not a few comments on another post.

    Thanks.

  39. Chris Hayes

    I’m confused by the points above saying the British were anti Pakistan. Didn’t they officier the army post independance?

  40. yasserlatifhamdani

    Didn’t they “officer” the Indian Army as well? And your point is?

    Both Indian and Pakistan Armies were “officered” by British officers… ofcourse when push came to shove, the British refused to move the army despite Jinnah’s orders in 1948.

    Imagine… had Jinnah agreed to that unbalanced Mountbatten becoming the GG of Pakistan.

  41. Upadhyaya

    SV,

    Gandhi was religious but not a religious fanatic. Jinnah was not religious but he’s a religious fanatic.

    Nobody knows Jinnah outside Pakistan but everybody knows Gandhi. That’s the difference in the legacies of Gandhi and Jinnah.

  42. Nice Bharatiya

    YLH,

    1. It was Gandhi who introduced religion into politics and misled the people against Jinnah’s advice.
    Better know, Gandhi was not a politician. He was a social reformer. You can’t believe it because you were brought up in different environment of hate Gandhi. It was AIML which took birth first in 1906 and Gandhi came to India from South Africa in 1915. How do you say Gandhi introduced religion into politics? If you want to learn about Gandhi read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi. I request you to comment on Gandhi afterwards. One must call a spade as a spade provided it is a spade! Don’t hold spoon and call it spade. RSS was born after two decades of AIML formation because of anti-Hindu attitude of AIML and balanced attitude of Congress.

    Jinnah for your information tried to the end to alter the demand of the people to reconcile their “Pakistan” with a “United India”.
    Oh…so Jinnah thought of putting yoke on two nations! Quaid believed different ideas than what he said at Lahore resolution!

    The demand emanated from the people and it is an accepted fact of history…
    You saw it emanate from people. You fail to see that it was ignited by selfish leaders in the minds of people.

    2. What nonsense really.
    It looks nonsense to those who do not and would not like to understand Gandhi.
    You owe much for your fine Indian constitution to this man.
    True. We owe a lot to BR. I admire him and his work. That does not mean BR did not get points from Jinnah. There was no balloon to be deflated by anybody. But watch the percentages with that of yours. As I said percentages were not my concern.

    3. Jinnah was not Gandhi to be concerned about popularity contests.
    I see…. who opted for throne among the two? Don’t you know only those wanted to be on throne try to become popular.

    4. Oh my god what ignorance. Mountbatten vivisected Punjab and Bengal to please the Congress.
    Oh my god….if Punjab and Bengal were not divided; you wanted to put yoke of Pakistan on three nations, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus too. What a concept!

    Mountbatten was in bed with Nehru …
    This is the standard of history you know! And it speaks of your culture.

    enough evidence exists of British-Congress collaboration at this point
    Search for evidence in AIML objectives which says ‘To inculcate among Muslims a feeling of loyalty to the government and to disabuse their minds of misunderstandings and misconceptions of its actions and intentions.” Congress and Gandhi worked for non-cooperation to British and AIML joined hands with British and worked against freedom struggle by Congress. Vivisection was a grand reward for that cooperation.

    Distorted how?
    Hope you understood the distortion now. Less I speak about role of AIML in freedom struggle it is better.

    Mountbatten is revered by the Indians for partitioning Punjab and Bengal and reducing Pakistan to size…
    None reveres a man for taking away bucketful and dropping spoonful. And thankless will hate such a man.

    Pray tell what was so great about his personality…
    None can explain the personality of Mountbatten to those who can’t understand Gandhi.

    5. The Ahmaddiya ex-communication is the biggest sin of Pakistan.

    Well, fact is that it was done and not undone till now. Simply admitting it as a sin by one out of half a billion does not make their life smooth.

    the difference is mostly historical and not even theological.

    And then you demolish their prayer places! Again hypocrisy!

    6. Jinnah believed that the two nations could live in one India together as two nations

    If it was Jinnah’s belief, Lahore resolution was wrong and unwarranted.

    You should really read some history.
    Yes. I keep reading history. It is never ending. Not only history I read Quran too.

    Where and how and when did AIML ask for the division of Bengal?

    It was in 1905. It was not asked exactly by AIML but on behest of same leaders who formed AIML. Do you know why it was formed? Read what is said in ‘www.storyof pakistan.com’: Finding the Bengal Presidency too large for one governor to administer, in 1905 the English decided to redraw its boundaries and divided it into two parts. Is n’t it too good to believe?

    East Bengal in 1947 could not exist as an independent state without Calcutta…

    It is nothing but undermining Dhaka. If Pakistan could exist without Bombay and Delhi why not East Bengal sustain? You want me to believe that West Pakistan took the place of Calcutta. Silly excuses!

    7. I accept that 50% was not correct. I still do not accept that it was 80%. But none of the percentages justify AIML and Jinnah deserting remaining Muslims.

    I sincerely request you to read your posts and clarify yourself on ideas behind Two-nations, Yoking, Lahore resolution, Bangistan, Osmanistan etc.

    By the by let me tell you, I support the partition. It was a great advantage to India than to Pakistan. I also wish India handover Kashmir valley (not Jammu etc) to Pakistan.

  43. Chris Hayes

    >>>
    It was in 1905. It was not asked exactly by AIML but on behest of same leaders who formed AIML. Do you know why it was formed? Read what is said in ‘www.storyof pakistan.com’: Finding the Bengal Presidency too large for one governor to administer, in 1905 the English decided to redraw its boundaries and divided it into two parts. Is n’t it too good to believe?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Well thats different to what we Britiswh get taught – that Bengal was a centre of resistance and obstruction to British rule and the seperation was an attempt to disrupt this.

  44. yasserlatifhamdani

    Nice Bhartiya,

    “Better know, Gandhi was not a politician.”

    Nonsense. Gandhi was a politician first and foremost. And a conniving machivellian one at that.

    “He was a social reformer.”

    “If you want to learn about Gandhi read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi. I request you to comment on Gandhi afterwards.”

    I am not interested in “Wikipedia”… is that your source. No wonder your views are so warped and out of touch with reality. My source on Gandhi is the “COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI” … ever read that garbage? It is 90 volumes of hogwash.

    Reformer? He was a social conservative who didn’t reform anything except perpetuate backwardness, spiritual mumbo jumbo. He was a witchdoctor.

    “You can’t believe it because you were brought up in different environment of hate Gandhi.”

    Till I went to the US for an education, I had a net positive view of Gandhi. It was at my university in the US that I came across Gandhi’s writings and I developed an aversion for Gandhi and his ilk. Now stop assuming nonsense about me.

    On your comments about RSS etc… you are quite ignorant and your claims about why it was formed are based on your inability to accept the facts. The AIML did not have an anti-Hindu attitude to begin with… after all it was part of the Lucknow Pact… For all your claims about AIML’s anti hindu stance, you’ll be surprised to know (Read Durga Das’ “Nehru to Curzon”) that AIML’s 1937 election campaign was funded by Pro-Congress Hindu Businessmen… quite unlike your claims above.

    “Quaid believed different ideas than what he said at Lahore resolution”

    No… he believed in the Lahore Resolution… I quote I I Chundrigar who described Lahore Resolution as a scheme “not to create ulsters but two nations fused together in the governance of their common homeland i.e. India”. Had you bothered to read some history… you would know the difference…

    “It looks nonsense to those who do not and would not like to understand Gandhi.”

    I think I understand Gandhi better than someone who prescribes “Wikipedia” for understanding him.

    “does not mean BR did not get points from Jinnah.”

    He did… which is why he played such an important role in drafting the Indian constitution which was modern and secular. Unfortunately not many people followed Jinnah like BR did in Pakistan.

    “To inculcate among Muslims a feeling of loyalty to the government and to disabuse their minds of misunderstandings and misconceptions of its actions and intentions.”

    Once again little knowledge is dangerous. Muslim League’s statement of objectives were amended and this above was deleted in 1913…. on the suggestion of Jinnah- a Congressman then. Jinnah only subsequently joined the League. And when Jinnah took the League over it stood for independence as part of its manifesto…

    “None can explain the personality of Mountbatten to those who can’t understand Gandhi.”

    Yes. Both men were crooks and frauds of the worst kind. I am glad both were taught a lesson by their own ilk.

    “And then you demolish their prayer places!”

    Ironic… pray tell what prayer places I have demolished? While I do consider myself simply Muslim with no sectarian affiliation, my late father was an Ahmadi and my mother is a staunch shia. So to accuse me of demolishing shia places of worship is strange.

    “If it was Jinnah’s belief, Lahore resolution was wrong and unwarranted.”

    This just shows how much you understand the Lahore Resolution. Read Ayesha Jalal’s “Sole Spokesman” … especially the Lahore resolution bit.

    “Yes. I keep reading history. It is never ending. Not only history I read Quran too.”

    Wikipedia does not count for history. And I am not sure if I am supposed to be impressed that you read the Quran… but how is that relevant except that you are a basket case who makes irrelevant points.

    “It was in 1905. It was not asked exactly by AIML but on behest of same leaders who formed AIML. Do you know why it was formed? Read what is said in ‘www.storyof pakistan.com’: Finding the Bengal Presidency too large for one governor to administer, in 1905 the English decided to redraw its boundaries and divided it into two parts. Is n’t it too good to believe? ”

    Well for one thing AIML was founded in 1906. Besides we were talking about AIML’s demands after the Lahore resolution. Most of the leaders who founded AIML in 1906 ceased to be relevant in 1913… and completely faded out by 1936… when Jinnah took over the League as president…. primarily because League under Jinnah put independence on its manifesto….whereas the leaders you mentioned were British loyalists.

    “clarify your ideas”

    It is you who needs to clarify his ideas… so far I have only seen hogwash from you. Meanwhile if you are interested in my views, you can search me on google “yasser latif hamdani”.

  45. SV

    YLH,

    Congratulations on having read the collected works of Mahatma Gandhi (all 90 volumes of it).

    Can you tell me which bits of it have led you to conclude that he was a fraud, witch doctor, social conservative etc? I am quite baffled. What is it about Gandhi’s writings that made you aware of his ‘true’ personality and that of his ‘ilk’s’?

    I believe nice bharatiya suggested Wiki because your views are so divergent from the general consensus that it might be good for you to start with something as basic as Wiki.

  46. Monkey

    Nice Bharatiya,
    Did you mean that the Pakistani State has ever demolished a worship place of a Muslim (or Non-Muslim) sect? If you did then you are indeed very mistaken.
    Sure there is a history of sectarian violence but that isn’t state-perpetrated. I belong to the Shia sect and every year during Muharram (when it is most easily identifiable who is Shia and who is Non-Shia), the Police and the Rangers (State instruments) provide substantial security to not only the Muharram processions but also to the Imambargahs and private homes where people organize majalis (you can take them to mean religious discourse). Each year, State television (PTV) and State radio (Radio Pakistan) observes a ten-day somber look during the month of Muharram. On the 9th and 10th of Muharram, all private channels and PTV as well relay majaalis and nauhas/marsiyas. Shia people freely advertise in all the newspapers (Urdu & English) for majaalis. When a new neighbourhood is planned, as for Phase 8 in DHA Karachi, plots are allotted for both masjids and Imambargahs.
    The Aga Khani/Ismaili community also enjoys much power and freedom in Pakistan. They have jamaat khanas in all the major cities – and in some minor ones too. They are the owners of one of Pakistan’s largest private local banks and Pakistan’s best medical university (which is also the best private medical facility in Pakistan arguably and people are treated their despite of their religious affiliation).
    No state form (NIC, Passport, Legal forms) require a Pakistani national to declare which Muslim sect they belong to. Not even the nikkah forms (since the Shia and Sunni nikkah is performed a little differently).
    Hope that clears your misconception.

  47. Monkey

    SV,

    Are you suggesting that just because there is a general consensus that Gandhi was a saint, so should everyone believe?

    Doesn’t make sense.

    One should arrive at a conclusion after independent study, not under influence from what the rest of the world thinks.

  48. SV

    No, I am just suggesting that the general consensus is that Gandhi, for all his shortcomings, is among the greatest personalities in history. I was force fed this in school, when it was all a little unconvincing, but as I did some ‘independent reading’ over the years – from different sources – I now I fully subscribe to the man’s greatness. I would have done a lot of things differently, and I can point out many flaws in his approach to health and politics, but this does not take anything away from the giant of a man that he was.

    So now, consensus does not matter to me, but when someone flies against the face of what is universally accepted, he is either an attention seeker, or has discovered something wonderful and new about the issue in question (which no one else has). I.e, he is either Newton , or one of those petty 9/11 conspiracy theorist types.

    So far, YLH does not inspire confidence and is leaning towards the latter.

  49. yasserlatifhamdani

    SV,

    What I say about Gandhi is nothing new… everyone from M N Roy, B R Ambedkar to Arthur Koetsler has said it.

    I suggest you guys start reading beyond your little worlds to see that there are other views on Gandhi… views that might not be palatable to you but are nonetheless acceptable.

    I have written extensively on Gandhi… and I welcome you to search my name along with Gandhi’s to discover what parts of the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi have offended me.

  50. SV

    Thanks, will do. I am indeed very curious.

    About BR, please note that although he had serious political/theological differences with Mahatma Gandhi, they had tremendous respect for each other.

    As I have already accepted, Gandhi had many critics. However, I will argue that it was they who could not venture beyond their ‘little worlds’ and the constituencies that they claimed to represent. While Gandhi thought of himself as representing all Indians, most other leaders were content with specific communities, castes, etc. No need to go into details here.

  51. yasserlatifhamdani

    So now you are contradicting yourself…. if Gandhi had critics… how can my view of him be novel?

    Just drop it man… stop tying yourself up in knots.

  52. SV

    Stop hiding behind semantics, son. If you are unable or unwilling to address specific issues raised, then ‘just drop it man’

    For the most part, you come across as an intelligent, albeit impulsive fellow, but there’s something about Gandhi that really gets you mad. Like you said, I had a chance to read your views on Gandhi online – both, the ones in articles, and the others, where you spam book review sections with irrelevant information about MKG.

    The Gandhi you describe is racist, misogynist, etc etc, and he was possibly all these things as a younger man. In fact, for a long time he believed that British rule was good for India, and he cheerfully sang God Save the King. However, his greatness lay in the fact that he could admit to past mistakes and change his position on issues.

    Fact of the matter is, Gandhi is too complex a character for you to understand.

  53. Monkey

    There starts the blame-game again…How on earth did this debate become so focussed on Gandhi and Jinnah? It was supposed to be a Bangladeshi view, and Mujib was never mentioned…neither was Bhutto or Ayub, who probably had more to do with Bangladesh than Jinnah or Gandhi.

    Anyway, SOS Raza 🙂

  54. Milind Kher

    Monkey,

    I am really THRILLED to know that the government provides so much protection to the maatami juloos, as well as the majaalis.

    However, I do wish that the sectarian violence among the PEOPLE would stop. You will be happy to know it is NIL in India. In fact, on Ashura when the juloos goes by, many of the key sabils are manned by Hindus, who distribute water and sherbet to the azaadars. What a lofty deed, meritoeious like the siqayaa of the Hajj.

    The only sad thing is that it gets difficult to help the poor Saadaat, as they cannot accept zakat. Ya Imam adrikny

  55. nice bharatiya

    YLH

    Nonsense. Gandhi was a politician first and foremost.
    It is not nonsense. What you know about Gandhi is nonsense. I wonder if you read any books on him. I suggested ‘wiki’ just because of its easy accessibility and fairly independent.

    Till I went to the US for an education, I had a net positive view of Gandhi.
    A clear bluff….Reading about Gandhi with open mind is enough to revere him. You claim that you read with positive mind and you developed aversion. It speaks of your mindset.

    ever read that garbage?
    What I read does not matter. I don’t get negative thoughts from any book. From your statement I understand neither you read them nor you have minded to understand it. Gandhi is one hated by some Muslims as they see him pro-Hindu and hated by some Hindus (like RSS) as they see him pro-Muslim. Read to understand him not to find pseudo-faults.

    AIML’s 1937 election campaign was funded by Pro-Congress Hindu Businessmen…

    What is the reason? You have great ideas. You collect contradictory information and quote at wrong places!

    I quote I I Chundrigar who described Lahore Resolution as a scheme….

    Well finally I need to read some history to understand that Lahore resolution was for unified India!

    Muslim League’s statement of objectives were amended and this above was deleted in 1913…. on the suggestion of Jinnah- a Congressman then.

    I know it was changed as it was a precondition for Jinnah to join AIML. If main objectives were to be changed why join that organization? It is to inherently continue old objective and fool others with new attair. Jinnah, an active Congress man, had such a great influence on AIML to change it main objective. He nurtured AIML being a member of Congress! After the change Jinnah joined AIML in 1913 itself. The change was needed for wooing Muslims in Congress. He was trying to give AIML the color of struggle for independence. But the fact was all the time AIML was helping British Raj by opposing Congress in freedom struggle. Let me know one freedom movement by AIML against British.

    Yes. Both men were crooks and frauds of the worst kind. I am glad both were taught a lesson by their own ilk.

    Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela became good leaders by following Gandhi. Some countries used Gandhi picture on their coins. Some countries kept statues of Gandhi in their countries. But you are bent on not stopping disrespect to a person revered by a whole world.

    Should I continue to post, to this sort of foul mouth (I am sorry to use this word)?

    my late father was an Ahmadi and my mother is a staunch shia

    Thus you are a confused man! Come out of that. I googled your name. A lot of info on your mindset is available through your posts and blogs. I read a lot including Wikipedia. I need a lot more time to read further. But one thing is clear. You are well educated and have certain undisclosed goals. You read a lot. Some people read to learn more. But people like you read to see themselves in it. I also noted that you are young enough to be like that. I am as old as your father if he were to be alive. I can’t be a match to your abusive language. So,

    I wish to come back to the main topic “Lahore resolution” and conclude my posts here.
    Never there was any AIML resolution to struggle for freedom. One can not find single word on freedom struggle in the whole of Lahore Resolution. It only means, if Congress manages to get independence in future, the Muslim majority areas should be grouped to constitute Independent states. Ironically it also suggests Osmanistan etc where the Muslims were not in majority. Here simple logic also fails.

    I am sure Lahore resolution was a ploy to complicate matters for Congress in their struggle for freedom. This resolution really served as nice weapon in the hands of British Raj to control Congress.

  56. yasserlatifhamdani

    SV mian,

    Can you please point out what specific issue it is that you feel I haven’t addressed? You basically shot yourself in the foot by admitting that there are critics of Gandhi… and that my view is not novel. Still I’d be happy to address any specific points that you might have… though I regret not having found any in your comment.

    Nice Bhartiya,

    On why Jinnah joined the AIML … Jinnah did so because he felt a Congress Muslim like himself would be able to bring AIML closer to the Congress and bring effective Hindu-Muslim Unity. He was successful and his efforts led to the famous Lucknow Pact in 1916… where Congress and League became sister organizations.

    I am not sure why you are looking for a resolution for independence in the Lahore resolution, when League was already committed to complete independence through 1936 manifesto and charter.

    About Pro-Congress Hindu Industrialists supporting the League’s election campaign in UP in 1937… they did so presumably because they felt that the League under Jinnah – more than any other Muslim party- could bring Muslims closer to the Congress and Indian Nationalists. The point was that till 1937 atleast, no one viewed AIML as anti-Hindu… so your claim about RSS being a reaction to “decades of anti-Hindu policy of AIML” is just not backed by facts of history.

    “”This resolution really served as nice weapon in the hands of British Raj to control Congress”

    But that just means Congress was unable to put its own house in order and come to terms with its fellow countrymen. No doubt the British were happy to see Congress opening a front against the League… thereby giving them reprieve in the time of war.

    “Some countries used Gandhi picture on their coins.”

    I am not aware of any country using Gandhi’s picture on their coins other than India… but it is an irrelevant point.

    “Some countries kept statues of Gandhi in their countries.”

    The history of these statues and their funding by the government of India is a long winded debate… but yes many many many countries have Gandhi’s statues… pray tell what implication that might have on my argument.

    “But you are bent on not stopping disrespect to a person revered by a whole world.”

    Not the whole world. I don’t revere him. Many people in India don’t revere him. Many people in South Africa don’t revere him. Dr. B R Ambedkar did not revere him. Many Dalits don’t revere him. Many Sikhs don’t revere him. Many marxists hate him. Many modernist liberals think he was absolutely wrong. Several pacificists have criticized him. But again… yes a lot of people revere him. So? Should I revere him because X Y or Z revered him… or should I read his works and form my opinion about him?

    There was a time when the majority of the people in this world believed earth was flat… Gandhi hysteria will abate one day.

    “You are well educated and have certain undisclosed goals.”

    Would you like to venture a guess as to what those undisclosed goals might be?

  57. SV

    I don’t see how I have shot myself in the foot by admitting that Gandhi had critics. A few days ago, in one of my deleted comments, I had pointed out the irony that you and the RSS (who seemed to dislike Gandhi with equal passion) stood on two ends of the fanatical/ideological spectrum.

    Now in your last few comments, you have simply been dismissing me by saying that I have shot myself in the foot, contradicted myself etc. But that is old now. Lets move on to the meat of the argument.

    You have chosen to identify certain aspects of Gandhi that died with him as a young man, and others that remained with him as quirks. Your wild and childish accusations of him being a misogynist and a fraud, both in this forum and dozens of other message boards online are intriguing, but still, without reason.

    Specific comments that i would like addressed: how gandhi was a racist, misogynist, fraud etc. Before answering, please look at whether he held these positions during his entire life, or how he changed and when he changed his views if he did.
    Also, let me know whether episodes in his life like his years in jail, Champaran, The Dandi march, his numerous fasts etc soften your views on the man, or whether they have been entirely ignored in your evaluation.

  58. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear SV,

    Like I pointed out earlier… RSS’s criticism of Gandhi is related to their own understanding of Gandhi … as being too soft on Muslims. Besides you were posting it as a sockpuppet….

    My criticism of him is as a citizen of the world who is terrified by the RSS and Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind … both of which have their roots in Gandhi’s mobilization of masses in the name of ancient Hindu Philosophy and the Khilafat Movement.

    Racism is just one aspect and surely a 35-45 year old barrister like Gandhi was when he made those racist comments … a seasoned campaigner no less and recruiter in chief for the British Empire … does not qualify as a “young man” especially when he did not apologize or distance himself from his statements earlier.

    As for misogyny… Gandhi’s view of society held women to be “queens of the household”. He opposed the suffragette movement… and called Western Civilization “Ravanna Raj” for making women work.

    You ask me if his Dandi march and other such dramay bazi makes me soften my views on him. No they don’t. As I see it, had Gandhi not come around, British would have agreed to some form of dominion status in 1925… led by an Indian Viceroy and an Indian Adminstration. This was one end of the spectrum.

    On the other hand, Gandhi also took the wind out of the sails of genuine Indian independence movements led by people Bhagat Singh etc … so Gandhi was very much a vaccine introduced into the body of British Imperialism which was otherwise being threatened on two fronts. So the net of Gandhi’s legacy is

    1. Delaying self rule by 22 years (and when India became independent it still had a British non-Indian as governor general).

    2. Making religious identities non-negotiable by introducing Hindu philosophy and Islamic khilafat as political issues in the movement.

  59. lal

    But ylh,
    religion has a role in the life of the people of subcontinent.however hard we try to distance politics from religion,public imagination in subcontinent mixes them both.i dont know the specific situation in pakistan,but i remeber bjp fielding candidates who acted in tv serials as rama and seetha during the 90 s and people voting for them.indian muslims are also known to vote en bloc to people from there community.whereas it is not a desirable feature it is a reality that all political parties in india have learned to live with and often used to there advantage(jst think of the alliance between an atheist marxists and fundementalist pdp)….whereas u entirely attribute this south asian cocktail of religion and politics as a legacy of gandhi,many of us believe he just used the existing reality to his advantage..just making the point..having read u for quite sometme i dont except u 2 change ur attitude towards him..

  60. SV

    Thanks for the clarification.

    That’s it from me on this topic. EDITED see if it has a different outcome.

  61. yasserlatifhamdani

    “many of us believe he just used the existing reality to his advantage”

    That the peoples of India were religious is not denied. However… most people of India had multi-layered identity framework. That framework was shattered by Gandhi’s usage of religion which put unmanageable stress on it.

    I am glad you hold the view you do though. Surely then you can’t turn around and question why Muslims had such a strong sense of identity … and why even the most secular of politicians like Jinnah had to accept it.

    All I am asking for is consistency from you lot. If you have a problem with Two Nation Theory and the Lahore Resolution, recognize that these two were only legal and legitimate responses to what Gandhi had started in form of Khilafat Movement, Satyagraha and Ancient “wisdom” of India… criticize Gandhi for his actions… and if instead you believe these differences are legitimate, then stop maligning the two nation theory for that too merely took an existing reality (which may be either the importance of religion or the importance that Gandhi gave it) and used it to the advantage of its own adherents.

  62. SV

    Why didn’t you just take my entire comment off?

  63. lal

    forget the facts of our repective nationalities for a moment ylh…vl we prefer religion to be kept out of politics…from my part it is a firm yes…but the only difference is though,unlike u,i dont hold gandhi the sole figure responsible for this quagmire…to me he was responding to the realities as he saw it…and i see jinnah also as a politician who acted based on what he saw as an opportunity to get political power to a significant section of society…

    ”why Muslims had such a strong sense of identity….’ what is the answer to that question really ylh…whereas there is a certain renewed sense of hindu identity these days,it was always not the case in independant india.some of my muslim friends in india used to tell me that this strong sense of identity is the feature of any minority group and indians in england have similar mentality

  64. yasserlatifhamdani

    But in my view even that characterization is not fair… because Jinnah acted only after such action had already taken place and somebody had to speak for the Muslims as well. Thus your defence if at all of Gandhi is doubly applicable to Jinnah.

    “some of my muslim friends in india used to tell me that this strong sense of identity is the feature of any minority group and indians in england have similar mentality”

    This is true. And a minority’s sense of identity is better than a majority’s because the latter would be fascist. This is why I consider the existence of a Muslim identity in Pakistan a negation of the very principle on which the country was founded. Again this is my view and I don’t expect others to agree with it.

    “whereas there is a certain renewed sense of hindu identity these days,it was always not the case in independant india”

    I have read it again and again and I am not sure what you mean by this line.

  65. lal

    haha..point taken….i will rephrase that to the sense of hindu identity which was always there and which gandhi helped to institutionalise has reached alarming levels these days…satisfied… :).but there is a difference betweeen the soft hinduthva or using hindu symbols and murdering innocent people or exhorting to murder people and getting away with it.whereas one is just a machaivellian ploy to get power and reflects the public attitude more than any thing else the other is certainly far too dangerous

    ‘minority’s sense of identity is better than a majority’s because the latter would be fascist..’

    certainly in agreement with that..infact there was a time when i used to argue that minority fundementalism by its very nature is sessionist while majority fundementalism is at best hypernationalist…gujarath was the turning point in my perception of this so called ‘hindu resurgence

  66. Chris Hayes

    I think a lot of you should introduce a bit of realist thinking into your analysis.
    To me and others whom I’ve studied and worked with Ghandi is first and foremost a brillant political strategist and student of history (well Nehru was a the history student maybe). Ghandi/Congress realised its nigh impossible to establish a stable state following a violent revolution. Look at 99% throughout history. Violence, no law and order, looting, destruction, score settling, weak institutions and endless problems for the future. States are complex beasts tearing them down to build them back up looks fine opn paper but fails in contact with people. By ensuring the power of the state was strengthened and further indianised the country was in an excellent condition to be handed over in and continue working. Keeping the Brit on for a bit continued that stability and removed even a flucuation there. And to do all that took great skill, force of personality and guts.
    I think its a flaw for people to harp on about non violence being the answer. What happened was the reality of several hundred million people who largely ran the government and provided the adminstrative backbone turned to the boss and said they refused to work with him any more. Britain through war wearyness, burgoning morality back home and a host of other reasons couldn’t simply take the traditional response of killing everyone who dissagreed. Applying it to say Israel for the Palistinains wouldn’t work as we all know the Israelis would shoot the lot of them given half a chance (no doubt viewing the situation as 14 million Jews vs 1 billion+ Muslems so not feeling that charitable).
    And come on, you can’t blame communal tensions on Ghandi – we British were famous for divide and rule, twas our foremost foriegn policy skill, Ghandi had nothing on us. With a mere 100,000 Brits we ruled the subcontinent, an absolutely startling period of history and hard to match (note nowhere do I say it was a good thing, just amasing we could do it).
    Harking back to pre Briitsh history of course involved Hinduism. Ancient history tends to go back an awful long time and back then there wasn’t the same mix of people there are now. And in theory go far enough back the examples you pick up are shawn of personal connection, merely nationalistic resonance (for instance harking back to Roman times in the UK).

  67. nicebharatiya

    YLH
    You can answer any number of people with your pre-molded biased theories. It is waste of time to clarify you. Final answer to you is “Freedom struggle by Congress was unwarranted. Congress also should have simply acknowledged the above two theories of AIML and relaxed as was done by AIML. Foolish Congress men went jails and are under the impression they got freedom and AIML stole a part of India. The actual fact according to you is that British were afraid of Two Nation theory and Lahore Resolution, hence they left India!” That is it!

  68. Muhammad Saleh

    YLH
    will you be generous enough to provide me a soft copy of the book [H M Seervai’s “Partition of India: Legend and Reality”] I am learning to know about the great division. I will also gratefully accept any links to papers or books…….. but friend these may please be free download.
    RR you are very right this is a forum of gentlemen/women and profanities MUST not be allowed.
    msm

  69. Arvind

    Hi
    Just wondering if it makes any sense discussing all this stuff? The fact is that there are now 3 countries, no matter who was responsible.
    YLH – I read your column in the Daily Times and appreciate your views. I am sorry to see you getting into this slanging match- you are losing my respect.
    Regards
    Arvind

  70. no-communal

    “Holding in hand biri or a local brand cigarette and in chewing in mouth pan or a sort of local variety of betel leaf with cracked local nut mixed with locally made calcium carbonate, we fight for establishing Pakistan.”

    Is it known if this was really the slogan?