President Obama Congratulates Pakistanis And Diaspora On National Day, Praises Founder Of Pakistan

WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) – President Obama sent his congratulations to Pakistan on Monday, as it celebrates its national day.

Seventy years ago, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and those of the independence generation declared their dreams of self-determination and democracy. Today, the people of Pakistan are carrying on the great work of Quaid-e Azam.”

“Here in the United States, our country is enriched by the many Pakistani Americans who excel as doctors, small business owners, students, members of our armed forces and in many other fields. On this National Day, we give thanks for the contributions of these fellow Americans, and the United States pledges to remain a partner of all Pakistanis who seek to build a future of peace and prosperity.”

Pakistan celebrates the passing of the Lahore Resolution, which is commonly known as the Pakistan Resolution that called for greater Muslim autonomy in British India.

220 Comments

Filed under Jinnah's Pakistan, Obama, Pakistan, People's Pakistan, USA

220 responses to “President Obama Congratulates Pakistanis And Diaspora On National Day, Praises Founder Of Pakistan

  1. yasserlatifhamdani

    Thank you President Obama… this will resonate!

  2. Mulla

    Pakistan is conspiracy of Qadianis. Famous Qadiani Sir Zafarullah Khan authored Pakistan Resolution. For committing such a great sin, we Pakistani-mulla will punish Qadianis forever in the country whose first document was written by a Qadiani. We will keep punishing Qadianis, until no more Pakistan is left, and we are no more obliged to a Qadiani.

  3. Pakistani-American

    Being a Pakistani-American, it was pleasure to receive email on behalf of President Obama, asking all those who made phone calls, sent emails, knocked doors…to demand from our Representatives in US-Congress, to enter our names that will be recorded in history along with President Obama signauture on Healthcare Reform Bill.

  4. Pakistani-American

    Being a Pakistani-American, it was pleasure to receive email on behalf of President Obama, asking all those who made phone calls, sent emails, knocked doors…to encourage our Representatives in US-Congress to support healthcare reform bill, to enter our names that will be recorded in history along with President Obama signature on Healthcare Reform Bill.

  5. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ironically Pakistani-American and “Mulla” have the same IP address originating from Stockton California. How bloody strange.

  6. Ganpat Ram

    May I add my congratulations?

    Pakistan is a truly great country, and Jinnah did a tremendous favour to Indians by setting it up.

    Pakistan Zindabad !

  7. Ganpat Ram

    Obama is a true visionary.

    He is so completely right.

    The call for a separate Muslim nation was a tremendous breakthrough for Hindus as well as Muslims.

  8. Mustafa Shaban

    Actions speak louder than words. If Obama is really serious about forming a partnership with Pakistan, then he must stop drone attacks on Pakistan or atleast scale it back significantly. His overall policy on Pakistan needs to change if people are to acknowledge his sincerity.

  9. B. Civilian

    “Ironically Pakistani-American and “Mulla” have the same IP address originating from Stockton California. How bloody strange.”

    that would suggest that it’s probably our old friend Rashid.

  10. Bin Ismail

    The fourth paragraph of the Pakistan Resolution of 23rd March 1940 reads as follows:

    “That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultations with them and in other parts of (British) India where the Mussalmans (Muslims) are in a majority adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them.”

    This paragraph is in relation to the minorities of Pakistan. The following 3 points of this paragraph deserve keen attention:

    1. About the constitutional safeguards envisioned for the minorities, the text says that they would be: (a)adequate, (b)effective and (c)mandatory.

    2. The rights and interests of the minorities acknowledged by this Resolution are: (a)religious, (b)cultural, (c)economic, (d)political, (e)administrative and (f)other.

    3. These constitutional safeguards would be identified “in consultation with them [minorities]“.

    Patriotism aside, but when one considers the performance of our state in relation to what we resolved on the 23rd of March 1940, one cannot help but feel ashamed over our miserable failure.

  11. Ganpat Ram

    India should have long ago declared Lahore Resolution Day as a major Indian National Day of Rejoicing.

    Mohammed Iqbal and M A Jinnah should be premier Indian heroes.

    They did so much for India.

    Where is our gratitude?

  12. Bin Ismail

    @Ganpat Ram

    Splendid. How graciously amicable of you. Please start observing 23rd March forthwith. Unfortunately you’re a bit late for this year’s. Also recognize our hero Jinnah as yours – and we’ll have less to debate over.

    Cheers.

  13. Ganpat Ram

    Bin Ismail:

    I was not joking.

    I respect Iqbal and jinnah tremendously because they had a rare and invaluable quality: recognising the obvious truth.

    Hindus and Muslims were very unhappy and dangerous together. They saw that without illusions.

    The only answer was separate countries for the two communities, so each could live without getting on the nerves of the other. They saw that without illusions.

    In this way, Iqbal and Jinnah rendered an inestimable service to the country.

  14. Ganpat Ram

    Bin Ismail:

    I was not joking.

    I respect Iqbal and jinnah tremendously because they had a rare and invaluable quality: recognising the obvious truth.

    Hindus and Muslims were very unhappy and dangerous together. They saw that without illusions.

    The only answer was separate countries for the two communities, so each could live without getting on the nerves of the other.

  15. Luq

    >The only answer was separate countries for the
    >two communities, so each could live without
    >getting on the nerves of the other.

    True and even a very successful idea, you might add? By the way what is the population of muslims in todays India and Pakistan ?

    Luq

  16. Ganpat Ram

    Luq:

    There are about a 150 million Muslims in India today, because unlike Pakistan India did not insist on the vast majority of its minority leaving, but let it stay. And they have multipied faster than Hindus because Nehru allowed them to live in a sharia-dominated society that scanted female literacy.

    This promises serious trouble for India, but without Partition Hindus would have faced 500 million Muslims, and would have been in a situtation of catastrophe.

    Nehru saved the Hindus in 1947 by insisting on Partition.

  17. B. Civilian

    “In this way, Iqbal and Jinnah rendered an inestimable service to the country.”

    if 150m muslims still live in india, then the above can only be true if by ‘country’ you mean country and not ‘nation’.

    the following might have been more successful from your point of view: “Nehru saved the Hindus in 1947 by insisting on Partition.”

    ” unlike Pakistan India did not insist on the vast majority of its minority leaving” – where did you get this from about pakistan? we know you don’t let little things like facts bother you.

  18. Ganpat Ram

    B. CIVILIAN

    Of course Nehru saved the Hindus in 1947 by insisting on Partition. For that matter, so did Gandhi who rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan which would have given Jinnah unlimited capacity to cause harm to Hindus and fragment India into small pieces.

    Gandhi said: This plan is worse than Pakistan.

    As usual I notice your determination to leave Hindus without a country. All countries are for Muslims, eh?

    There is a Muslim minority in India which India did not insist on sending out, as Pakistan expelled nearly all of its Hindus and Sikhs.

    Pakistanis complain about the partition of Punjab and Bengal. But if Partition had not happened, Bengali Hindus would have been forced out of their province, as would Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs.

  19. Luq

    >There are about a 150 million Muslims in India

    Even one million is a large number, oooh 150 million, how many did they butcher in gujarat? 3000? You need about 50,000 gujarats to get rid of 150 million.

    150million is not really a minority. Not in that sense of %age of the whole population, but in that sense that you just cant get rid of such large numbers.

    >today, because unlike Pakistan India did not
    >insist on the vast majority of its minority
    >leaving, but let it stay.

    Not possible, because the spirit of the Indian constitution got in the way.
    *******this is what it says********
    WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly
    resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN
    SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
    LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and
    worship;
    EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
    and to promote among them all
    FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual
    and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
    IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twentysixth
    day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT,
    ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS
    CONSTITUTION.
    *******************************end of quote***

    >And they have multipied
    >faster than Hindus because Nehru allowed them
    >to live in a sharia-dominated society that scanted
    >female literacy.

    Have you come to these conclusions yourself or through heresay or propaganda ?

    It is a myth, and calculated falsehood designed to malign the muslims. All Indians are multiplying at the same rate. Would you care to note that illiteracy is not limited to muslims. And the polygamy rates are almost the same for all Indians. Even though it is illegal for non-muslims to take more than one wife, a lot of non-muslims do have more than one wife with ample kids everywhere.

    >This promises serious trouble for India, but
    >without Partition Hindus would have faced 500
    >million Muslims, and would have been in a
    >situtation of catastrophe.

    Which would have been better because then the two sides would be equally balanced.

    >Nehru saved the Hindus in 1947 by insisting
    >on Partition.

    Nehru saved nothing. 150 million (officially) is enough to take care of themselves. You can quickly jettison that theory about Nehru saving hindus, etc.

    Luq

  20. Gorki

    Dear BC and Luq:

    “today, because unlike Pakistan India did not insist on the vast majority of its minority leaving, but let it stay”

    Please note that anyone who says the above is a traitor to India and the spirit of the Indian republic.

    Let it be noted that a vast majority of men and women who call themselves Indians, are there not by the leave of someone called ‘India’ but by a birthright; having been born there and of the ancestors who themselves lived there for generations. The faith that these people choose to follow is entirely their personal choice and none of anyone else’s business.

    The India that I and a majority of my countrymen love, came about only after centuries of enrichment by thinkers, philosophers, poets and statesmen; men like Emperor Ashoka and Emperor Akbar, sages like Gautam Buddh, Guru Nanak and Baba Farid, poets like Kalidas and Ghalib.
    It came about because all those who call it a home today descend from ancestors who shed their blood in varying degrees at various times to defend it.

    That is my country, and my legacy; in its entirety.
    I resent any attempts to dilute it even minimally, and find it nauseating that a small vocal minority keeps harping on the fact that ‘India’ allowed this or that to happen as if ‘India’ was a personal fiefdom of any one community, in 1947, it was not.

    Those who don’t like it the way it is are welcome to leave it and go elsewhere; like their hero Nirad Chowdhary did.

    In the meantime, they should understand that for the remainder of us Indians the small document that Luq quoted is a sacred document and its words are more sacred to us than any holy hymn ever composed in this ancient land.
    Anyone who denies this document either in letter or in spirit is a traitor to India no different than, say the Maoist rebels being hunted down as we speak or the Khalistani rebels before them; and should be treated as such.

    Regards.

  21. Gorki

    Please also note that the words ‘Nehru saved the Hindus in 1947 by insisting on Partition’ is nothing but a slander and a complete distortion of the facts.

    Right or wrong, Nehru was opposed to the TNT till his last breath. The following words written by the great man himself speak for him:

    “So far as the two-nation theory is concerned, we have never accepted the fact that Pakistan was a result of the two-nation theory. It may be so in the minds of the people of Pakistan but we did not agree to it even then. Our position has been that we cannot consider a nation and a religious community as the same thing. Nations contain more than one religious community. Even if all the Muslims in India believed in this theory, we would not accept it or even if all the Hindus believed in it.” –JLN; collected Works

    Regards.

  22. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear Gorki sb,

    Having read Jawaharlal Nehru in some detail since you asked me to… in my opinion had he really stuck to his views about TNT – the formulation of the strawman as well as negation of it – he would have been a lesser man. If you read Tryst With Destiny there is a brilliant speech by Nehru late in his life when he essentially explained “nation” in the same way Benedict Anderson later formulated it: an “Imagined idea”. TNT itself was a consociationalist response and not some fixed etched on stone idea.

    But this is besides the point.

    Whether JLN considered TNT a false theorem, by insisting on the partition of Punjab and Bengal (against AIML’s demand for constituent units going one way or the other as a whole) Nehru did very clearly accept the Two Nation Theory in a far more divisive and fundamental manner than AIML had suggested it. AIML’s TNT wanted to create two nation states – one Hindu Majority, one Muslim majority but both with large minorities… Nehru reduced that to a motheaten imbalanced idea.

    Nehru’s vetoing (right or wrong) of Sarat Chanderbose’s and Suhrawardy’s secular United Bengal formula … further showed that Nehru was not beyond using TNT to his own political advantage.

  23. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ofcourse this should NOT imply that I agree with Ganpat Ram’s manipulation of these facts to his advantage.

    The correct position was the acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan which was a win win for everyone… all the classical Hindu arguments against the CMP are based on ignorance of it… the argument that it would have given Muslims’ power in India is a bankrupt one. It would have given them only adequate power to ensure political space.

    The Hindu Majority would not be diluted… on matters of defence and foreign affairs they would have had absolute majority at the center… Muslims had 80 odd seats to 230 odd … at the center

    On other matters… the Hindu majority would be absolute in almost all India minus Punjab and minus Bengal…

    Congress’ objection to CMP was based on whether provinces could opt out before or after the first elections. The CMP said after the first elections… Congress misinterpretted deliberately that clause to cheat AIML out of the one concession it was getting.

  24. Gorki

    Dear Yasser:

    Our discussion about the recent history of partition and the CMP are there elsewhere on the PTH for anyone interested to read them. I believe once the partition occurred it freed the major figures on both sides to express their core beliefs.

    Thus MAJ’s Aug 11th speech (which I believe was delivered extempore) elaborated his true beliefs and flies in the face of all those who make him some kind of an Islamist. Similarly the Aug14th speech and later writings by Nehru are a reiteration of his lifelong secular beliefs and are very similar to MAJ’s ‘in a modern nation the Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims’ sentiments.

    Pakistan was doubly unfortunate in that MAJ never had a chance to pen his feelings in detail and he died too soon to codify them in a constitution thus his legacy is contested by those on your side whom you fondly call the ‘crooks.’

    India was fortunate that Nehru left his legacy in the form of extensive writings and a secular constitution in which he was instrumental in a big way. The Indian equivalents of your Kashifats are our Hindutva devotees (hard and soft core) who are trying to hijack his (and Patel’s) legacy similarly on our side.

    It is to counter those that I wrote the above words by Nehru. However, it goes beyond that; because I believe that Nehru did not invent these ideas of tolerance; he simply understood and internalized what was there forever.

    In one of his most memorable passages he reflected on the inscription on an Ashoka pillar promising a complete freedom of faith and worship to all his subjects and compared them to an almost identical message from Emperor Akbar. How could, he wondered, two different men; one a Buddhist and another a Muslim, separated in time by 17 centuries, have come up with a message that was so similar in tone. The romantic in him wondered that maybe it was because the soul of an eternal India had chosen to speak through the lips of two of India’s most distinguished sons.

    Romanticism aside, the idea is important; India, since times immemorial has been a home to many different streams of thoughts and faiths, and even its rulers (at least the successful ones) have understood that fact very well. In that context the dreamer (and the realist) in me would like to add Nehru’s above words to those of the two Emperors’.

    Seen that way, Nehru’s words may be his own but the sentiments in them belong to all those millions who came before us and enriched our land; the spirit of India. It is also the voice and sentiments of all the giants of his generation; boys like Bhagat Singh and Kartar Singh Sarabha; who willingly died to give us our political freedom. It is now a duty of our generation to keep that spirit of a tolerant India safe from our ‘crooks’ and traitors and pass it intact to the next generation.

    Regards.

  25. yasserlatifhamdani

    Gorki sb,

    I entirely agree with you in these thoughts.

    Jawaharlal Nehru was one of those extraordinary political leaders in history who realized the importance of penning their thoughts in a book form. This served his people well. In addition to his sharp intellect, Nehru was a Cambridge graduate at a time when Oxbridge as it were was center of the world’s knowledge.

    About Mahomed Ali Jinnah… Sarojini Naidu had once lamented in her book “An Advocate Of Unity” that Jinnah possessed a first rate brain and a clear understanding and conception which would have benefitted greatly from formal university education. (Jinnah remember was a simple barrister … not even a matriculate – which makes Nehru’s allegation that J favored only matriculates in the Congress even more unfortunate). Jinnah -who read John Morley and John Locke keenly, and who was a regular at British Museum’s famed Reading Room and at the House of Commons’ debates- missed out entirely on the kind of education that would have ignited in him the desire to preserve for posterity his political ideas.

  26. Ganpat Ram

    YASSER, Gorki:

    Had Nehru been so foolish as to accept the CMP, India today would have been a bunch of small countries, having undergone not one partition but many, with far greater human losses in communal slaughter.

    To take just one problem with the Pan. How to integrate the princely states? The Pakistanis and some British were very interested to see Hyderabad become independent. They were busy intriguing with the Nizam to this end. In the end Nehru had to use the Indian Army to integrate Hyderabad into India. But how could he have used the Indian army for that purpose under the CMP? He would have needed Jinnah’s agreement.

    The Pakistanis are angry with the rejection of the CMP because they realise they thereby lost a priceless opportunity to aggrandise Islam at the expense of the Hindus. They would have kept the whole of Punjab and Bengal, and had very good chances of keeping Assam too. With the Indian Army 35 per cent Muslim, and a weak, divided administration in Delhi, there is no way Nehru could have prevented them seceding from the paper union at their sweet whim, taking hiuge areas of Hindu and Sikh land with them.

    No: the failure of the CMP was the best thing that happened to Hindus after the Muslim invasions. It UNITED them into a single, consolidated territory, with most of the good parts of India, and DIVIDED the Muslims into two widely-separated territiries and three more or less equal populations.

    That gave the Hindus a future away from too great Muslim pressure.

  27. ylh

    We’ve had the discussion on princely states. Frankly the States were more or less well governed entities and would have worked out a federal arrangement with the sub-federations.

    There is no real argument against CMP. “Horrible Muslims out to convert Hindus” is not really an argument in my view.

  28. Majumdar

    Ganpat bhai

    Re: your post timed March 26, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    Well written. I have been arguing on this line almost as long as I have been on chowk and PTH.

    JLN did the right thing without realising the consequence of what he did. Had India drawn the Kashmir border on the River Chenab, satisfied its expansionary instinct in Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim and enforced a Punjab style demographic restructuring in the two divided provinces of Eastern India (Beng and Assam) more or less India wud have had an invincible border demographically and geographically . And there wud have been no wars in the subcontinent or with China since 1947.

    Yasser Pai,

    Nehru was an aristrocratic loafer who had neither the need to earn a living nor build a political movement- he got both as an inheritance from his father. Naturally he had all the time to write books, in fact it wud have been better for India if he had been a full time author.

    The poor J-man had no such luxury- he had to earn a living, create a political movement and finally attain a country.

    Regards

  29. Luq

    >Had Nehru been so foolish as to accept the CMP,
    >India today would have been a bunch of small
    >countries, having undergone not one partition but
    >many, with far greater human losses in communal
    >slaughter.

    Phrases like “would have been” make for an highly imaginative argument. Like building your castles on candy floss.

    If the possibility of your imaginative scenario to occur is 1 out of 2 outcomes, then give equal credence to the other outcome and build another equally unstable castle, shall we?

    Luq

  30. Majumdar

    Luq mian,

    then give equal credence to the other outcome and build another equally unstable castle, shall we?

    Pls do so. I will be interested.

    Regards

  31. B. Civilian

    “But how could he have used the Indian army for that purpose under the CMP? He would have needed Jinnah’s agreement.”

    not true. it would have been an executive decision. only the majority in the legislature could have done anything about it. congress had absolute majority in the house.

    the groups had a veto only in ‘communal’ matters. only the president (speaker) of the house had the sole and exclusive power to decide whether anything qualified as a ‘communal’ matter or not. this was understood to be limited to matters of constitution-making. in any case, the house was to have an elected president, so he would have been a congress candidate.

  32. B. Civilian

    majumdar

    “JLN did the right thing without realising the consequence of what he did.”

    then, why ‘count the trees’ (as they say in urdu/hindi) – “it wud have been better for India if he had been a full time author”?

  33. Majumdar

    Civvie mian,

    JLN did the right thing by tanking the CMP. After that it was all downhill.

    Any sensible patriotic Hindu leader wud have done the same that JLN did in 1946-47.

    Regards

  34. ylh

    BC,

    I am always surprised by how many of our Indian friends actually delude themselves on this issue.

    One such genius – a lady who has spent her life trying prove why vetoing CMP was the greatest thing that happened to India- claimed that using the communal veto Pakistan would have gotten United India embroiled in Afghan war. Now this is the kind of ridiculous argument one has to contend with. Forget that the history of NWFP de-stabilization has to do with events taking in the immediate aftermath of partition, forget that the whole history of the so called Af-pak would be different …the bottomline is that the issue of war and foreign policy was a central subject not covered by communal veto.

    But how does one argue with people who wish to distort. Sometimes you will hear of there being parity …sometimes some other myth.

  35. Ganpat Ram

    YASSER, B.Civilian:

    What happens in the real world of politics is not decided by a piece of paper. It is decided by relationships of POWER.

    Lawyers can argue until the cows come home about what a paper agreement meant – in India in the 1940s it was the balance of POWER between Hindus and Muslims that counted.

    The Muslims under the CMP would control all of Punjab, Bengal and Assam. They would have at least 35 per cent in the Army.

    At any time they chose they could have broken away, leaving Nehru, with his weak central cabite dependent on Muslims, Preinces and God knows who else, with no option but going to war……He did NOT want to face that.

    Why should he?

    A “united” country with such strong possibilities in store is not worth having. Better to have a smaller India whose people were mostly unreservedly glad to belong to it, Nehry RIGHTLY decided.

    So, stop these arguments about paper and lawyers…..Look at the probabilities and the POWER relationships.

    The throwing out of the CMP gave the Hindus a decent chance of a Hindu future for the first time in a 1000 years.

    Majumdar is right: Muslims are a wonderful culture in many ways, but they have no gift for living with others on equal terms. Eviction, conversion or elimination: these are the three possibilities under Muslim rule for non-Muslims.

  36. Ganpat Ram

    “weak central cabinet”, I meant to say, above

  37. ylh

    CMP gave a plan for three sub-federations in one loosely federated state with a mighty army.

    Partition gave us three hostile states with smaller armies at each others throats.

    At the very least CMP would have given a peaceable alternative to the butchery of partition.

    It comes down to “muslims would have made up 35 percent of the army” argument. Well that argument surely cannot be the Nehruvian argument against CMP.

  38. Ganpat Ram

    The Muslims are in many ways a great civilization. I like biriyani and sherbet as much as anybody.

    But like Majumdar, I am under no illusions about Muslims. Living on equal terms with them is impossible wherever they have power: the law of eviction, conversion or elimination applies.

    The trouble with many people is that they confuse respect for Muslims (which I have) with needing to have illusions about them – with refusal to realise the inevitability of eviction, conversion or elimination.

    This is naive.

    It’s like thinking that respect for the huge achievements of British or German civilizations necessiates not believing in their harsh historical record.

    This, above all, is the Indian “secular” illusion: refusal to accept what Islam means for fear of being thought anti-Muslim.

    Islam is a tough Mosaic creed. It gives no quarter to other faiths. To understand it, read the Old Testament. I don’t believe the Jews would have been any more liberal than the Muslims had they not been secularised by many centuries of life in the Graeco-Roman civilization of the West.

  39. B. Civilian

    ganpat

    you have stated the “the law of eviction, conversion or elimination applies”. wonder why you thought you were “saying too much” when you talked of “Islamic cut-throatism”.

    by the way, you have decided to flee hayyer’s challenge to you in your last interaction with him. i guess you hoped nobody would notice. whatever happened to your taste for “robust debate”?

  40. Ganpat Ram

    YASSER:

    The unity of a country depends on far more than a disputable paper agreement.

    It depends on the peoples of that country having demonstrated their will to live together, their record of having done so.

    In the decades prior to Partition, the Indian Muslims gave every indication, vociferously, in blood often, that they disliked intensely the idea of union with the Hindus. What else was the Pakistan movement?

    In the end, when their leader agreed to the CMP – a very loose, uncertain conception of a united India – this was very much a last-minute, reluctant, assent, and even then Jinnah spoke of it as a “step toward a sovereign Pakistan”. What was the Congress to make of that? Who wants unity with a guy like that?

    And what POWER did the Congress have of enforcing union, should Jinnah quarrel again with them as he had done so bitterly until then? Jinnah would command the allegiance of a huge portion of the Army. Nehru would have no power to prevent secession – except war, which Nehru did not want.

    So, Nehru decided for partition.

    It was nothing but self-preservation and commonsense.

    The Muslim touchiness, talent for endless grievance, inability to accept unity on the same terms as everyone alse, and their ability and demonstrated readiness to resort to violence to get their way, made them people with whom the Hindus did not fancy union, in the end.

    It’s as simple as that.

    One does not marry a lady who for years says she most definitely hates one…..Who even at the altar says this is the first step to a divorce.

    One example of the astonishing Muslim touchiness: we hear endlessly how mortally Gandhi insulted Jinnah by introducing him at their first meeting at a conference as a “Mohammedan”……..This wsa c”dimishing” Jinnah, we are told.

    How can you and why should you unite with such people? Gripes, gripes, gripes…….!!!!

  41. Ganpat Ram

    “diminishing”, I meant, above

  42. ylh

    So Gandhi describing a secular looking fellow Gujurati as a Muslim is example of equal treatment.

    Ganpat mian you are clueless about history. Jinnah’s description of it as the first step to sovereign Pakistan had more to do with how he was going to sell it. Given how much he actually scaled back on parity, this was merely a face saving. This is confirmed in his famous exchange with woodrow Wyatt.

    It wasn’t a reluctant assent at all. Jinnah accepted both long and short versions of the plan before Congress did.

    You are confusing June 3rd plan with CMP.

  43. Ganpat Ram

    YLH, B.CIVILIAN:

    I have always been curious about how the Pakistanis seem to pay little attention to Jinnah’s Hindu family background. Why did his grandfather convert to Ismailism? Is there any information on this?

    The Pakistanis decry Gandhi as a “bania” and forget that Jinnah too came from the trading castes and continued to be a sharp and very successful businessman while Gandhi quit any business activity pretty early in life.

    Interesting.

    Iqbal’s Kashmiri Hindu descent is also underplayed in Pakistan.

    That’s by the way.

    I am not anti-Muslim. I just don’t have illusions about Muslims. I have pointed out their greatness as a civilization, my own love of their food.

    I have pointed out how they derived their religious intolerance from the Jews. I am not blaming only them.

    I have criticised Hindu cowardice.

    So I should not be taken for a guy biased against Islam, critical only of Islam.

  44. ylh

    We are very proud of Jinnah’s Bania background. His great grandfather’s father converted to Ismaili Islam. It may also be remembered that as a Khoja Shia Mohammaden, J-man’s estate is governed by Hindu Family law.

    And since you know he was a bania…how come you don’t see that he was bargaining like one (though he said he wasn’t)?

  45. Luq

    @Majumdar Pls do so. I will be interested.

    Why do you and your friend here carefully miss the point about the dangers of building castles in the air.

    Sample another gem from another piece – one’s love for biryani is a valid proof for loving muslim civilization.

    Cant fool anyone with this self certification.

    Wonder if Hitler also loved jewish food and technical skills, culture, etc….

    Luq

  46. Ganpat Ram

    YLH

    Ha ha ha.

    I appreciate the joke about Jinnah bargaining like a bania.

    It’s odd, though, that no-one speaks of Jinnah as a bania while practically everyone talks of Gandhi as one.

    YLH, what you need to realise is that when partition happened, countless Hindus felt enormous relief, despite the tragedies. Finally, the great nightmare of huge Muslim numbers in India was gone. A Hindu life without too great Muslim pressures became possible.

    Hindus have learned to appreciate having a Hindu future and they do NOT want to go back to the old, increasingly Islamised India of pre-1947.

    Just one example: in a united India, Hindus would have to follow a Muslim foreign policy. India could not have been friendly to Israel.

    Who wants to live like that?

    Let us each live in our own ways.

    Islam is not meant to mix with anything. Fair enough. Have your own countries.

  47. ylh

    Well we do. We refer to Jinnah fondly as Bapu Gujjubania the first.

  48. Luq

    To YLH and only to YLH

    >I have always been curious about how the
    >Pakistanis seem to pay little attention to Jinnah’s
    >Hindu family background. Why did his
    >grandfather convert to Ismailism? Is there any
    >information on this?

    A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention.

    What does it matter whether Jinnah’s great grandfather was a milkman who also had a few buffaloes?

    Luq

  49. ylh

    Well I think the red herring is an admission of concession by Ganpat Ramji.

  50. Luq

    >Islam is not meant to mix with anything.

    How did you come to that conclusion?

    Luq

  51. Hayyer

    B.Civilian:
    The robust debater has one idea buzzing in his bonnet. He cannot debate outside his one dimensional world.
    Who knows what the CMP might have led to- there are just too many imponderables-any number of outcomes can be constructed each as plausible as the other. But it gives D’Artagnan the chance to skirmish around his pet theme. You read one post you’ve read them all.

  52. Majumdar

    Luq mian,

    Sample another gem from another piece – one’s love for biryani is a valid proof for loving muslim civilization.

    Fair point. But just ask yourself is it fair that 300 mio Muslims of Pak/BD be forced to live with a Hindooooo fascist like Ganpat bhai. All the reason why JLN did most desis a favour by torpedoing the CMP.

    Yasser Pai,

    Partition gave us three hostile states with smaller armies at each others throats.

    It is absurd that you shud raise this issue. Hostility is purely a by-product of the way Kashmir was mishandled.

    Regards

  53. Ganpat Ram

    YASSER:

    Had Nehru been luckless and foolish enough to accept the CPM, India would have had no time to attend to ANY problem except the Muslims, their whims, their fancies, their real or imagined slights, their gripes etc etc.

    Hindus have better things to do with their time than to spend the rest of it wondering what new grievances the Muslims will think up today.

    If a simple, commonsensical recognition that those who have such great difficulty living together are better off separate ( a decision Nehru made) is enough to brand one as a Hindu “fascist”, so be it.

  54. Ganpat Ram

    CMP, I meant

  55. B. Civilian

    majumdar

    1. the muslims of pak/Bdesh (and esp) nor those who continue to have to live with the likes you have mentioned had not voted for JLN. it was not their democratic mandate, as expressed in the most recent elections, that he used to ‘torpedo’ CMP. their mandate was used by those who legitimately held it to accept it, instead.

    2. if kashmir is the only reason for two armies to be at each other’s throat, then why would an all-india army[*] face any risk of the muslim contingent breaking discipline or worse? since there would have been no ‘kashmir dispute’ in a united india.

    *before or after a constitution of india had been produced within the mechanism agreed in the cmp.

  56. B. Civilian

    Ganpat

    “If a simple, commonsensical recognition that those who have such great difficulty living together are better off separate ( a decision Nehru made) is enough to brand one as a Hindu “fascist”, so be it.”

    majumdar called you a hindoo fascist. and he agrees with you on both cmp and partition and all your reasons for it too. and he most certainly does not consider himself to be a hindoo fascist. so this obviously is not why he called you what he called you.

  57. Majumdar

    Civvie mian,

    Had India consisted of 2/3rd Hindus and 1/3rd Muslims, they wud have been at each others throats all the time. Naturally you can wonder what wud have happened to the army.

    Now had India been divided into three nations- one 80% H-15% M, two Muslim nations with very small (one in fact very miniscule) Hindu minorities without any real estate dispute, there wud have been no reason for any disputes between the three nations.

    Regards

  58. B. Civilian

    “The robust debater has one idea buzzing in his bonnet. He cannot debate outside his one dimensional world”[hayyer]

    it is rather pathetic that he pretends that because he has convinced himself that no one has noticed him running away from a simple challenge, that is the reality. he regurgitates and repeats what we have seen on these pages again and again by other one-dimensional ‘robust debators’ too. it all fits into a two-page pamphlet out of nagpur, despite all his denials. just a coincidence, he wants us to believe. a rather boring one though.

    a parrot is still a parrot whether it can imitate burke, hemingway or laloo prashad. it can only repeat what can fit the limits of its little brain. but why would a parrot claim to be a robust debator only to run away from a simple challenge with his tail between his legs. but then how could a parrot know any better.

  59. B. Civilian

    majumdar

    why is it that, where they are living together, the 15%-M are not at the 80%-H’s throat all the time?

  60. Majumdar

    Civvie mian,

    The numbers are disbalanced enuff to prevent such an occurence. At 65-30, margin for error wud be too low.

    Regards

  61. Luq

    >Fair point. But just ask yourself is it fair that
    >300 mio Muslims of Pak/BD be forced to live
    >with a Hindooooo fascist like Ganpat bhai. All
    >the reason why JLN did most desis a favour by
    >torpedoing the CMP.

    What logic is that ?
    300 million cant (with a strong constitution) take care of a million fascists but 150million can ?

    Lets not lose focus here. This started with Ganpat saying the following………

    >And they have multipied faster than Hindus
    >because Nehru allowed them to live in a sharia-
    >dominated society that scanted female literacy.

    False hood propagated to malign muslims, already taken care of a few pages up ^

    >This promises serious trouble for India, but
    >without Partition Hindus would have faced 500
    >million Muslims, and would have been in a
    >situtation of catastrophe.

    Here he is scared of facing 500 million muslims and you are saying the exact opposite, how can 300 million be forced to ….etc…..

    Stupefying absurdities can be thrown from both sides. I am a great fan of communism you know, I love chinese food especially mala shezuan chicken.

    regards,

    Luq

  62. B. Civilian

    majumdar

    in that case, the answer to ‘why aren’t the 80%-H at the throats of 15%-M?’ would be: because the 80%-H can and are able to do as they please with what they want their home and country to be which they wouldn’t have been able to do in a 65:30 situation, according to you.

    majumdar, do you really think the H and M are that distinct and distant in terms of what and how they want their home and country to be?

  63. B. Civilian

    “300 million cant (with a strong constitution) take care of a million fascists but 150million can ?”

    thank you, luq. that’s where the real battle is at.

    majumdar, don’t you agree? is it really H vs M or liberal vs fascist (lawful vs unlawful, really), in your view?

  64. Luq

    >The numbers are disbalanced enuff to prevent
    >such an occurence. At 65-30, margin for error wud
    >be too low.

    *Unbalanced…

    You are setting off a lot of sucker alarms out here. With 65-30 ratio of hindus vs muslims — coupled with the fact that the hindus are never a united entity (just look at todays BJP) with an amazing number of sub castes and with the chronic infighting, I see no reason for anything else but harmony to have prevailed.

    By the way could anyone of your saffron friends explain how muslim males find the females to marry four times over when there are just about 900 females to every 1000 males in the general population?

    Or can we settle at the theory that muslims simply marry all the females from outside their faith circle?

    Luq

  65. Luq

    >“300 million cant (with a strong constitution) take
    >care of a million fascists but 150million can ?”
    >thank you, luq. that’s where the real battle is at.

    Invoice bheja hai, Vajra pay karega

    Luq

  66. B. Civilian

    majumdar

    to give the mirror image, as it were, to luq’s bjp point, why do you think the people of nwfp would have suddenly stopped voting congress? or how would the politics of bengal have changed in a post-brit united india (starting under the cmp mechanism, and going on from there)? with no palpable inevitability of the june 3 plan, would the khizr ministry have still resigned?

    by the way, i agree with luq’s ‘castles in the air’ comment. and, also, with hayyer’s about the multiplicity of plausible future scenarios for the cmp. but i’m only looking for rational arguments and hoping to be convinced, because it is interesting. however, i must correct those based on what i know to be lies based on the written record that is the cmp document.

  67. Bin Ismail

    People generally fail to distinguish between the following 4 terms and interchange them with considerable liberty:

    1.Islam
    2.Muslims
    3.Muslim-majority states
    4.Politico-economic wellbeing of Muslim-majority states

    Out of these 4, the latter i.e. the “politico-economic wellbeing of Muslim-majority states” is what Jinnah actually strived for. Jinnah saw the Indian states as comprising of 2 sub-categories:

    1.Muslim-majority states
    2.Hindu-majority states

    His 2-nation theory was neither an Islam&Hinduism theory, nor a Muslim&Hindu theory. Essentially, it was a Hindu-majority states & Muslim-majority states theory. Of these 2 blocs, if I may use this term, the politico-economic condition of the former was relatively more precarious. Jinnah stood to struggle for them. He was essentially a pro-minority activist. Muslims were not the only minority who caught his eye. His concern for the community of the Untouchables was even greater. He said, “in the name of Humanity, I care more for them [the Untouchables] than for Mussalmans. ” [address at the All India Muslim League session at Delhi, 1934]. One could argue that this was mere rhetoric, but then how much of rhetoric do we otherwise come across in the meticulous and dispassionately practical speeches of Jinnah.

    Moreover, Jinnah never envisioned Pakistan and India as rival neighbors, one representing Belief and the other Disbelief – certainly not. In November 1946, he said, “The two states [Pakistan and India] will be friends and will go to each other’s rescue in case of danger and will be able to say ‘hands off’ to other nations. We shall then have a Munroe Doctrine more solid than in America.”

  68. Ganpat Ram

    Bin Ismail:

    With all due respect, hardly anyone I know in India cares a hoot what Jinnah thought or did not think.

    A small number of Pak fanciers there are, but that’s all, certainly among Hindus.

    Most Hindus I know are heartily glad the generations after Partition did not have to spend their days worrying about nothing else than the Muslims and their gripes.

    I was reading a biography of Nehru the other day and could not but be struck by how much happier he seemed in the 1950s than in the 1940s. Not just because he had achieved high office; also because the great harassing burden of worrying about Jinnah and the Muslims was over. They had gone off to Pakistan, hurrah…..!

    Few Hindus would care even the slightest today about Pakistan were it not for the problem of terrorism coming from there. For the rest the average Hindu thinks of Pakistan about as much as he thinks about Paraguay.

    Some Pak fanciers in India keep saying the Paks are our brothers; most Hindus I know receive such ideas with a grin. It takes all sorts to make a world I suppose.

    I have read some pre-Partition extracts from Muslim newspapers like “Dawn” . I have been apppalled at the level of sheer spite and monumental bitterness in that Muslim journalism of those days about such figures as Gandhi, famous for bending over backwards to suit Muslims. Some “brothers” !

    Heaven help Hindus if we go back to that world. It was not paradise, that pre-Partition India. Far from it. It seethed with hatreds that put even those of today in the shade.

    Even as recently as 1971 the Pak Army in Banglasdesh slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Hindu civilians without pity.

    Beware of going back into a bad situation we were lucky to escape.

  69. Luq

    @Majumdar March 26, 2010 at 6:35 pm
    > Luq mian,

    Kindly revert to plain simple Luq, unless you want to escalate………

    Luq

  70. Nusrat Pasha

    As late as November 14, 1946, which means merely 9 months prior to independence, Jinnah said, “….I am NOT fighting for Muslims, believe me, when I demand Pakistan.”

    Jinnah pursued Pakistan neither in the name of Islam, nor exclusively for Muslims. There is a huge difference between creating a state in the name of “Islam” and securing a safe economic future for the economically vulnerable Muslim-majority states of the subcontinent. You see, Quaid-e-Azam was more than willing to endorse an undivided India, which he openly did when he accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. It was the Congress leadership, and not Jinnah who wriggled out of this last chance of keeping India undivided. The Cabinet Mission Plan was the last hope of keeping India undivided. Jinnah endorsed it. The Congress leadership adroitly evaded the commitment. All that Quaid-e-Azam wanted was to ensure that the social and economic interests of the conglomerate of the Muslim-majority states remained secure. The CMP failed. There was no other plan on the table and Jinnah moved on. By any standards, Jinnah was perfectly right – morally, legally and politically right – in doing so.

    Pakistan, India and Bangla Desh must now realize that their future lies ahead and not behind them. If these 3 nations succeed in moving ahead with the spirit of secularism in their internal as well as their mutual affairs, they surely have a lot to look forward to.

  71. Luq

    >Heaven help Hindus if we go back to that world.
    >It was not paradise, that pre-Partition India.

    So, non muslim Indians are happy with >150million breathing down their necks?

    Luq

  72. Luq

    >Most Hindus I know are heartily glad the
    >generations after Partition did not have to spend

    Now we all know what narrow subset of divisive Indians you hang out with. We call them hindutvavadis and all they ever do is spew out illogical venom against their own countrymen.

    Gorki called such divisive people traitors, I agree with Gorki

    Luq

  73. Bin Ismail

    @Ganpat Ram

    May I respectfully bring to your kind notice:

    #1. Hardly any Pakistani cares a hoot about what our neighbours think about Jinnah. He’s our hero and that’s what matters to us. So, on this plane, I suppose the feelings of indifference are mutually reciprocative.

    #2. You may like to labour to once again consider the topic of this discussion. The august opinion of our dear neighbours is nowhere on the agenda. A discussion is a discussion. You don’t have to make it a point to remind others, each time, that you invariably find it impossible to proceed in a gentlemanly way.

    #3. The “you-hit-me-first” attitude, if incessant, can appear to be quite juvenile.

    #4. We made our mistakes in Bengal, and we deeply regret them. Your spiteful atrocities in Kashmir continue till “as recent as” 2010, with perseverance and without remorse.

    #5. The more courteous of Indian commentators represent Indian thinking in a more positive way.

    Regards.

  74. Ganpat Ram

    Nusrat Pasha:

    Maybe Jinnah was not fighting for Muslims or Islam.

    I guess it is just a strange misunderstanding that so many people thought he was.

    He seemed to be talking all the time in those days about “Islam in danger”, posing the question in the elections in Punjab in 1946 as “Are you a believer or kufr?”, taking help from pirs, etc.

    You would think he was fighting for Islam. But I guess I have to take your word for it. He was not.

    Then again, there are cynics who say if a bird looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, eats like a duck, it is a duck.

    Like I said, few care a hoot anymore, certainly in India. All they want is freedom from terrorist attacks coming from Pakistan. Other than that Jinnah could be anything you like.

    At any rate, Partition did restore to Hindus the possibility of a Hindu life, and for that many of them are grateful. Hindus have vague historical memories of what India used to be like before the Muslim innundation, and are happy to have some chance to restore something of that pre-Islamic Hindu identity.

    For that we do owe Jinnah thanks.

  75. yasserlatifhamdani

    Could Mr Ram produce the exact resolution or speech by Jinnah or the resolution which uses those words “Islam in danger”. Don’t quote something that you think says this …and no need to quote x y z … Can you please quote where he uses that sentence “Islam in danger”.

    Similarly can you point out where he used the words – the exact words- “believer or kufr” or “islam or kufr”. Again don’t quote what you think says that but where he actually said those words.

    As for Punjab League ..it did use Pirs …and so did its opponent the Unionist Party. How was that against Hindus btw? Was Khizr a Hindu? Were the unionists Hindu?

    Barelvi Islam is the low church. It doesn’t have a straitjacket. It is popular Islam of patron saints, songs etc. These were Pirs who supported the League. Who supported Congress btw? Oh wait it was the leading Ulema of Deoband – the straitjacket puritan Islam…the one that after Pakistan Army’s patronization in the 1980s produced Taliban. Wait these are the same guys Gandhi wanted to use to topple westernized Muslim leaders like Jinnah.

    So try to get a nuanced view of history Ganpat mian… Sun does not rise and set in your rear orifice.

  76. Ganpat Ram

    YASSER:

    I won’t try to compete with you in vulgarities which I assumed you were above. I guess I must have made you lose your temper by being more articulate than you expected.

    To me, Jinnah does seem the kind of guy who took Islam very seriously. You do not go to the trouble of formulating a theory of nationhood based on Islam – and what else is the TNT – if you are not committed to Islam as a polity in some sense.

    He did smoke and eat ham and wear his Savile Row suits. He probably did not want maulanas ruling in his Pakistan. But then, the BJP does not want gurus or Hindu priests ruling in India, and it cannot be taken for a secular party.

    Inevitably, Islam dominated in one way or another in Pakistan from Day One. One has only to read the memoirs of Ayub Khan to see this: he is a “whisky” secularist of the Pak type, yet proclaims that Islam cannot be separated from politics.

    Outsiders don’t really care for all these fine distinctions anyway. For them a guy who talks of a Muslim nation and is fighting for it is an Islamist. Period. Under his rule the outsider will still face the three-fold rule of convert, be thrown out or be eliminated. Whether a priest does it or not does not matter.

    As for Congress and its mullahs. I agree that was a very bad habit of the Congress leaders to consort with mullahs. It was a cheap way of trying to get Muslim votes. But there is a difference. The Congress’ committment to a secular state was real and practiced.

  77. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear Mr Ram,

    You make claims. One asks you direct questions. You can’t answer those…you go into a new tangent. I don’t have time to waste with a crook like you. Keep going in circles. I for one am very glad that I don’t have to call you my countryman.🙂 have a nice day.

  78. Ganpat Ram

    YASSER:

    What do you expect me to do?

    To trawl through a million archives to show Jinnah was speaking vociferously about how different Islam as a way of life was from Hinduism, to quote the incitements that have been archived to Muslims in the most religious tones to fight unbelievers before the Great Calcutta Killing, to cite the endless complaints in the late 1930s about Congress oppression of Muslims, all this to convince you that yes, to the non-Muslims who had to deal with him Jinnah seemed very Muslim indeed? Even stridently non-religious politicians like Nehru who if he thought Jinnah stood for values outside religion would have been only too happy to ally with him?

    Come on, Yasser. Be fair.

    Let’s turn this around.

    Suppose there is a politician who claims to be fighting for a Hindu nation, would you say he had nothing to do with religion in politics and was a secularist like Jinnah? Because he did not wear a sacred thread or do puja or go on pilgimamge to Haridwar, and was even known to eat beef sandwiches on the sly?

  79. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ganpat mian…

    Either quote Jinnah’s direct words from a primary source or shut up. Quoting xyz and repeating lies is no argument.

    Waisay to you guys claim he said “we will have india divided or destroyed”. Ironically that speech does not appear in any of documented speeches or documents in the transfer of power papers.

    So be a man – produce the exact words “islam in danger” and “believer and kufr”.

  80. yasserlatifhamdani

    A hindu leader in India fighting for a Hindu nation would be a majoritarian leader btw … If a hindu leader in Pakistan was fighting for Hindus’ rights and political space he would be perfectly secular in my view …

    You obviously are a simple minded buffoon.

  81. Ganpat Ram

    YASSER:

    Well, I am glad to get our misunderstanding sorted out at last.

    So you reckon a guy fighting for a Hindu nation can STILL be a secularist, and is simply a majoritarian?

    I would not give them that easy ride. But then, I am supposed to be a Hindutva man !

    By my reckoning, anyone who mixes up religion and politics, and who bases his appeal on a religious definition of his constituency, is not a secularist. So Jinnah fails the test by my count. So does the BJP.

  82. B. Civilian

    @YLH

    this tough guy is all for “robust debate” as long as he is never asked to deal with facts, let alone asked to produce a reference. he is quite shameless though. he thinks just ignoring a challenge to his lies means he has won. he has still not answered two very simple questions that hayyer asked him a couple of days ago. he thinks that he can scurry off to another thread and no one would notice.

    @Luq

    “narrow subset” is the only decent thing about the guy.

  83. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ganpat…

    Once again… is there something wrong with your comprehension? A Hindu Majoritarian Leader fighting for Hindus in a Hindu Majority Country is a HINDU FASCIST.

    Only a Hindu Minority Leader fighting for the Hindus in a Hindu minority country (such as Pakistan) can be secular depending on what his views are. If that Hindu leader is concerned with political space and not theology, then he is secular.

    J-man was an unlikely leader of the Muslims. It was precisely because he was so secular that he was acceptable to all different sects who couldn’t agree on anything else.

  84. Yasser:
    I think you have made your point very eloquently and with irrefutable evidence about the kind of country that MAJ wanted to build with the CMP. Even after the failure of the CMP he had every intention to build it in Pakistan. There is no question about it. There was nothing wrong with the CMP but as BC has mentioned elsewhere; it needed trust on both sides to make it work and that was absent then. All that is water under the bridge and if newcomers want a crash course in the events and the compulsions surrounding the partition they can look on the PTH itself for a more thorough discussion. To rehash it again and again here is but to provide undue importance to those who Hayyer has rightly identified as people with a single small idea struck in their heads. For that reason I refuse to join this part of the discussion though I found myself nodding my head in agreement with the comments by Bin Ismail and Nusrat Pasha, who had not been the discussants on the original posts.
    The only thing I get out of such discussions is the firm belief that as you pointed out that both the TNT and the CMP came with an expiry label and are less relevant today and as time passes they both will become historical facts alone. Interestingly the people who want to hang on to it on both sides are those like Kashifat and Ganpat and their ideological mentors; the ones who opposed it for the wrong reasons then even as they cling on to it for the wrong reasons now.
    I do want to point a couple of things to Majumdar Da about JLN though. With due respect, JLN’s lowest point was in 1937 when he ignored MAJ’s pleas to form a coalition Govt. It was a pivotal moment in MAJ’s career and proved to be a pivotal moment in our history as well. By 1945-47 it was too late and MAJ and ML were lost to the secular centrist forces in the congress. The high point of Nehru was on the afternoon of Jan 26th 1950 when he signed the constitution. (I keep a picture of that event on my desktop). You are mistaken when you say that the secular constitution that we have today would have been there without him.
    Are you kidding? The constituent Assembly was full of mindboggling Lilliputians that even Ganpat Bhai would seem like a Thomas Jefferson in comparison. One such luminary refused to let things move ahead till cow slaughter ban was mad a part of the constitution; another wanted India to be declared a homeland for the Hindus and the Sikhs alone with Muslims having a kind of a conditional citizenship in it!
    Ambedkar Sahib did not have the political clout to confront them. I t was the firm support of JLN backed by his convictions and his political stature (and to some extent Patel) that kept such midgets in check. It is besides the point to argue what could or could not have happened. The fact is that it happened this way and the man who put his shoulder to the wheel at that time was JLN. Also I find it interesting that only in India do we spend so much time lamenting the fact that Nehru had a rich father and did not work for money.
    Big deal; if you go to the capital of the United States capital, its skyline is dominated by monuments to Washington and Jefferson; founding fathers who did not have to work for money either and kept slaves too; for pleasure both ordinary and of the flesh!
    Regards.

  85. B. Civilian

    “You obviously are a simple minded buffoon.”

    he answers

    “Well, I am glad to get our misunderstanding sorted out at last.”

    ..proceeding to make it clear that he has no hope of understanding what was said.

    as if we needed confirmation of what was said about him in the first place.

  86. Another thing Dada:

    Your belief that India should have diluted the Muslim majority provinces using demographics to achieve some kind of homogeneity reflects a thinking that refuses to let go of dearly held but utterly faulty and discredited theories of identity and nationhood.

    Look around in other cultures and in history; imposed homogeneity is a mirage that can be chased but never achieved. Indians do not have only a diverse religious identity but also that of the region, language, ethnicity and then some. Once you impose a religious homogeneity by manipulating demographics then demand will come for a linguistic one; more Hindi speakers for Maharashtra or a cultural one, more Biharis into Tamil Nadu; where will it stop.

    If you don’t believe me, then you owe me an answer why the Slavs of Ukraine could not live with the coreligionist Slavs of Russia?
    Heck why could not coreligionist Slavs of Serbia live with those of Croatia?
    Once one admits the argument that identity is important, more identities come out than one imagines.
    Think about it.

    Also think hard and name any country that is akin to India; a land with a billion plus people speaking 18 languages and practicing a religion like Hinduism that has thousands of versions.
    If you can’t come up with an answer then consider the EU; not one country but a continent only now trying to take hesitant steps into integration.
    Yes; that is what comes closest to what India is today; but which is more modern, bound as it is not by any force but voluntrily by a modern constitution into one modern nation!!

    Regards.

  87. yasserlatifhamdani

    “anyone who mixes up religion and politics, and who bases his appeal on a religious definition of his constituency, is not a secularist. So Jinnah fails the test by my count. So does the BJP.”

    Actually the first person who fails on that count is Gandhi who mixed religion with politics against the advice of Jinnah himself. But let us not get into such inconveniences right now.

  88. Ganpat Ram

    Let’s keep this cool, Yasser.

    Don’t lose your temper as if you are trying to prove to my own discomfiture my theory that monotheists tend to be impatient in debate…..

    Well, so our Hindu guy fighting for a Hindu nation in India is now a fascist. OK. Hope that makes you feel better.

    But that was not my question, was it? I was asking if according to you he is still a SECULARIST?

  89. Last to dear Ganpat: you still owe me an explanation for
    1. Why do you consider it magnanimous of the Hindus to let India Muslims still live in India when it was as much a home to them for ages?
    2. How are you different than the Khalistani traitors (whom we fought in the 1980-1990s) who argued on the basis of the Anandpur Sahib resolution that the Punjab was a home only for the Sikhs but the Hindus can only live there out of the magnanimity of the Sikhs?

    Regards.

  90. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ganpat, improve your English. You don’t understand simple words written for your benefit.
    I have answered your question twice. You may refer to it and get the answer for yourself.

    All I can say is that Jinnah refused to accept the presidency of the Pakistan Muslim League which was to replace All India Muslim League saying that he could not as Governor General be the president of a communal organization.

    If you are so stupid as to not understand the difference between minoritarianism and majoritarianism… well then I am afraid that is your problem. No wonder you are a fascist.

  91. Nusrat Pasha

    @Ganpat Ram

    1.These “strange misunderstandings” are not exactly unique to Pakistan. They are equally prevalent among our eastern neighbours as well. Sometimes they are less of misunderstandings and more of deliberate misreadings.

    2.It appears you got the “Islam in danger” quote from a biased source. Your own bias, my friend, is quite conspicuous.

    3. The “duck” analogy does not exactly apply hear. The “goggles” analogy might better explain why what you see appears to be a duck. Bias, prejudice and pre-conceived notions do indeed affect one’s perceptions. Try removing your goggles.

    4.Your “care a hoot” point is well taken. I would tend to agree with Bin Ismail, that on Jinnah, we too care little about how Indians behold him. For us, yes, he is our hero.

    5.Regarding terrorists, you see there are quite a few people here, who believe that the flow of terrorism is greater from India into Pakistan than vice versa. Many here would like to see India stopping its support to mullahs and militants in Pakistan. Now this is another perspective.

    6. Your search for the restoration of your “pre-Islamic Hindu life” clearly suggests that your claims to secularism are not to be taken too seriously. However, in all fairness, to the extent of your Constitution, one has to appreciate its secular nature indeed.

    7. To be extemely honest with you, academic reviews aside, we too in Pakistan, find ourselves grateful towards the non-commitment of Nehru towards the CMP. That led to the failure of the CMP, and to creation of our beloved homeland.

  92. Ganpat Ram

    YASSER:

    Well, it is good news that I am supposed to be a fascist. Now we know that fascists believe in democracy, free elections, very far-reaching free speech (including the free right to ridicule any and all religions), respect for the rights and dignity of women and minorities, a tendency to favour egalitarian economic policies…..

    All that is my politics. If I am still a fascist simply because I also believe India is the only nation where Hinduism can have the honour of having a state, as Christianity and Islam and Buddhism do in so many countries, so be it.

    As for Jinnah: he was much more than a fighter for the rights of a religious minority community, like some Hindu activist in let us say Malaysia. He thought Islam defined a NATION. That is why I find it odd to call him a secularist.

  93. B. Civilian

    Gorki

    “By 1945-47 it was too late and MAJ and ML were lost to the secular centrist forces in the congress”

    MAJ was foremost amongst the centrist secular forces in the AIML. do you think he would have not done to the mindboggling lilliputians within the AIML what JLN did to his congress colleagues? would they have dared anything like the Objectives’ Resolution in MAJ’s life?

    as for the departure from his centrism, congress did the same thing as far as ‘agreeing’ to the cmp was concerned.

  94. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ganpat mian…

    Your politics… well it is fascist, theocratic, bigoted and majoritarian. So it is not any wonder you find it hard to remain logical.

    As for what Jinnah wanted or did etc… well enough has been written on that by first rate historians both in India and the west. So let us leave it at – even I could convince you, why would I need to convince a fascist like you?

  95. Ganpat Ram

    I am sorry, Yasser, that you lose your temper so easily.

    What can I say to people who become so vituperative?

    If the world has many fascists of my kind, believing in human rights and democracy, then things are not so bad.

  96. yasserlatifhamdani

    Holy cow… you believe in human rights and democracy? Come now Ganpat. We all know what you really believe in.

  97. Nusrat Pasha

    @Ganpat Ram

    “He thought Islam defined a NATION. That is why I find it odd to call him a secularist.”

    In case you’ve not read Bin Ismail’s comment carefully, Jinnah’s Two-Nation Theory applies to the equation between the Muslim-majority states and the Hindu-majority states, not between the creeds of Islam and Sanatan Dharm. I hope you can appreciate the manifest difference between these two equations.

    So, Jinnah did not think that Islam defined a nation. He believed that the conglomerate of the Muslim-majority states, which were very obviously a “political entity” and not a religious one, could survive better autonomously – but most definitely as a secular setup.

  98. Ganpat Ram

    NUSRAT:

    There you do surprise me. In many years of reading modern Indian history I had understood that Jinnah believed there were two nations in India, a Hindu and a Muslim one.

  99. Ganpat Ram

    YLH:

    It would be beneath my dignity and yours to try to prove the absurdity of assuming I don’t believe in human rights or democracy merely because you issue a series of abusive words.

    Frankly, I am am not impressed.

    If someone has an argument it is always possible to deal with it calmly. After all, what have you to lose? If his argument is more soundly based morally, logically, factually, you can adopt it to your profit. If it is worse than yours, you can coolly point that out, persuade him or agree to disagree.

    What is ridiculous is to indulge in meaningless vituperation.

  100. Ganpat Ram

    YLH

    You have a point about the questionable standing of Gandhi as a secularist.

    I have long thought so. Gandhi is often spoken of respectfully by Hidu nationalists, and not for nothing. In a large way, he was one.

    Gandhi mixed up religion in his politics constantly. There is no doubt that he used Hindu themes to appeal to the largely Hindu populace in the language they understood.

    India as it happens is a nation impossible to define other than in religious terms for it is not based on language but on a majority religion, Hinduism. Any politician trying to rouse national feeling in such a nation is bound to harp on Hindu themes.

    As a matter of fact Gandhi was not the first to do so. The agitation for annulling Curzon’s partition of Bengal appealed to Hindu revivalist sentiments. So did Tilak.

    Nonetheless there is a difference between what Gandhi did in the way of speaking as a Hindu and Jinnah speaking as a Muslim: Gandhi did not do it to rouse enmity to any other community. Jinnah’s agitation inevitably saw the Hindus as an enemy.

    Another difference was that Gandhi used Muslim themes too, like the Khilafat, and also Christian ones. He also believed in a state completely free of religious allegiance. Jinnah’s committment to that has remained questionable. Some say he was; others say he also paid deference to the role of Islamic law in Pakistan.

    Be that as it may, I think we are in clearer territory now.

    The truth seems to be that in the nationalist period almost none of the mainline politicians was free of dabbling in religion to promote their politics. India was after all a country based on a relgion predominating and so this was inevitable.

    Jinnah differed in focusing on religious identity more consistently and in a way that aroused conflict.

    In the end I don’t blame him too much.

    He was not a secularist, but then neither was Gandhi and often not even Nehru.

    He was fighting for Muslims in a Hindu India, and Gandhi and Nehru fighting for a state that would whether they wished it or not give Hindus dominance. So Jinnah broke away.

    Fair enough.

    But that only reinforces my point that you and I belong to separate nations and these should stay separate !

    OK, everybody happy now?

    You see, Yasser, calm argument unties all knots.

  101. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ganpat,

    Jinnah was much more consistent a secularist than your Gandhi. Gandhi mixed religion with politics in ways that affect everything.

    Gandhi used Mullahs to undercut Jinnah who was a secularist in the Congress. Why do you complain so much when J turned the tables on Gandhi?

    You are totally confused about what secularism etc etc means and there is no point discussing this sort of stuff with someone who hasn’t read a decent book on the issue.

  102. yasserlatifhamdani

    When Jinnah was fighting for Tilak, for Bhagat Singh, when he was fighting to get the child marriages restraint passed, when he fought for ruppee tenders and for the creation of Dhera Dhun Military Academy… I suppose he was only fighting for Muslims.

    And everyone who called him the “Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity” must have been deluded.

    Ignorance of people like Ganpat is an eye opener. If you don’t know something just don’t comment instead of commenting like an idiot. Ganpat’s brother from another mother Fazlu did the same thing.

  103. Ganpat Ram

    YASSER:

    This time you surprise me. What’s the rage about now? Are you always so angry?

    It reminds me of Nehru’s complaint about the perils of debating with Jinnah: the man lost his cool so easily……

    I thought I had shown that to a very large extent I actually agree with you about Gandhi. He was in many ways anything but a secularist.

    There is a very strong case for calling him a founder of Hindu nationalism, and indeed many Hindu nationalists venerate him.

    I guess the big difference remains that I still see Jinnah as a Muslim nationalist, much as Gandhi was in effect a Hindu nationalist, not a secularist. If Jinnah had been as critical of Islam as Nehru was of Hinduism, I might have accepted that he was a secularist.

  104. Ganpat Ram

    What was so secular about Jinnah fighting for Tilak? If ever there was a flagrant Hindu nationalist, it was Tilak.

  105. Ganpat Ram

    YASSER:

    Jinnah was certainly called by exaggeratedly dewy-eyed and optimistic Hindus like Sarojini Naidu an “Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity”.

    But they were deluded, those Hindus. They thought Muslims would fit into their India with some flattery and some concessions.

    It was not to be.

    Jinnah was soon demading things few Hindus were ready to give.

    In the end he even talked of parity between a Muslim community of 25 percent and the rest of India.

    As Nehru said at that point: Jinnah has no place in the country.

    Jinnah’s bad temper didn’t help. It made people reluctant to work with him.

  106. Gorki

    @BC:
    “MAJ was foremost amongst the centrist secular forces in the AIML. do you think he would have not done to the mindboggling lilliputians within the AIML what JLN did to his congress colleagues..”

    There is no question that had MAJ lived 5 more years, the history of Pakistan, BD and maybe even India would have been different. The people whom YLH calls ‘crooks’ would have had a very tough time opening their mouths; far less the odacity to introduce things like the OR. The converse is true too; if JLN and Patel had been removed from the scene like MKG, we too would have had the Ganpats of the day hijack Nehru’s name to introduce ‘Hindu’ nation theories into our constitution.

    Which reminds me; dear Ganpat, this is a second call of the day for you. Please try if you can to answer the following questions:

    1. If you feel the Hindus need a lily pure nation only for the Hindus then what was so wrong with the Khalistanis asking for a similar land for the Sikhs alone, in which they too wanted a ‘Sikhan da Bol Balla’?

    2. What about Nagaland; why can’t they have their own land? how does Nirad Babu’s disciple rule on that one?
    3. Mizoram?
    4. Kashmir? (God forbid, the K word) or is it still the piece of cheese for the Pakistanis to bash their head against?

    On what basis can the TNT worshipping but the democratic and ‘non fascist’ Ganpat Babu oppose these above demands for seceding then?

    Regards.

  107. Ganpat Ram

    GORKI:

    There is no way India – whether a Hindu state or not – can allow secession from India provided it allows normal democratic rights within India.

    If India does not allow such rights to Sikhs, Nagas, Kashmiris or any other group, then secession will indeed be justified.

  108. Ganpat Ram

    I suppose it is this insistence on democratic rights being the criterion that causes people of elevated language like YLH to call me a fascist.

  109. Ganpat Ram

    GORKI:

    What is the point of bashing one’s head against a piece of cheese?

    I may be a fascist, but I can see a joke.

  110. hoss

    “Jinnah’s Two-Nation Theory applies to the equation between the Muslim-majority states and the Hindu-majority states, not between the creeds of Islam and Sanatan Dharm. ”

    This must be novelist interpration of the two nation theory I have ever heard of. Jinnah never once mentioned it any where.

    Here are some quotes from his speeches and these are not the speeches of someone who was out promoting secularism.
    Even after Aug 14, 1947 he was talking about Sharia and a system based on Islam.

    Muslim League in central India was a communal party and it was supported by politicians in the Muslim majority provinces on the basis of 1940 resolution and unfortunately all the leaders who supported ML after 1940 resolution regretted it or made to regret it after the true Islami mujaheddin the wardiposh took over Pakistan. As Ganpat said even the whiskey drinking (nothing wrong with that) claimed that he was out to protect Islam.

    Read quotes form his speeches before and after partition and tell me if there was any thing secular in his politics.

    “We Muslims have got everything – brains, intelligence, capacity and courage- virtues that nations must possess. But two things are lacking, and I want you to concentrate your attention on these. One thing is that foreign domination from without and Hindu domination here, particularly on our economic life that has caused a certain degeneration of these virtues in us.”

    after a meeting with Egyptian and Palestinian Arab leaders in 1946: “I told them of the danger that a Hindu empire would represent for the Middle-East … If a Hindu empire is achieved, it will mean the end of Islam in India, and even in other Muslim countries.”

    On 26 July 1946, Jinnah and his working committee spoke about Muslim India having “exhausted, without success, all efforts to find a peaceful solution of the Indian problem by compromise and constitutional means; and whereas the Congress is bent upon setting up Caste-Hindu Raj in India with the connivance of the British…” (BBC. Why the Hindu right wing loves Mr Jinnah. Soutik Biswas | 08:35 UK time, Tuesday, 18 August 2009)

    “It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is only a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality. This misconception of one Indian Nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. 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 for the government of such a state.”
    Source:
    Paksitan Visions, An International Journal of Pakistan Affair
    (Quaid-i-Azam Number), Vol. II, No. 1 & 2 January-july 2001, Lahore

    On January 25, 1948, Jinnah spoke to the Bar Association of Karachi, and said:
    “Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws? Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago.”
    “Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim, which regulates his life and conduct in even politics and economics and the like.”

    “Come forward as servants of Islam, organise the people economically, socially, educationally and politically and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody.”
    Presidential Address at the All India Muslim League, Lahore
    March 23, 1940
    “The prosperity and advancement of a nation depend upon its intelligentsia, and Muslim India is looking forward to her young generation and education classes to give a bold lead for our guidance and a brilliant record of histrorical achievements and traditions. Islam expect every Muslim to do this duty, and if we realise our responsibility time will come soon when we shall justify ourselves worthy of a glorious past.”
    December 24, 1940

    “Pakistan not only means freedom and independce but the Muslim Ideology which has to be preserved, which has come to us as a precious gift and treasure and which, we hope other will share with us”
    Message to Frontier Muslim Students Federation
    June 18, 1945

    “You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of manhood in your own native soil. With faith, discipline and selfless devotion to duty, there is nothing worthwhile that you cannot achieve.”
    Address to the officers and men of the 5th Heavy and 6th Light Regiments in Malir, Karachi
    February 21, 1948

    “We should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play.”
    Address to Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers of Pakistan Government, Karachi
    October 11, 1947

    “It is the great book Quran that is the sheet anchor of Muslim India. I am sure that, as we go on and on, there will be more and more of oneness – One God, One Book, One Qibla, One Prophet, One Nation.”

    “The Muslims of India!
    Come under one flag! Unite yourselves. The God of Muslims is one. The Prophet (Peace be upon Him) is one. The Book is one. So the platform of all the Muslims should be one also. At present the only part of the Muslims of India is the Muslim League. The 90 million Muslims of India are with you. With these words I end my speech.”

  111. Ganpat Ram

    YLH:

    Hoss has very kindly done my job for me.

    Plenty of quotations there to show Jinnah was no secularist.

    I had of course in the course of years come across most of these statements, and many others. It was sheer weariness that stopped me rounding them up for you.

    Anway, Hoss has done it and a huge thank you to him.

  112. Gorki

    Shylock:
    Most learnèd judge, a sentence! Come prepare!
    Portia:
    Tarry a little, there is something else.
    This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood;
    The words expressly are “a pound of flesh.”
    (Merchant of Venice Act 4, Scene 1)

    Dear Ganpat:

    “….If I am still a fascist simply because I also believe India is the only nation where Hinduism can have the honor of having a state, as Christianity and Islam and Buddhism do in so many countries, so be it….”

    So you wanted a state where Hindus can have ‘the honor’ of having a state (what ever that means) which it seems was absent when the Muslim population was more than the prescribed 150 million or less.

    Fair enough.

    Now consider that many a Sikh Ganpat Singh asked for the same thing in 1982-1984; ‘a state where Sikhs can have the honor of having a state, as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism do in so many countries……’
    with the very same specifications; a Sikh majority nation shorn of the excess Hindus, with the remaining Hindu minority of no more than the prescribed 13-15% ratio.

    Complete parity for all citizens requires that the Sikh too gets what the Hindu gets; if it is the elusive ‘honor’ he gets, then let others too ask for and get the same honor.
    Then where is that Sikh ‘honor’ state?

    Conversely if you say that:
    “There is no way India – whether a Hindu state or not – can allow secession from India provided it allows normal democratic rights within India”

    Then what extra pound of flesh does a Hindu Ganpat Ram want that can assuage his ‘honor’ that he does not now have within the democratic India of 2010?

    Regards.

  113. Ganpat Ram

    Gorki:

    As always you have a point.

    The world is not very equitable to the smaller peoples.

    Not everyone can have a state, in practice.

    The Hindus will not allow the Sikhs their state, and I would defend this stand, provided the Sikhs are allowed full democratic rights within India.

  114. Gorki

    Gnpat:

    “The world is not very equitable to the smaller peoples. Not everyone can have a state, in practice. The Hindus will not allow the Sikhs their state, and I would defend this stand, provided the Sikhs are allowed full democratic rights within India”

    Ah that. I see; now this is your defense!

    Wasn’t it something similar to the above that your friend Slobodan Milosevic said before he plunged the Balkans into its freshest wars?
    We all know how well that turned out…

    Besides how small is small?

    The Sikhs population in Punjab is close to 20 million. Compared to it the population of Israel is 7 million. The population of Serbia in 1914 was even smaller when it plunged Europe into a godforsaken war for a similarly elusive ‘Slav honor’.

    Neither are the size and the clout of the mother country any guarantee against secession once nationalistic passions are aroused.
    Most of the ex-Soviet era states have populations smaller than Indian Punjab.
    Soviet Georgia is smaller than Punjab and it stood up recently to the Russians.

    And then you wrote: “The Hindus will not allow the Sikhs their state….”

    Now make up your mind; wasn’t it you who pointed out how the Hindus were but weaklings, unable to compare up to the Pakistani Punjabis and the Sikhs are such broad shouldered etc. etc….

    Anyway do you really want to use your original argument (too bad life is not fair, we will use force) as your first and last defense?

    Then how certain are you that in the future things will not get unfavorable to the Hindu Indian state of your dreams and a Khalistani state made up of millions of sullen Sikhs and supported by an external power will not break away? 😉

    If you are now having bad dreams; then I have done my job; but relax, I only wanted your attention; it is not happening.

    It is not going to happen because unlike the Austria-Hungary of 1914, India is not an empire and unlike the Soviet Union it is not a repressive dictatorship. And thankfully unlike the post Tito Yugoslavia, there is no hyper nationalist demagogue in India (not in power anyway) rousing the dominant community in the name of an elusive ‘honor’ to ride roughshod over the feelings of the minority communities.

    Thanks to the document that Luq showed you the other day; India is my country out of my free choice and my Indianness does not diminish my Sikh identity; and thanks also to that same document, neither I nor any other Indian needs your or your community’s permission to say so.

    Regards.

  115. Luq

    > believe in democracy, free elections, very
    >far-reaching free speech (including the free right
    >to ridicule any and all religions), respect for the
    >rights and dignity of women and minorities, a
    >tendency to favour egalitarian economic policies…..

    Self certification. Gets rejected on preliminary audit.

    Manslayoo?

    Luq

  116. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ganpat mian,

    Are you mentally alright sir?

    For example now you have invented Nehru’s complaint that “Jinnah lost his cool easily”. I challenge you to produce anything from Nehru’s works, letters, speeches which claims that.

    The problem with you is that you make up stories as you go along. For example Gandhi was for a religiously neutral state because he supported the Khilafat but Jinnah fighting for Tilak – the Hindu leader- against British sedition charge is not indicative of anything.

    You are not just a Hindu fascist bigot my friend but coupled with that you are entirely incapable of any sound reasoning.

    Read Ian Bryant Wells’ “Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity”…you’ll learn a few things especially how Jinnah repeatedly overruled religion and his community in reforming legislation.

    But then books is not your forte is it?

  117. Majumdar

    HP saeen,

    Re: March 27, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Well, these must be some of the most daft speeches made in his life by the Qaid, but you missed the most unfortunate one made in Islamia College, Peshawar in 1946.

    “Pakistan will be a laboratory of Islam” or something like that.

    Looks like people of that region have taken this advice very seriously and incidentally so has Zee sb who is an alumni of this very same college.

    Regards

  118. Majumdar

    I wish Ganpat bhai wud (like me) stop at observing that Partition was a fortunate accident for Hindus and Pak/BD Muslims like. It is when he goes beyond that that he muddies the waters.

    Regards

  119. yasserlatifhamdani

    Hoss mian has now taken to re-packaging posts by jamaat e islami wallah comrades of his.

    No one has denied that Jinnah appealed to Islamic principles – always in a positive but ambiguous way- to unite behind himself the diverse group of masses but Jinnah’s secularism is in his refusal to allow religion to become part of any resolution. Not once was Pakistan committed by Jinnah or the League to an Islamic polity officially or by resolution. Not one single resolution of the AIML or PCA exists committing League or Pakistan to sharia or Islam or laboratory of Islam. What Jinnah said in islamia college has no legal value especially when one reads Cunningham’s memo to Jinnah in September 1947. If Bacha Khan and Faqir of Ipi could declare that Pakistan is a non-muslim country run by secularists and try and revolt against it …jinnah itna bhee naa karta?

    I find this kind of selective quoting out of context to be the hallmark of those without any real argument. I can probably produce three times as many quotes from Kemal Ataturk during the war of independence which would make him look like a Jehadi. Does that mean Kemal Ataturk was not secular?

    Jinnah’s appeals to Islam were ambiguous and an attempt to unify and often an attempt to face off Congress propaganda and the propaganda of its Mullah allies. You had the “progressive” and “secular” Bacha Khan complaining about non-purdah women in politics and yet Jinnah is the bad guy for having tried to convince his people that modernity, democracy, equality and freedom were perfectly Islamic.

    Hoss mian and other right wing islamo-fascists who opposed the creation of Pakistan are now claiming on the basis of these selective statements that Jinnah did not want a secular country. Shame on Hoss’ party ie jamaat e islami and his benefactors the right wing military establishment.

  120. Majumdar

    Yasser Pai,

    My belief is that had MAJ been a Hindu or India a Muslim majority country he wud have never made these kind of speeches, conversely if JLN had been a Muslim or India a Hindu minority country, he wud invoked similar sentiments.

    Nonetheless, I say MAJ’s speeches post independence such as SBP and Karachi Bar Association were rather avoidable.

    Regards

  121. yasserlatifhamdani

    Hamza Alavi took the wind out Hoss types. It is a must read.

    The problem is that we are stuck between two poorly educated people from both sides.

    The State Bank of Pakistan speech was perfectly alright. So was the Karachi Bar one. Ofcourse Hoss and other Islamist Mullahs love to misquote it.

  122. yasserlatifhamdani

    Btw Nusrat Pasha’s views are confirmed by all major historians studying Jinnah’s life and partition.

    It is an irony that while even India has re-opened the Jinnah question, some of our own keep re-packaging bankrupt views about Jinnah.

  123. AZW

    Ganpat, Hoss:

    On the contrary, if this is what your selective quotes were able to find the Islamicness of Jinnah, you are missing three important points:

    1) Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan always had religion as an influence of the future Pakistan republic. It was going to be a Muslim democratic state. Jinnah was absolutely clear that religion was never going to be the backbone of the new country. He had clearly told Raja Mahmudabad that Pakistan would not be an Islamic state but a liberal democratic Muslim republic. Jinnah was unequivocal in one respect that you forgot to quote here in trying to paint him as a communal bigot. Jinnah unquivocally said that Pakistan would not be a throcratic state.

    2) Second, I find it naive to expect that religion would never have been raised in political rallies when the struggle is for Muslim nationhood. There are two factors at play here: religion is part of the Muslim nationhood and the religion was used in Jinnah’s speeches to create communication with his audiences. What are you going to talk to a Muslim Bengali or a Muslim pathan/i> that resonates with both. Jinnah invoked Islam in his speeches, but there is no where he ever state that Pakistan would be an Islamic state ruled by Sharia. This is remarkable; first for the fact that the distinction between a Muslim majority nation state and a theocratic state is not even clear to the masses today. And this guy managed rally the Muslims under an umbrella of a Muslim party, and yet is still remembered as the secular leader by all of his contemporaries. Unfortunately the right wing media led commentators have tried their best to squeeze as much Islamicness out of Jinnah as they could. But clearest of Jinnah’s message has been a rejection of theocracy on top of the state that was not even born.

    3) Jinnah was never a avowed irreligious secular in the secular sense that we like to attribute to him sitting in 2010. His liberal Muslim democratic state encompassed Muslims living in the majority Muslim state, and practicing their lives as Muslims. he freely talked about Quran and Sunnah as the guiding light and an inspiration. But never he stated that Quran and Sunnah would be the law of the land. The problem is when we assume that Pakistan was never going to be a theocratic state, we assume that it will be an ideal form of a secular state based on our definition where religion has no say and no religion matters. Now consider Jinnah’s vision that comes across:

    a) He wanted Muslims to live freely as Muslims in their homeland, but minorities were not to be differentiated due to their religious affiliations. they were to be as Pakistanis as the Muslims.

    b) He wanted to have Quran and Sunnah as guiding principles and his idea of Islamic justice and socialism included equal rights for all irrespective of their faith. Equal rights for minorities were mentioned clearly by Jinnah.

    c) His actions after the creation of Pakistan showed the insignificance of someone’s faith when it came to state responsibilities

    This is pretty darn secular in our books, except it was enacted by the very person called communal religio-bigot by the experts here. Interestingly, every one of his contemporaries recognized his secular credentials. The most vocal of these observers were ironically the religious parties whose leaders clearly saw that the new Muslim republic was a Muslim democratic republic, and not the Sharia inspired state that they dreamed of. Moudoudi, Islahi called Pakistan a devil’s creation not because Jinnah was a Sharia toting leader hell bent upon getting a state to make it a fortress of Islam. Non-Muslim Assembly members rendered speeches in 1949 voicing that had Jinnah being around, there would have been a zero chance of introducing the Objectives Resolution. Now we are quoting Jinnah’s scattered references to Islamic ideals in hundreds of speeches to make a non-secular leader out of him.

    And I haven’t even got to the Aug 11 speech yet.

    You are most welcome to read the Undefined Equilibrium series that I wrote back in October. Here is the second part that deals with Jinnah and the role of religion in Pakistan. You may want to read Part 4 as well that extensively quotes Seervai (I hadn’t read Jaswant Singh by that time) to show how Congress was primarily responsible for the partition.

    https://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/the-undefined-equilibrium-between-pakistan-and-islam-part-2-our-founding-fathers-vision/

  124. hoss

    Dr. Hoodbhoy writing in Dawn, said it so well,”Pakistan’s genesis explains the disunity. Created as the Boolean negative of India – NOT India – there was little thought to how the new country might accommodate diversity. It did not help that its founder died just a year later. Mr. Jinnah’s plans were ambiguously stated and he left behind no substantive writings. His speeches, often driven by the exigencies of the moment, are freely cherry-picked today. Some find there a liberal and secular voice, others an articulation of Islamic values. The confusion is irresolvable.”

    “I can probably produce three times as many quotes from Kemal Ataturk during the war of independence which would make him look like a Jehadi. ”

    Produce Now!
    There was nothing secular and consistent about Jinnah. Just another Bhutto!

    “What Jinnah said in islamia college has no legal value ”

    Legal Value! heheh….

  125. Luq

    Selective amnesia is hard to cultivate for people like you, but it comes easy to some, who, are out to character assassinate someone.

    Luq

  126. Luq

    with corrections……….
    @Adnann
    Selective amnesia is hard to cultivate for people like you, but it comes easy to some, who, are out to character assassinate someone.

    Luq

  127. hoss

    Dada,
    PTH does not have enough space to load Jinnah’s speeches full of religious symbolism and imagery. As Dr.PH implied, he was intellectual lightweight, Bhutto at least was able to articulate his political thoughts in several books, Jinnah could not even do that. He was a good politician and used every trick in his bag to get what he wanted but attributing secularism, etc. to him is just a stretch and nothing else.

  128. yasserlatifhamdani

    Hoss,

    Adnann has already demolished your stupid comments for everyone’s benefit and nothing more I can add to it without personalizing my comments against you. So I won’t answer on that count.

    Andrew Mango’s famous book on Ataturk actually documents rather well just how close Ataturk played his cards to the chest.
    He was found giving Khutbas like

    “Islam is the most rational religion and way of life. We should learn about our faith. It is not inconsistent with reason and progress”.

    And

    “We shall fight down to the last man as Muslim and Turk”.

    These are two examples. Stay tuned here when I grab the book from my library today and thoroughly disabuse you of your childish ignorant notions.

  129. Majumdar

    Adnan bhai,

    Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan always had religion as an influence of the future Pakistan republic. It was going to be a Muslim democratic state.

    If that is the case, maybe I was a trifle hasty in casting poor Ganpat bhai as a Hindooo fascist just ‘cos he wanted a Hindu state in India!!!

    Regards

  130. yasserlatifhamdani

    But maj that is just plain wrong.

    The kind of Muslim majority democratic state Jinnah envisaged is the kind of Hindu majority democratic state India is.

    I asked Ganpat mian what he meant by Hindu state and the picture he drew was very similar to Pakistan’s 1973 constitution.

  131. Majumdar

    I suggest Ganpat bhai write down what exactly he means by a “Hindu” state. I wud of course be hostile to any such idea except in a purely demographic sense.

    Regards

  132. AZW

    Absolutely not Majumdar. Ganpat’s idea is to impose Hindu majority state. He likes minority becoming more minority. Jinnah’s platform is to save the major minority from what he perceived as major majority heavy handedness. Gorki’s example of Sikh self rule is more akin to where Jinnah was 65 years ago. All of Ganpat’s statements show that more than half of Muslims leaving India was an excellent idea, because Muslims are bad. Too bad he is still stuck with 150MM Muslims that he has no clue what to do with. Jinnah wanted a Muslim majority republic and had never even uttered that non Muslims should leave the new republic. He spoke of a new nation where everyone was Pakistani first and foremost.

    Majumdar: I have seen you speak for more than one year on PTH. You are most welcome to question rationale for Pakistan, or call Jinnah wrong (trust me, we have never treated Jinnah as an infallible saint here). But I don’t expect that you will back an empty Ganpat just because you feel backing a lot of emptiness that comes from him. Ganpat will remain what he is, and he is adept at fooling himself. But you are way better than that.

  133. Majumdar

    Adnan bhai,

    You are most welcome to question rationale for Pakistan, or call Jinnah wrong

    I have never questioned either the rationale for Pakistan or called Jinnah wrong (except perhaps on the Princely States issue)

    Regards

  134. yasserlatifhamdani

    Andrew Mango writes on Kemal Ataturk:

    “Mustafa Kemal still hoped to include Islam in his design….”Everybody has a religion even the person who denies having one. As for islam it is the most natural and reasonable of all religions and it enjoins on every the pursuit of knowledge. Religious education should become part of a general curriculum, which would be followed by men and women together. This was infact the practice in many European states which had an established religion.

    When he pursued his tour of Anatolia by going to Balikesir on 7 February, he took the unusual step of preaching a sermon in the main mosque. He started with the pious invocation, ‘God is one and great is his glory!”. He then developed the argument of Islamic modernists. Islam was the perfect religion, because it was in conformity with reason and truth. Mosques were not only for worship, but should also serve as a venue for discussion of secular affairs. Kazim Karabekir who was present in the mosque was to claim later that Mustafa Kemal’s sermon was inspired by his ambition to become Caliph and Sultan. According to Karabekir, it was only when this hope was disappointed that kemal turned against religion. This accusation is inconsisten with evidence…moreover his attempts to enlist religious feeling in the Turkish National cause continued for sometime after the military victory. At the very least he wanted to persuade his people that modern civilization and Islam were compatible.

    Page 374-375. “Ataturk”.

    So compulsory religious education, mosque as center of islamic life, islam as the most rational religion … Etc … By hoss’ logic Kemal Ataturk was not secular either.

    But actually Ataturk realized that in order for his people to accept certain principles he would have to appeal to Islam. This is what Jinnah did as well far more rarely than Ataturk. Anyone who has read Ataturk’s speeches from 1915 to 1927 will know what I am talking about. Ataturk’s republic actually had Islam as the state religion till 1928. Jinnah never even introduced a state religion.

    The truth is that as leaders of a multitude of Muslim people Ataturk and Jinnah had to appeal to universality of Islam. But that cannot mean a whitewashing of history by confused halfwits like the Islamists who after having opposed Pakistan as a kemalist project now claim it was founded in the name of Islam.

  135. Ganpat Ram

    YASSER AND EVERYBODY:

    Hoss and I seem to have moved the discussion on to more sensible territory. True, some still indulge in petty gibes, hurting their own dignity.

    The comparison of Jinnah with Mustafa Kemal is interesting.

    One cannot blame either for invoking Islam very strongly to appeal to their people. Being secular in an Islamic society is no easy thing, and if really consistently practised by a politician in any polity dependent on mass opinion, will simply lead to isolation.

    So both Jinnah and Kemal roused their people with the cries of Islam.

    Fair enough.

    In Kemal’s case we know he did all he could to break the Turkish state from an Islamic allegiance.

    Would Jinnah have done the same? It is impossible to be sure because his rule was so short.

    But the continued respectful remarks about the political role of Islam seem to indicate Jinnah was aiming at a “soft” Islamic state, with many modern elements, a limited role for mullahs and some attempt to give minorities a voice. All of which is certainly a step toward secularism in the Pakistani context and better than the Zia Ul Haqs.

    That is the fairest one can say.

    So, good luck to those trying to make Islam tolerant. They have their work cut out.

    As for India, it has been very fortunate. The biggest part of the problem has gone across the border, thanks to Nehru’s wise decision to accept Partition. Indian being better off with a smaller Muslim population is Nehru’s decision. As he said “….Let us build a strong India. And if others do not want to be in it, how can we and why should we compel them?”

    Pakistan can hardly be blamed even for the export of terrorism to India. The hard question has to be asked: since Pakistan has been doing this since the 1980s, how come India has not taken tough action to curb the Pakistanis? So it is the fault of Indian negligence and cowardice.

  136. yasserlatifhamdani

    Jinnah’s vision was quite clear:

    1. Equality of citizenship for all citizens.

    2. Sovereignty resting with the people.

    3. State’s impartiality to citizen’s personal faith.

    4. Freedom of religion and expression for all citizens.

    5. Not to be run by priests with a divine mission.

    You may call it “soft islamic state”…like adnann said we consider it pretty darn secular. And besides Jinnah described on several occasions Turkey as the ideal Muslim state and example for Muslim India.

  137. Ganpat Ram

    Incidentally, does Yasser’s secularism for Pakistan include the right to ridicule very sharply any and ALL religions, including Islam?

    Would JINNAH accept that right, Yasser?

    It is crucial to any modern Western idea of secularism.

    Just curious.

    Because my position as a supposed Hindu “fascist” IS that India must give such a right, whether it is a Hindu state or not.

  138. Ganpat Ram

    Would Mr Jinnah have been happy to allow “The Satanic Verses” to be published in Pakistan? The famous Danish cartoons ?

    Just curious.

  139. yasserlatifhamdani

    Yes. And Yes.

    As an indian parliamentarian, Jinnah was the one legislator who cautioned against misuse of the British Indian blasphemy law suggesting that it would clamp down on academic freedom.

    May I also remind you that Pakistan even post Zia banned Satanic Verses AFTER Indian government banned it first.

  140. yasserlatifhamdani

    Also may I suggest that criticism of Islam was quite common place in Pakistan till about the late 1970s. Ofcourse we are distinguishing between deliberate attempts to offend emotional sections of society and genuine academic criticisms of Islam from a secular perspective.

  141. Ganpat Ram

    YASSER:

    I appreciate your point that the Indian state banned “Satanic Verses” first. However, they did this to appease Muslim opinion.

    Your acceptance of the right in any civilised state, let alone a secular one, to ridicule and condemn any religion, is welcome. Still, it seems qualified. In modern liberal thinking, the right to OFFEND is the heart of any right of free expression. If we allow “emotional sections of society” to have the final say in this critical matter, we will be condemned to religious servitude.

    As Marx so rightly said: “Criticism of religion is the basis of all criticism”. Real freedom is when a Voltaire can say of religion: “Wipe out the infamous thing!”

    As a Hindu “fascist” I have no problem idolising a Voltaire, a Marx or defending Rushdie or M F Husain.

    I am not convinced Jinnah was really the rough-and-tough liberal you portray him as. To me his liberalism seems welcome in the harsh Islamic context, but qualified.

  142. Ganpat Ram

    It was not so much that Jinnah was not liberal. He knew Islam was not, and he had to live with that.

  143. yasserlatifhamdani

    Well Mr Ram,

    I’ll come to your second post in a minute.

    May I suggest that Jinnah’s liberalism doesn’t require your assent or that of Hoss.

    That he was inspired by John Morley enough to recommend his “on compromise” to his Muslim audiences at the hey day of Pakistan movement or that he was a member of the Fabian Society in England as late as 1930s or that his views on women’s empowerment and constitutional equality mirrored those of the most liberal of European statesmen are undisputed facts of history. You should pick up perhaps Ian Bryant Wells’ excellent book or Dr. Ajeet’s Secular and nationalist Jinnah…you’ll realize some fundamental truths..

    It is very easy to pick and choose words out of context …but your second post captures the essence of the issue. Jinnah believed that with time and constitutional evolution, people would become more secular in Pakistan …once the Muslims were faced with issues such as commerce, economy and other specifically Hindu professions till then.

  144. Ganpat Ram

    YASSER:

    I believe strongly that being tolerant and secular minded is very easy for a Hindu – his “faith” is so loosely defined – but extremely tough for a Muslim.

    So any Muslim who shows tendencies toward liberalism deserves double congratulations.

    However, this very fact forces us to be realistic and cautious about the prospects of societies with large Muslim populations. They are likely to be condemned to severe communal tensions and calls for the restriction of debate and free speech.

    Which is why I so strongly endorse Nehru’s acceptance of Partition. It was the only chance for any kind of liberal India.

    A non-partitioned India would have been a hostage to its very large illiberal Muslim component. As a matter of fact even today’s India is disturbingly so, as proved by the “Satanic Verses” ban. But a non-partitioned India would have been far less liberal even than today’s India.

    So throwing out the CMP was also a blow struck to save free speech.

  145. yasserlatifhamdani

    I don’t agree with your conclusion about CMP but note your description of large Muslim population a compelling argument. CMP however was a midway solution between an acrid partition and the prospect you raise.

    There are only two scenarios that could have emerged:

    1. Emergence of post- Muslim post-Hindu identity by choice.

    Or

    2. Great homogenization of sub-federations A, B and C.

    Both scenarios would have solved the Hindu-Muslim problem in a fundamental way.

  146. yasserlatifhamdani

    Erratum “greater”

  147. Ganpat Ram

    YASSER

    We have made progress in understanding each other I think. Differences remain, but they are respectable ones.

    As I said: civil debate is the key to clarifying issues. After calm argument, even the differences that remain will probably prove fewer than if one takes the “sound and fury” approach to debate. The latter just confuses everything.

  148. Nusrat Pasha

    @hoss

    Let’s dispassionately examine these quotes of Jinnah, you’ve presented:

    1:”…..foreign domination from without and Hindu domination here, particularly on our economic life…..”
    Undoubtedly, Indian Muslims had faced domination at the hands of indigenous fascist forces as well as foreign colonialism. Jinnah’s speaking out in concern for a downtrodden minority, in no way contradicts his secular philosophy. A good secularist should most certainly be pro-minority, which Jinnah was.

    2: “…..If a Hindu empire is achieved, it will mean the end of Islam in India…..”
    Jinnah, here is talking about a hypothetical Hindu theocracy. Jinnah was a pragmatist. He knew what a Hindu theocracy could mean for Muslims. Not only Muslims, moreso for the poor Shudras. Orthodox Vedic teachings require molten lead to be poured into the ears of a Shudar, whose ears may even accidentally have heard the recitation of the Vedas. Now, if this was going to be the treatment of Shudras, imagine what kindness would have been extended to Muslims.

    3: “…..Muslim India having “exhausted, without success, all efforts to find a peaceful solution of the Indian problem by compromise and constitutional means…..”
    In case you failed to notice, he’s talking about a peaceful solution by compromise and constitutional means. Which part of this proposal do you find at variance with the spirit of secular thought, peace, compromise or constitutionality?

    4: “…..It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in the strict sense of the word…..”
    This quote clearly spells out that Jinnah was treating Hinduism and Islam as “not religious” divisions. If not religious, then what? Obviously, as geo-political divisions of India and Pakistan comprising of Hindu-majority states and Muslim-majority states.

    5: “…..where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play…..”
    Jinnah has said this repeatedly. You see, he believed that if the constitution of a state could guarantee Equality, Justice and Fairplay to “all” its citizens, it would for all practical purposes, be functioning in the spirit of Islam. I’m sure you would agree with me that these 3 principles also make the spirit of all the other major religions. Thus he struck the common ground. He also wanted to impress upon the Maulvis that it was more important to imbibe the “spirit of Islamic teachings” rather than the apparent tenor. For a person confronted with the daunting task of nation-building, this message could not possibly have been delivered in a more realistic way.

    It does not require an IQ of 170 to appreciate that you have a deep-seated dislike for Jinnah and the country he founded. However, may I suggest that in order to have any meaningful discussion, objectivity needs to be exercised. Tenaciously clinging on to prejudice can hamper one’s reasoning.

    Lastly, may I reiterate that the future of Pakistan, India and Bangla Desh lies ahead of them – not behind them.

    @Ganpat Ram

    “…..In modern liberal thinking, the right to OFFEND is the heart of any right of free expression…..”

    Following your logic, the fanatical clerics, whether Mullahs, Pundits, Priests or Rabbis are a bit more secular than yourself. You advocate the right to offend. they advocate the right to kill. If you continue evolving in this direction, you are sure to evolve into a religious cleric.

    Farewell.

  149. AZW

    We have made progress in understanding each other I think. Differences remain, but they are respectable ones.

    As I said: civil debate is the key to clarifying issues. After calm argument, even the differences that remain will probably prove fewer than if one takes the “sound and fury” approach to debate. The latter just confuses everything

    I have seen you here for a few weeks now. And trust me, you have made no improvement. You are the only one in fooling yourself of your innate hatred for a class of humans. Your idea being Muslims fundamentally bad (and therefore needs to be double congratulated for being liberal, among many of your gems) is exactly equal to the ideas of resident Islamic extremists who regularly visit this site. Their idea for Pakistan is what your idea for India is. Their treatment of minorities is not different from what you believe appropriate for Muslims in a Hindu state. These Islamic extremists are as happy to see minorities leave Pakistan as you are to see Muslims leave India.

    You try to decieve all by sugar coating your words about Muslims, their valour or customs or their genes. All of us here don’t give an iota of credence to genetic (or otherwise) superiority of any race, religion or customs. I have met the best of Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Sikhs in my life and I have met worst of humans in all of these faiths as well. In the world of majority of us at PTH, the correlation of man’s superiority to his faith and beliefs is zero. We believe in equal man, whether he is in Pakistan, or India or anywhere else in this globe. And this is why you are disturbing. The rubber meets the road at some point, and I refuse to believe that your hatred will not spill over in one form or another at some point in the future. You have managed to delude yourself into a contortion of epic proportions, where you have so much convinced yourself of youthat you are the only one left who has failed to see himself.

    Enjoy your stay at PTH. You can never say we have treated you anything like what you got at Outlook India for example.

  150. Ganpat Ram

    NUSRAT:

    If the maulvis etc believe in free speech I would be on their side.

    But do they?

    There’s the rub.

  151. hoss

    The claim was made, “I can probably produce three times as many quotes from Kemal Ataturk during the war of independence which would make him look like a Jehadi. ”

    To which I said bring it on…. some quotes from a book by a British non historian and his comments are produced and it is not even three times what I had quoted Jinnah in my post alone. There is still tons of material on Jinnah invoking religion and religious images time and again. Khoda paharr nikla choha.

    “He(Ataturk) wanted for Turkey a secular society of Muslims wherein the maintenance and advancement of Islam would rest upon the voluntary adherence of individual believers: nonreligious government for the religious rather than religious government, in what would inevitably be a secular state.”
    oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t236/e0083
    This is a fair and perhaps most accurate description of what Ataturk wanted for Turkey.

    Compare that with what Jinnah wanted:

    “We should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play.”
    Address to Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers of Pakistan Government, Karachi
    October 11, 1947

    “You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of manhood in your own native soil. With faith, discipline and selfless devotion to duty, there is nothing worthwhile that you cannot achieve.”
    Address to the officers and men of the 5th Heavy and 6th Light Regiments in Malir, Karachi
    February 21, 1948

    On January 25, 1948, Jinnah spoke to the Bar Association of Karachi, and said:
    “Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws? Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago.”
    “Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim, which regulates his life and conduct in even politics and economics and the like.”

    The above quotes are after the partition when Islam was obviously not in danger of Hindu India. This pretty much sums up what Jinnah’s vision about Pakistan was. He envisioned a State in his own words, for “maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of manhood in your own native soil” and “we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play.”

    There is no need for twisting and turning and making it an ontological argument. Jinnah’s words and his vision are before us in his own words.
    He even told the Bar Association what he wanted Pakistan to look like, “Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws? Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago.”

    Constitution NOT in conflict with Sharia law and Islamic principles applicable in today’s world??? Where is secularism in that? That sounds like some mullah from the bowels of Achara in Lahore!
    ——

    PS. The quote from Dr. Hoodbhoy was for AZW’s reference and let me repeat that again. That answers AZW’s longwinded post about nothing, adequately.

    ”Mr. Jinnah’s plans were ambiguously stated and he left behind no substantive writings. His speeches, often driven by the exigencies of the moment, are freely cherry-picked today. Some find there a liberal and secular voice, others an articulation of Islamic values. The confusion is irresolvable.”

  152. Ganpat Ram

    AZW:

    Cool down, Sir.

    The more cool one is, the more sensible.

    I have shaken up the stale, self-congratulatory world of the PTH, introduced new issues and perspectives, forced you to devote an entire long article to refuting my sensationally sensible thought that monotheism encourages bigotry while polytheism favours doubt and debate, even got VLH to admit there WAS something serious to be said against the Cabinet Mission Plan – it would have closed down free speech in India…….

    All these are amusing and worthwhile. Plus a flawless pastiche of Burke thrown in. I can do Bernard Shaw, T E Lawrence, Oscar Wilde, Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene and Hemingway too if you wish.

    Ganpat Ram is worth the money.

    How much more do you demand?

    What is so dreadful

  153. Ganpat Ram

    POST TO AZW (continued)

    What is so dreadful about my suggestion that huge Muslim populations would have made India unworkable? It was the thought of Nehru, no Hindu bigot by a long shot.

  154. Ganpat Ram

    AZW:

    I want everyone to enjoy my stay at the PTH.

    So just to get the fun rolling, here is a Hemingway pastiche:

    “How It Was Baked In Jinja

    It was now the rainy season. There were still the Indian shops and we were still going to them because there were no other good places to go to get the cheapest, best chapati flour. We had to get that sweet white smooth flour for our big bake-ups those Saturday mornings in the rainy season in Jinja.

    Often still we went to the Indian shops and we saw the grimy thin black porter picking up the big thigh-high over-full jute flour sack, his back ridged deep with the big straining muscles that the sweat was streaming off from, it stinking all around the stink of Indian spices and the sweetish liquorice stink of the pan chewed by the sleepy round smooth-talking Indian shopkeeper with the big fat wallet full of the big green, dirty now, smooth crinkly twenty-shilling notes, and we bought a big fat thigh-high flour sack and the black was straining to lift it and he almost didn’t make it, coughing rackingly now, the Indian lazily spitting out the pan so that the sweetish liquorice stench of it swirled round the shop, and we hated the smooth fat Indian but we needed the sweet smooth flour for the big bake-up in the late rainy-season Saturday morning with bright sunshine when the rain wasn’t falling, so we paid and went out. We said nothing nearly the whole way back and then Mike said: “He was a smooth fat Indian alright”.

    “I know”, I said, “I know. Always you should know that I, man, do know. I had noticed that he was an Indian and that he was of an uncommon fatness and it had not escaped my notice too that this Indian was very clearly of an unusual smoothness in his talking even for a very smooth-talking Indian. I had noticed all of that. Still, you know truly that now, in the rainy season, in Jinja, we need the cheap sweet smooth white flour for the big chapati bakes. Always you have known of this need, that for the kind of flour we truly need there is no replacement, and that you cannot get that from anyone but that smooth fat Indian and from the other Indians that have the dark stinking shops that line the narrow rutted street that runs all across this town that sits beside that evil-smelling dark green river that is wallowed in by hippos and that runs all the way to that sea that they call the Mediterranean, you know. There is no need to go too much into all of that. You know that we need the flour of the fat Indians and the flour of the smooth Indians and the flour of all the other kinds of combined, plain or damned Indians. Yes, yes, yes! Always you have known that it is from the Indians, always, that we have to get that which we truly need. Not to see that, Mike, – to be truly and utterly blind to this that can with a true ease be seen by almost anyone of a moderate intellectual ability – you would – to speak with a frankness not at all common between us but that seems called for to be used when you have such a position to handle as this one has gotten to be – not to see this you would (want to remember truly what it is that has to be seen? Check back above in this paragraph then.) – you would have to be of a stupidity that is not at all, ordinarily, to be found. That is to say pretty stupid, Mike.”

    “I know”, Mike agreed as, always, he, truly, after it was explained with a clearness that always took much trouble to get but that was a thing always that turned out to be truly necessary, did. We went on in silence up the street in the rain in the rainy season in Jinja. Mike was a good buddy. “

  155. Ganpat Ram

    The Jinja referred to is Jinja, Uganda. I grew up there. Ganpat Ram is a surprising man. Jinja is on the shore of the great silver Lake Victoria, the second largest freshwater lake in the world, as big as Scotland. The green river is the Nile which starts here and runs four thousand miles to Egypt. It is the longest river in the world. Jinja sits where the Nile begins.

  156. Ganpat Ram

    YLH

    You asked me to improve my English. The above piece is a humble effort to do so.

  157. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear Hoss,

    I am sorry that you are poorly educated and can’t make head or toe of clearly written English language. Your latest comment
    I just quoted one page of one book. Ataturk fought the war of independence by proclaiming Jihad and invoking Islam for over 10 years.

    The Turkish Republic he created originally had a state religion… Did Jinnah even institute a state religion?
    Ofcourse he wanted a secular state just like Jinnah did.

    It is amazing that you choose to ignore Kemal Ataturk’s direct quotes to look at what he wanted but are not willing to extend the same courtesy to Jinnah..Nusrat Pasha also showed you but you have picked up some quotes – half of them misquotes and are repeating them without any context.

    At the end of the day it matters what Jinnah clearly, conclusively as the father of the nation to the constituent assembly:

    “I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State. Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour”

    There isn’t a founding father of any nation state who has given a clearer indication of a secular state.
    In comparison Kemal Ataturk’s Turkish Republic not only had a state religion for the first five years but for the first 25 years, Turkey banned 50 different professions for Orthodox Christians and citizens of Greek origin (to bring Turks up to par). Ofcourse Kemal Ataturk secularized Turkey but it was a gradual process and for the longest time it wasn’t really secular in the western sense since a Turk – as per Treaty of Lausanne- was defined as all inhabitants of Anatolia, thrace, greece and Macedonia who were Muslims.

    Adnann already demolished your arguments but you didn’t bother to respond. The problem with you Hoss is that you are very ignorant of anything and rely on assumptions that you have concocted in your head. You are a typical washed out student leader who didn’t do that well at school and whose understanding of history is rather poor.

  158. yasserlatifhamdani

    Btw the author I have quoted and his book on Ataturk …is considered an authority on Kemal Ataturk.

    Here is another quote:

    “Mustafa Kemal and Ismet drafted a short amendment to the 1921 constitution… two further articles were added to the constitution, specifying Islam as the official religion and Turkish as the official language”
    Page 394 – “ataturk”.. woodstock and new york 1999.

    Ofcourse this was reversed 5 years later. But can Hoss point out if Jinnah even introduced a state religion… Surely he could have since he did make a big deal about Urdu as state language. How come there isn’t a single resolution making Islam the state religion during Jinnah’s government or his time as the president of the Muslim League. It is not like it wasn’t tried..it was… But Jinnah vetoed it everytime.

    The difference between Jinnah and Ataturk was the brands… Jinnah came from an anglo-saxon legal tradition … Kemal Ataturk preferred the revolutionary French secular tradition. The character of Islam in Pakistan is closer to French catholic concordat and not the anglican church. Therefore the Ataturk method would have worked better.
    But there is no question that Jinnah was as secular if not more – given that he never allowed a state religion unlike Ataturk- as Kemal Ataturk.

  159. Gorki

    “I have shaken up the stale, self-congratulatory world of the PTH, introduced new issues and perspectives, forced you to devote an entire long article to refuting my sensationally sensible thought that monotheism encourages bigotry while polytheism favours doubt and debate….”

    The above reminds me of something someone said in 1977 or 1978 about the journalist Kuldip Nayyer. That was the time in the aftermath of the emergency in India during which the Indira Gandhi govt. had suspended civil liberties, jailed the opposition and gagged the press. In the aftermath contrary to expectations, IG lost the election in a big way and many people attributed it to the mistakes committed during the emergency. Most people who were jailed got on with their lives but some of them made a huge capital of their imprisonment (which was rather gentle for the intellectuals who were mostly held in comfortable surroundings) Kuldip Nayyer was one such scribe to be jailed for a few months but unlike most he wrote copious amounts of stuff about his time in jail and then turned to some sensational writing as well; such as claiming that he knew for a fact that Sanjay Gandhi (Indira’s older son) used to beat up his mother and she was mortally afraid of him.
    Such claims were so outlandish and most people saw through them. One wag once remarked that while Indira Gandhi had indeed committed a lot of mistakes during the emergency, the worst of them by far was to arrest a ‘third rate journalist’ like Kuldip Nayyer (I am paraphrasing) and make him a hero so that now he won’t go away and tortures us daily with his commentary which comes ‘drip drip, like Chinese torture!
    I think it aptly sums up my own feelings about Indrajit Gupta and his article on the PTH about Ganpat Bhai as well. Now I think Ganpat Bhai’s head is so swollen up that even if he wanted to leave the PTH his head will not fit the door….😉

    “What is so dreadful about my suggestion that huge Muslim populations would have made India unworkable? It was the thought of Nehru, no Hindu bigot by a long shot…”

    I think Ganpat Sahib you are having a field day with the truth about Nehru’s views on the Muslims of India. First you wrote that Nehru said there was no room for Jinnah in India; an outright lie. Now you write the above.
    Do you have no shame sir?
    Nehru did not reject the CMP to drive out the Muslims!! He rejected it because right or wrong, he thought it was a dreadful idea because Nehru favored a strong center. His rejection of the CMP had nothing to do with reducing the Muslim demographics. I dare you to come up with any single piece of writing by Nehru or about Nehru which even remotely suggests that Nehru wanted a single less Mussalman in India!

    AZW has sized you up rather perfectly. Unlike us others on the PTH you see people not as people but as Hindus and Muslims and underneath your pleasant language you are still the same bigot who thinks that a Hindu belongs in India while a Muslim is an outsider!
    You are welcome to prove me wrong by denying it. Do you Ganpat Ram; believe in your heart that India belongs to the Muslims as much as to the Hindus?

  160. hoss

    Ganpat,
    I have a different take on CMP. I tend to agree with the argument that CMP perhaps was the last plan to keep India united. I also agree with the reasons for Congress refusal to accept it in total. But in my opinion, the alternative that Congress accepted–the secession or partition– was not the only alternative left for the Congress. I agree with Gandhi that the Congress while rejecting the CMP, should have also rejected the secession or partition plan too. So in a way Gandhi had a more realistic stand. He wanted to save the Indian union from secession by some provinces so he was willing to accept the consequences of the CMP to keep India united. He was also correct in refusing to accept the secession or the Pakistan plan.
    I think History would have been different if the congress had rejected the CMP and also rejected the secession plan at the same time.

    A little digression, I agree that as an Indian you have the right to not only visualize but pursue a certain political ideology or see India more a Hindu state than a secular state. However, my questions to you are: have you not learnt anything from the Pakistan experience? If you have, then why are you trying to duplicate all the mistakes that Pakistan made in developing a state in the name of religion alone?

    We in Pakistan are trying to build a new Pakistan based on secularism, liberalism, and democratic rights of all citizens, including minorities, and provinces. When we talk about secularism, liberalism and democratic rights, the establishment and it supporters throw Jinnah at us as the model of all that, which we all know he was not. This is a dual purpose effort: it tells us to stay behind the establishment because it’s following the Jinnah’s vision and Iqbal’s dream so there is no need to ask for secularism and democracy in the country. The second and the most dangerous aspect of the pro-establishment elements is that by invoking Jinnah and Iqbal they try and control the ideological space in the country and keep the discussion within the boundaries that Jinnah and Iqbal created, which in reality means denying people’s democratic rights, minority rights and the provincial rights in the name of religion and the so-called ideology of Pakistan.

    In view of the above, why do you think it would be a good idea to turn India in to a Hindu state and turn all other minorities in to second class citizens as in Pakistan? Would a Hindu state not mean an undemocratic and nonsecular state?

  161. yasserlatifhamdani

    Hoss mian,

    No I am afraid we don’t know that at all. Only you do.

    All we know is that in the balance all said and done Jinnah was the most secular and liberal leader produced by the entire Muslim world. Given that he refused to introduce a state religion unlike Ataturk’s first five years shows that Jinnah was probably more secular than Ataturk even.

    No reason to bring Iqbal in or resort to your usual pro-establishment crap.

    What is amazing is that you don’t even realize when you contradict yourself. The establishment in Pakistan says Jinnah was non-secular non-liberal like you do. And yet we are pro-establishment for pointing out that this was not the case…do you see how you’ve tied yourself in knots crook?

    You write:

    When we talk about secularism, liberalism and democratic rights, the establishment and it supporters throw Jinnah at us as the model of all that, which we all know he was not. This is a dual purpose effort: it tells us to stay behind the establishment because it’s following the Jinnah’s vision and Iqbal’s dream so there is no need to ask for secularism and democracy in the country”

    First of all who are “we”. You are an American citizen based in the US. The second is the glaring contradiction. The establishment is based on Nazaria Pakistan which as shown above Jinnah similarly to you. Third … I am not sure who you claim to talk for. When even the ANP speaks of a secular Pakistan it invokes Jinnah. When the new left party speaks of a secular pakistan it invokes Jinnah. When Palejo speaks of a secular Pakistan he invokes Jinnah…when Achakzai speaks of a secular Pakistan he invokes Jinnah..when I A Rahman speaks of a secular Pakistan he invokes Jinnah…when PPP’s minorities minister speak of minorities’ rights and equality he invokes Jinnah… When MQM speaks of a secular Pakistan it invokes Jinnah … Even Ishtiaq Ahmed who is a critic of Jinnah points out that the entire new movement for a secular and liberal Pakistan is based on Jinnah….

    So who is this “we” hoss? You and which army ? Are we to think that all these people – including ANP- invoking Jinnah are all “pro-establishment”

    Why don’t you stop concerning yourself with Pakistan’s affairs. You are COMPLETELY irrelevant. Your predictions about Pakistan’s break up fell flat on its face.

    Yes we are trying to make Pakistan a liberal democratic and secular Pakistan as envisaged by Jinnah and the Lahore Resolution… But frankly you hoss have NO role in it because you are out of touch.

    The war in Pakistan is between secular liberals and the nazaria pakistan establishment … It is the latter that subscribes to the views that you do Hoss.

  162. Ganpat Ram

    Gorki:

    On Nehru saying Jinnah had “no real place in the country”: you will find the quotation in this aricle by A G Noorani in “Frontline”:

    http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2218/stories/20050909001107800.htm

    You owe me an apology.

  163. Luq

    >The Jinja referred to is Jinja, Uganda. I grew up
    >there. Ganpat Ram is a surprising man.

    A dash of megalomania too. Convey my regards to your uncle Idi Dada …..

    Luq

  164. Ganpat Ram

    Hoss:

    You seem to misunderstand what I was trying to say.

    If I thought “Hindu” India would be an intolerant state, it would be pointless. I do not assume because a country has a state religion thoise of other religions are second-class.

    Look at the UK, for instance. Personally, I see no necessary confluct between a Hindu state in India and full liberalism. In fact I suspect it would take the wind out of the sails of the Hindu bigots. Hndusim is inherently an easy-going religion.

  165. Ganpat Ram

    Apologies for the typos.

  166. Ganpat Ram

    GORKI:

    You will find the quotation of Nehru saying Jinnah had “no real place in the country” in this article below by A G Noorani in “Frontline”.

    http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2218/stories/20050909001107800.htm

    You owe me an apology.

    No, Nehru just wanted all the Muslims in the world in India. You are right. He knew how tolerant they were. Have it your way.

  167. Luq

    Copying and pasting pages from some online novel ?

    Resorting to spamming when none of your arguments are working?

    I request the moderators to edit all this nonsense and put this moron Ganpat on spam filter.

    The evidence that he is spamming is all there right here.

    Luq

  168. hoss

    Drivel and tirade against me personally can’t distract anyone from the fact that Jinnah never wanted a secular Pakistan. His own words prove that.

  169. Ganpat Ram

    GORKI:

    See the article by A G Noorani in “Frontline” on Jinnah, including this quote:

    “Jinnah’s dream was shattered with the partition of Punjab and Bengal, and the massive killings…..He had “no real place in the country”, Nehru had declared. ”

    Of course I don’t buy Noorani’s line on Punjab and Bengal. Those Hindu and Sikh Punjabis would have had a grimmer fate even than was theirs had they fallen under Muslim rule. It would have given Pakistan much more land, but the Hindus and Sikhs woiuld have had to quit.

    I tried to cite the web link, but somehow I am being prevented. The article is “Jinnah and Partition”, August 27 -9 September 2005, “Frontline”.

  170. hoss

    Luq,
    Why should Ganpat be put on spam filter? Is he the only one cutting pasting irrelevant stuff from irrelevant books here. Why not all that are doing that be placed on spam filter.

    As long as he is using a civil language, not attacking any one personally, not abusing any religion, race or people, there is no reason for any censor.

  171. yasserlatifhamdani

    Yaar Hoss,

    Yawn. You and every Jamaat e Islami mullah holds that view. So what?

    Meanwhile all historians – except a few nazaria Pakistan ones- hold the view I do.

    The best you can do is repetively spam this board with cut and pastes from some Jamaat e islami wallah.

  172. yasserlatifhamdani

    Luq,

    Can’t do that. Fairness would demand putting Hoss on spam as well.

  173. hoss

    Ganpat,
    “Look at the UK, for instance. Personally, I see no necessary confluct between a Hindu state in India and full liberalism.”

    Your comparison with UK is unfair. There aren’t many religion based countries in the world anymore but based on the two models, Pakistan and Israel that we have, we can safely conclude that a state based on religion would lean towards restriction of benefits of democracy and would be prone to religious discrimination.
    That means less democracy and not liberal.
    Also 100% don’t rule in a democracy, some groups can hoodwink 51% some times.

  174. Luq

    >Can’t do that. Fairness would demand putting Hoss on spam as well.

    Not a bad idea though😉

    Luq

  175. Ganpat Ram

    Luq:

    Again, now is the time for some coolness.

    I was just trying to raise a smile.

    Sometime ago I did a Burke spoof which people liked, and I thought a Hemingway spoof would be welcomed.

    If not, I won’t try again.

    Just as well you told me, because I was working on an essay on Pakistan imitating the style of T E Lawrence’s “Seven Pillars of Wisdom.”

  176. yasserlatifhamdani

    Luq now brace yourself for accusations of working for the Pakistani establishment and being a shameless Punjabi😉

  177. Ganpat Ram

    Hoss:

    I am inclined to agree that talking about a Hindu state today simply causes unnecessary alarm.

    Anyway, the Hindu nationalists are not the guys to run a tolerant state.

    So I drop the idea.

  178. hoss

    So I drop the idea.

    You were never for the idea to begin with. It was a good show…..

  179. Luq

    Ganpat, yaar yeh imitate karte karte khud ek khota sikka ban ke reh gaye ho. Baat karne ka saleeka nahin, na hai tameez. Outlook se bhaga diya hei na tumhein. Chodo jaane do, ab to insaan bano.

    Luq

  180. Nusrat Pasha

    @hoss

    “…..the most dangerous aspect of the pro-establishment elements is that by invoking Jinnah and Iqbal they try and control the ideological space in the country and keep the discussion within the boundaries that Jinnah and Iqbal created…..”

    With reference to this statement, may I submit that:

    1. The imaginary duo of “Jinnah and Iqbal” is only another figment of your imagination.

    2. The Establishment and pro-Establishment circles both prefer to cling on to Iqbal. That’s where they get the “ideology” from.

    3. Pro-theocracy lobbies in Pakistan always find themselves at ease with Iqbal, and exceedingly uncomfortable with Jinnah.

    4. The only boundaries that can be attributed to Jinnah are the geographical boundaries of Pakistan – envisioned by him as a secular and forward looking Pakistan.

  181. Bin Ismail

    @Ganpat Ram

    “So I drop the idea.”

    Kee mairay qatl kay baad uss nay jafa say tauba
    Haa’ey uss zood pashaiman ka pashaiman hona

    Regards

  182. Ganpat Ram

    What perhaps has bemused me most on this website is how nostalgic many Pakistanis seem to be for an Indian connection that is gone. Or is it just some Pakistanis?

    I have been amazed by how fiercely YLH and B.Civilian defend the good ole CMP………That last hope for a united India.

    At the time India was united so many Muslim intellectuals scoffed at it. (Now, YLH, don’t immediately seize me by the throat and demand citations…..This is just my impression from years of reading around the subject.)

    Now Pakistan has been in business for more than 60 years, still many Pakistani intellectual seem to be plagued by a sense of its incompleteness, and yearn to reassociate with the very people their fathers used to scorn: the Hindus. (Again, YLH: thois is just my impression of the pre-partition Muslim intellectuals).

    I could be wrong, but I am even getting the impression that for many Pakistanis their Arab and Persian “brothers” are rather boring.

    Looks like the Ethiopian cannot quit his skin nor the leopard wash off its spots.

    It is easier to get Muslims out of India than to get India out of Muslims.

    Is Pakistan then fated to spend its days worrying about its identity and yearning for the CMP?

  183. Ganpat Ram

    GORKI:

    You challenged me to say whether Indian Muslims belong to India.

    Of course they do. Their ancestors were very likely converted Hindus. They are born in India, as were their ancestors, for uncounted generations.

    So the question does not arise.

  184. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ganpat … Like all good things this thread must now come to an end.

    Nusrat, glad to make your acquaintance. Jinnah and Mujeeb are the only two leaders in the Muslim World who didn’t declare a state religion even for a few years. Nasser another secular minded leader (and favorite of the leftists) put up islam as the official religion of Egypt I believe by formalizing the role of Al Azhar eventhough Saadat made it part of the constitution. Turkish Republic had a state religion from 1923-1928 through an amendment drafted by the great Ataturk … Iraq’s Ba’athist Regime also emphasized an exalted position for Islam.. Soekarno made Islam the state religion of Indonesia.
    I think even Tunisia had a state religion. Malaysia always had a state religion.

  185. Luq

    >You challenged me to say whether Indian Muslims
    >belong to India. Of course they do.
    >Their ancestors were very likely converted Hindus.

    I think a little re-education is required here…
    It should have read …..and even if their ancestors were not converts or non-natives. Why do you have to be mean with each and everything you say?

    Luq

  186. B. Civilian

    ganpat

    geniuses like you visit PTH every few weeks. they think they are pioneers of some kind while they repeat the same stuff, argument for so-called argument, as the genius few weeks before them. like you, they too jump up and down and don’t tire of clapping for themselves. they are more interested in repeating their 2.5 imagined arguments and read very little. they meticulously ignore all that they have no answer to, and pathetically think that anyone except themselves is taken in by their bluffs about ‘robust debate’.

    you heard of ayesha jalal using the term ‘bargaining chip’, a term originally used by lord linlithgow, and you think bargaining chip and bluff are the same thing. it is because you do not know the difference that you come up with the same old crap about pakistanis’ nostalgia for cmp etc. as did the geniuses from your school of thought before you, and no doubt there will be others.

    you were called for writing plain falsehoods about the cmp clauses. the written document is available for all to read. you quickly moved to saying that you no longer claimed such lies to be verifiable from the document itself and started talking of how for you it was not the legal document but the ‘real politics’ of the time that was critical. as far as i can tell, no one bothered to challenge you once you stopped lying about the actual clauses.

    your imagined sense of self-importance, very selective ability to read and avoiding facts and citations are part and parcel of your capacity for nonsense and ability to persist with it. the one wouldn’t have been possible without the other.

  187. Gorki

    Dear Ganpat Ram

    “So I drop the idea.”

    It is good to read this statement of yours if it indeed comes from the heart. Although reading your posts it is striking that not only can you change your writing styles at a moments notice as you claim, but also your political stand.
    For you have at one point stated that the Hindus need to learn to shoot someone; that they should ‘strike back’ if their ‘Hindu’ version of India is challenged; that Pakistan will be made to expend its energies fighting India for Kashmir and reiterated again and again that India is a ‘Hindu land.’

    Now with the above statement you want us to believe that you have had a complete change of heart?
    If so, it is a welcome change; but I must confess there is still a big credibility problem in my mind. If you want to correct that you must start by addressing the dishonesty in your previous statements.
    For example you have claimed that MAJ was easily angered and not a good listener; yet the AG Noorani article you cite pointed out that MAJ as a legislator had a stellar record and was a much sought after man for committees on account of being a good listener.
    Similarly you ascribed a statement to Nehru about MAJ implying that Nehru wanted MAJ out of India to lessen the number of Muslims in India. Read below the entire statement from which you quoted Nehru:

    “…Nehru told the Mission in private on June 10: “The Congress were going to work for a strong centre and to break the group system and they would succeed. They did not think that Mr. Jinnah had any real place in the country.” ……”

    Notice that Nehru ascribed those sentiments to the Congress Party and not his personal feelings, but more importantly he clearly states the reason for this; in order to preserve a strong center!!

    Further down in the article, Noorani writes the following:

    “….Surely, any decent biography, any honest appraisal must reckon with the entire record. No serious effort has been made to explain the change. Why did a man who wrote on March 17, 1938, that “it is the duty of every true nationalist, to whichever party or community he may belong, to help achieve a united front” against the British advocate the partition of India on March 23, 1940? Why, indeed?
    The reason is not hard to seek. Jinnah was an Indian nationalist who did not believe that nationalism meant turning one’s back on the rights of one’s community. The Congress stipulated that, virtually. Its shabby record on Muslims in the Congress bears recalling; some day Jinnah lost his balance, abandoned Indian nationalism and inflicted on both his nation and his community harm of lasting consequences. Nehru, in contrast, stood by the secular ideal till his dying day….”

    Again note that in mere two paragraphs Noorani was able to encapsulate the essential beliefs of these two stalwarts; the context of their differences; their political compulsions and also their multiple dimensions as individual personalities.

    Notice also that one is described as an Indian nationalist and the other a diehard secularist; nowhere near the ‘steeped in Hinduism’ or in ‘Islam’ caricatures that you have reduced these giants to.

    If you want to be taken seriously, you can start by acknowledging that fact that partition did NOT occur because MAJ was a communalist or that JLN wanted the Muslims out of India.

    If you want to be taken seriously, you can start by acknowledging that fact that partition did NOT occur because MAJ was a communalist or that JLN wanted the Muslims out of India because it is not true.

    I admire your attempts in trying to make amends and to be identified with Nehru’s secular politics; if so, you are more than welcome; India needs all of us.
    However it cannot be done by dragging his legacy where it does not belong.

    Your hero Nirad Babu thought Nehru was removed from reality (of Indian communalism) and characterized him as ‘India’s ineffectual angel’.
    I take the first part of his criticism as the highest tribute one can pay to any Indian and the second is completely untrue; for right or wrong; no Indian with the exception of perhaps Gautam Buddha has had as big an impact on the India that we see today as this one time Fabian socialist.

    Regards.

  188. Ganpat Ram

    B. Civilian

    If YLH will let me say so, you’re another of the angry set. Cool it.

    Rage confuses.

    When did I mention the “bargaining chip”?

    If you are not regretting the CMP, I take my statement back. I thought you were, judging by what I read of your remarks.

    I have read more about this subject than I care to list. The memoirs, the documents. I still think if unity does not exist in human minds, no document can bring them together.

  189. B. Civilian

    ganpat

    who are you trying to fool other than yourself?

    so if you can make it appear that i’m calling you dishonest because i’ve lost my cool, nobody will notice your lies?

    if you want me to stop calling you a liar, stop lying. simple. stop lying about me calling you a liar for any reason other than that you have been lying. had i lost my cool, i would have put you on spam days ago. but it makes no difference to me or any of the honest debators here whether you stop deceiving yourself or not. your lies are there for all to see, only made more conspicuous by your bluffs about ‘robust debate’ and pathetic attempts at diverting from the real issue by claiming that those you cannot answer have lost their cool with you. grow up.

  190. B. Civilian

    … and i hope i don’t have to point out to you that me calling you for your dishonesty has absolutely nothing to do with your views. all honest debators here have different views and strong disagreements. your views are totally irrelevant to your dishonesty here.

  191. Ganpat Ram

    GORKI:

    You mean well, but you have a knack of misunderstanding me.

    The more I explain, the greater your misunderstanding.

    Noorani is glamourising Jinnah way too much. He was not a religious minded chap, but he was a fervent promoter of Muslim power in India. As I have already said, I don’t blame him for this. He could not tolerate the idea of a Hindu-dominated India, which was he thought (exaggerating) the likely consequence of one-man-one vote Independence. So he sought for more and more concessions to Muslkims, and eventually even (effectively) parity with the Hindus. This Nehru and Patel and Gandhi were unwilling to give. So MAJ broke away.

    Nehru thought union with people so reluctant to unite was not worth it.

    Again, fair enough.

    Each has a legitimate point.

    I don’t blame Jinnah; but unlike Noorani I don’t blame Nehru either. Each did what was reasonable.

    As for Nehru and Hinduism, read his “Discovery of India”. It is steeped in his love of Hinduism and Buddhism. Read also one of his last injunctions to the country, “The Basic Approach”, recommending the “Vedantic ideal”. I am agnostic myself. But I notice these things.

  192. Gorki

    One advantage of debating someone with a limited number of fixed ideas is that it becomes easy as time goes by because since each rebuttal goes unanswered; once the person jumps back to the original point, the rebuttal can be simply reproduced from the copy on the computer.

    So here we go again to verify the claim whether Nehru was steeped in Hinduism or in Indianism; once again in Nehru’s own words (preceded by my brief comments as posted before on another thread where the same claim was made😉 ):

    Unless my own tattered copy of the DOI is a fake, it is my belief that while Nehru was steeped not in Hinduism but in Indian culture and he himself, took great pains to make that distinction.
    I reproduce below the relevant parts of his writing from that exact book to illustrate my point. He writes:

    ‘Hinduism as a faith, is vague, amorphous, many sided, all things to all men. It is hardly possible to define it or to say definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of the word’.

    He then goes on to say that:

    ‘It is therefore incorrect and undesirable to use the word ‘Hindu’ or Hinduism for the Indian culture, even with reference to the distant past, although the various aspects of thought, as embodied in various writings were the dominant expression of that culture. Much more it is incorrect to use those terms, in that sense, today. So long as the old faith and philosophy were chiefly a way of life and an outlook on the world, they were largely synonymous with Indian culture; but when more rigid religion developed, with all manner of ritual and ceremonial, it became something more and at the same time something much less than that composite culture. A Christian and a Moslem could, and often did, adapt himself to an Indian way of life and culture, and yet remained in faith an orthodox Christian or Moslem. He had become Indianized himself and become an Indian without changing his faith.

    Thus the correct word for Indian, as applied to country, or culture, or the historical continuity of our varying traditions, is ‘Hindi’ from Hind; a shortened form of Hindustan. Hind is still used commonly for India in countries of Western Asia, in Iran and Turkey, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and elsewhere. India has always been referred to and is still called ‘Hind’ and everywhere Indian is called a Hindi, ‘Hindi’ has nothing to do with religion, and a Moslem or a Christian is just as much a Hindi as a person who follows the religion of Hinduism.’

    (DOI, Asia publishing House, 1961, reprinted 1964; pages 7-78)

  193. Gorki

    I think I am spending far more time on this issue than I should but it is important for me to see that any attempt to hijack or dilute Nehru’s legacy of secularism by individuals of questionable aims has to be nipped in the bud; for India’s sake, so here is some more stuff about Nehru’s personal beliefs again in his own words:

    “What the mysterious is I do not know. I do not call it God because God has come to mean much that I do not believe in. I find myself incapable of thinking of a deity or an unknown supreme power in anthropomorphic terms, and the fact that many people think so is continually a source of surprise to me. Any idea of a personal God seems very odd to me. Intellectually, I can appreciate to some extent the conception of monism, and I have been attracted towards the Advaita (non dualist) philosophy of Vedanta, though I do not presume to understand it in all its depth and its intricacy, and I realize that merely an intellectual appreciation of such matters does not carry one far.
    At the same time Vedanta, as well as other similar approaches, rather frighten me with vague, formless incursions into infinity….”

    (DOI page 28; Asia publishing House, 1961, reprinted 1964)

  194. Ganpat Ram

    GORKI:

    There is no doubt that Nehru made some attempts to extricate the idea of being Indian from Hinduism. I am not disputing that. The point I was making was different: that NONETHELESS he was steeped in Hinduism. This is an aspect of him that will surprise those who think of him only as the great fountainhead of “secularism” in India.

    Take his “Discovery of India”. There he certainly formally distances the idea of India from Hinduism. But the book is soaked in Hinduism and Buddhism; I habe just counted that there are about 220 pages on these two subjects. In contrast look how Nehru treats Islam: he has a couple of pages on the “Flowering of Arab Thought”, and even those to talk a lot about the influence of Indian ideas.

    As for his “Basic Approach”, his last extensive piece of ideologising, he ends it by saying outright that the country should keep in mind the old Vedantic ideal:”….perhaps we might also keep in view the old Vedantic ideal of the life force which is the inner base of everything tht exists.”

    I don’t believe this, mind you. The point is, Nehru DID.

    His biographer Sarvepalli Gopal, well-known leftist that he was, noted Nehru’s transformation into a serious Hindu in the last part of his life. He was still an agnostic, perhaps, concluded Gopal, but a Hindu agnostic.

    His associates noted the change in him: whereas previously he would reject irritably any attempt to put sandalwood paste on his forehead when visiting temples, now he accepted it. read the third volume of the Gopal biography of Nehru.

  195. Ganpat Ram

    GORKI:

    You seem to think Hindus have no right to their beliefs, and that being secular means you have to renounce Hinduism. This is absurdly unfair.

    What makes you assume Nehru cannot be a Hindu and still be a secularist?

  196. Ganpat Ram

    GGORKI:

    I may discuss only a few ideas here as these are ones that tend to come up – unless you are fascinated with the ins and outs of Pakistani politics, unlike me.

    I am not sure I see a very huge range of ideas in your posts. The idee fixe appears to be Nehru-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-Hindus.

  197. Ganpat Ram

    I could discuss socialism; economics; Russian history; Western literature, Africa; North America; Britain; the Arab world; Latin American literature and politics; the Far East.

    All these things interest me hugely.

    But it would be called spamming here.

  198. Ganpat Ram

    GORKI:

    Has it occurred to you that if Hinduism matters so little in India, your own obsesssion to say so become a trifle comical? Why harp on what doesn’t count?

  199. yasserlatifhamdani

    Hoss mian,

    Don’t spam the board. Repeating the same cut and paste the 20th time on the same thread is a ridiculous way of arguing. May I suggest you take your business to “www.chowk.com” .

  200. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ganpat mian I am glad that you’ve begun to open your mind by reading AG Noorani, the Indian nationalist with the wrong religion.

    There is another article by A G Noorani called “Jinnah’s Secularism” …also give it a read.

    http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2213/stories/20050701004602300.htm

    The truth is that Nehru and Jinnah were both secular minded leaders (and card carrying members of Fabian Society) who stood for civilian self rule in a state impartial to the considerations of the personal faith of individual citizens. Their differences had to do with 1. their economic classes – Jinnah was middle class and Nehru from the aristocracy…hence Jinnah was steeped in in the work ethic of capitalism where as Nehru was a socialist as many privileged Indians with a heart became 2. Jinnah was the leader from the minority and Nehru was from the majority.

    So I am not sure what you are trying to prove here Ganpat…but if you want a tolerant state that doesn’t discriminate against the minorities atleast on paper then you have India today. Meanwhile we are far away from Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan… So what is that you want?

  201. Karaya

    BC,

    you heard of ayesha jalal using the term ‘bargaining chip’, a term originally used by lord linlithgow, and you think bargaining chip and bluff are the same thing.

    What is the difference between the terms ‘bargaining chip’ and ‘bluff’ in the context of Jinnah and Pakistan?

    P.S: I’m pretty much taking this sentence at face value cos i am unaware of the context, if any, of this debate you are having with the learned Mr. Ram.

  202. Gorki

    Ganpat:

    1. No body is saying that Hinduism does not matter in India.
    It matters a lot; JLN once told Andre Malraux, a French writer, in response to a question that his biggest difficulty was to create a secular State in a religious country like India.

    2. Nobody said that the Hindus do not have a right to their beliefs or a religious person can’t be secular; they do and practice that right everyday. Gandhi wore his religiosity on his sleeve and yet was secular and a respected founding father of our nation.

    3. I had to post passages from the DOI because you insisted on mischaracterizing JLN in front of a Pakistani audience as something that he was not; and falsely implied that his writings in the DOI prove that. You are not alone in this regard; lesser individuals have tried to do this to other progressive intellectuals of the time as well.
    Even as we speak, there is a controversy raging in Indian Punjab whether Bhagat Singh was a practicing Sikh or not (He wasn’t, and died an atheist)

    4. I am not interested in counting the pages of a book to decide whether the author was ‘steeped in something’ or not; I like to read them to make up my mind.

    5. Anyway, you can believe what you wish; I just put up Nehru’s own words for the rest of the readers to draw whatever conclusions they like.

    6. I am not interested in discussing other topics such as North America or economics with a person who has very faulty grasp of these subjects as demonstrated by you comment implying that the US was finished and living off its credit cards.

    You have a good day.

  203. B. Civilian

    karaya

    a bluff, of necessity, involves, conceivably quite legitimate, concealment of fact. bargaining requires no such thing. it’s a give and take. everything available for give and take is on the table.

  204. Ganpat Ram

    B. CIVILAN

    Thanks or elucidating the baffling anger about the supposed confusion of “bluff” and “bargaining chip”. From now one I wil cite it as an astonishing instance of the touchiness of the Pakistani side that made life so difficult for the Congress wallahs…..Almost ANYTHING they said could incite an utterly bewildering resentment. Eventually an incredible explanation is made.

    It’s like what happens when one is playing with children: “I wasn’t cheating ! That was not a lie, but a a PRETENCE! Totally different thing!”

  205. Ganpat Ram

    GORKI:

    So I just invite the Pakistanis to read Nehru’s “Discovery of India” and decide for themselves whther he was steeped in Hinduism or not. Just an amendment to what I said earlier: there are about 160 pages on Hinduism and Buddhism in that book, not 220 as I said earler. Nehru has about three pages on Muslim thought. One single Hindu work, the Mahabharata, takes him five pages and a half to enthuse over. You hould read with what boundless pride he celebrates it and the Ramayana. He has a chaper on “India and Iran” but it is pre-Islamic India and Iran he is dealing with..There is scarcely a sentence in thebook about all that Islamic Iran meant to Muslim India….

    Nehru is vastly excited not just by Hinduism in India, but even the Hindu-Buddhist lands of South East Asia. The mighty Hindu temple complex of Angkor Wat delights him beyond measure.

    It is important to point all this out even in India, let alone Pakistan. Because today mny Indians assume Nehru’s secularism meant disdain for the country’s Hindu heritage. They react with scorn even to the idea of teaching Sanskrit in Indian universities…..”What have we to do with all that Brahmin rubbish?” is the question. It is a moronic attitude that would have amazed and grieved Nehru who had boundless enthusiasm for Saskrit even though his knowledge of it was limited, and who of all men knew its fundamental importance in India’s culture.

    That’s what one realises: The “Pandit” really WAS a “pandit”.

  206. B. Civilian

    ganpat

    more nonsense to justify your previous nonsense! the discussants here come with a view to learning something new.

    i’ve elaborated the difference further for the benefit of the likes of you, despite knowing that there is little that the likes of you are capable of benefiting from.

    go back and answer hayyer on the other thread that you ran away from and i would call you a repentant liar. till then, you are just a liar.

  207. Ganpat Ram

    YLH:

    I hesitate to take more space.

    But you did ask me about Noorani. You underestimate me. I have read Noorani very carefully long ago. In fact, if I list all the Muslim sources on Pakistan I have read you would be surprised.

    I don’t read Noorani for nothing: he has a talent for conveying all the ins and outs of those amazingly complicated negotiations between the Congress, the British and the Muslim League.

    What I stated was that Noorani tends to play up Jinnah’s secular side, and forgets that for the Congress he was above all the man who was demanding more and more for what was after all a minority.

    Put yourself in the Hindus’ shoes: Would you concede endlessly to a minority or eventually just say: “That’s all we can offer. If it is still not enough, then yes, a different country is what you DO need. We concede the partition demand.”

    Because that was in effect what happened.

    It all goes back to Nehru’s old problem: To unite is good, but why unite with people who set so many conditions and might break away at any time leaving you with only the option you don’t want to use: war? Even if Nehru won such a war, would it be worth it? The trouble would only have broken out later again.

    Try to see the Muslim side as others see you. Unity at ALL costs is not worth it.

    As for the minorities question in India: it is the same as in every country. If you are not convinced by now I would like minorities treated decently and given freedom to say what they think, I have clearly failed in explaining myself.

  208. Bin Ismail

    @ Ganpat Ram

    1.”…..What perhaps has bemused me most on this website is how nostalgic many Pakistanis seem to be for an Indian connection that is gone. Or is it just some Pakistanis?

    I have been amazed by how fiercely YLH and B.Civilian defend the good ole CMP………That last hope for a united India…..”

    “Pragmatism” would better describe what you desirously deem as “nostalgia”. What YLH and BC defend is not the CMP – it’s Jinnah.

    2. “…..What makes you assume Nehru cannot be a Hindu and still be a secularist?…..”

    What makes you assume Jinnah cannot be a “Muslim” and still be a “secularist”?

    3. “…..Put yourself in the Hindus’ shoes…..”

    Put yourself in the Muslims’ shoes.

    Regards

  209. Bin Ismail

    @Ganpat Ram

    “I hesitate to take more space.”

    Pragmatically speaking, your hesitation will, in all likelihood, be short-lived.

    Regards.

  210. Ganpat Ram

    BIN ISMAIL:

    I actually agree with your points.

    In my debate with YLH I concluded that Jinnah is as secular perhaps as any Muslim ruler or politician with major popular support could afford to be. Given the harsh Islamic context, he was relatively liberal.

    I also point out to GORKI that from the Muslim point of view Jinnah’s decisions made sense. But I also pointed out that from the Hindu or Congress point of view, Nehru’s decisions made sense.

  211. Ganpat Ram

    BIN ISMAI:

    I do not censor Pakistani nostalgia for India, assuming it exists. It is your business. But I don’t think anyone has stated so firmly as I have that we are different countries now with different destinies.

    Countries, rightly or wrongly, are made in the end by their majority beliefs. As time goes on, Pakistan will slip more and more into the Muslim world of Arabia, Iran and Central Asia.

    The Indian connection will fade away and become a historical curiousity.

    In centuries to come the fact that Pakistan was once part of India will seem as surprising as that eastern Afghanistan too once was.

    As for India, it will slide away into its own world of Hinduism.

    Just as China began with brave talk of Communism and ended by going back to Confucius, and Russia boasted about Lenin and Communism but went back to the good ole Russian Orthodox Church.

    National traditions cannot be discarded at will, no matter what little guys at universities frothing about “secularism” may say.

    Hinduism will have her way with India. Let us see.

  212. Karaya

    BC,

    a bluff, of necessity, involves, conceivably quite legitimate, concealment of fact. bargaining requires no such thing. it’s a give and take. everything available for give and take is on the table.

    So Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan was an idea in which “everything available for give and take was on the table” and there was no “concealment of fact”.

    Ummm, okay…

  213. Ganpat Ram

    B. CIVILIAN

    So it was all a game.

    OK.

    But unfortunately, Pandit Nehru was no card player. He wanted to do something else with his life than sit around all day guessing what was or was not behind Jinnah’s bluffs or bargaining chips or whatever fancy term you think should be used.

    So Nehru said: “I’m off, MAJ. Have your Pakistan. All I want is a quiet life.”

  214. B. Civilian

    ganpat

    bargaining is part of politics. partition was the result of it. there were no games. not from the aiml.

    to repeat, i called you for your claiming something to be a clause within the cmp which was no part of it.

    since you have read all of noorani, you must have read his view of congress’ playing games as far as the cmp was concerned.

    “Either side could reject it. Conditional acceptance is tantamount to rejection. Acceptance on the basis of one’s own “interpretation” is a disingenuous form of rejection.”[Noorani] (google it)

    it would have been better for congress to reject the plan out of hand instead of playing games and attempt a “disingenuous form of rejection”.

  215. Ganpat Ram

    B. Civilian:

    You have a fair point about Congress’ ambiguous rejction of the CMP.

    My view is – I have read it somewhere – they did it like that because they were afraid an outright rejection would give the British an excuse for keeping them out of government or quitting by handing over Muslim majority provinces undivided to Jinnah..

    Congress had two enemies, not one, don’t forget. The British were never friendly to Congress except now and then with Mountbatten.

    But the broader point remains: when people have gotten into such a tangle as this, trust each other so little as this, even understand each other so poorly, its pointless takling of a united country. It’s better to have Partition.

  216. B. Civilian

    If congress’ “disingenuous form of rejection”, at odds with the British Govt’s own interpretation, did not stop the British waiting as long as it took to bring congress on board, even for appearances sake, and turning a deaf ear to aiml’s protests, what makes you think an outright and honest rejection by congress would have caused the brits to act differently?

    you can do worse than reading noorani again on cmp and cripps to disenchant yourself of the view of the brit position vis a vis congress in the post-war years of the raj.

  217. Ganpat Ram

    B. CIVILAN

    Have you read Narindra Singh Sarila’s marvellous book on Partition and the British called “The Shadow of the Great Game”?

    It shows how much hand-in-glove with the Muslim League the British were, for strategic reasons. They knew Pakistan would comprise the North-western bit of India abutting the oil-bearing Middle East, and were determined to help Jinnah as much as possible to control those areas in alliance with them.

    There is an excellent review of the book in the Times Higher Education Supplement, which I cite:

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=206022&sectioncode=5

  218. Ganpat Ram

    B. CIVILAN

    Have you read Narindra Singh Sarila’s marvellous book on Partition and the British called “The Shadow of the Great Game”?

    It shows how much hand-in-glove with the Muslim League the British were, for strategic reasons. They knew Pakistan would comprise the North-western bit of India abutting the oil-bearing Middle East, and were determined to help Jinnah as much as possible to control those areas in alliance with them.

    There is an excellent review of the book in the Times Higher Education Supplement, which I cite:

    “Realpolitik behind the bloody split
    13 October 2006

    Radhakrishnan Nayar
    The Shadow of the Great Game
    The carving of Pakistan out of British India set off ethnic killings that cost about a million lives. It eventually led to today’s dangerous nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan. The latter has also been called the “epicentre” of Islamic terrorism – the country where Islamic extremism has a vast following and where its militants have received training on a large scale, as well as the arms, money and inspiration for their attacks abroad. And Pakistan’s location as a vast Muslim country abutting the oil-bearing Middle East, Central Asia and China gives it first-rate strategic importance. Whoever set up Pakistan did something of tremendous consequence.

    What was the extent of British responsibility? Historians argue about this interminably. Some say the British caused India’s partition by fomenting Hindu-Muslim hatreds to prolong their rule in India. Others blame partition on Muslim determination and the nationalist Congress Party’s failure to concede enough to the Muslims. The idea that this book by Narendra Singh Sarila, a retired Indian diplomat who was once an aide-de-camp to Lord Mountbatten, the last British Viceroy, should throw new light on Britain’s role – as is claimed on its jacket – seemed highly unlikely. Yet the text fully justifies the claim. It is a valuable, highly readable, indeed fascinating study, that draws on recently released British documents. Sarila, who is full of rare common sense, explains things that have long been puzzling about British actions and attitudes.

    The central figure is Lord Wavell, the penultimate Viceroy. One cannot read Sarila without concluding that Wavell was the most important British personality in India in the 20th century. Many historians see him as a dour soldier, intellectually accepting that British rule was about to end yet openly contemptuous of, and aloof from, the Indian nationalists. Historians often attribute the failure of British attempts to find a way out of the Hindu-Muslim political impasse partly to Wavell’s inflexibility and inability to win Indian leaders’ goodwill. Clement Attlee’s Labour Government certainly took this view when it replaced Wavell with the infinitely more personable Mountbatten before Wavell’s term in office was over. Other writers – notably Patrick French in his account of India’s partition – see Wavell as a quiet yet sensitive man doing his best to save India’s luckless millions from mass blood-letting but stymied by intractable Indian politicians and ill-informed masters in Whitehall.

    Sarila’s Wavell is startlingly different. Rather than being limited, he was far-sighted, but in a disturbing way. He would be thoroughly at home in today’s feverish discussions of the strategic implications of Middle East events. The fate of India’s hapless millions was far from being his main concern. He was a bleak realist, embodying the central and enduring British consideration in the whole matter: ensuring that leaving India did not endanger Britain’s strategic position, especially in the Middle East and vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.

    By the early 1940s, it was clear to the British that an India under Congress would not co-operate militarily with them, but that a part of India led by the Muslim League – Pakistan – was likely to do so. And Pakistan would include the really important bit of India from the viewpoint of British strategic interests: the northwestern part that bordered the Middle East. No wonder the British and the Muslim League forged such a durable alliance in the transfer of power negotiations. No other historian, as far as I know, has analysed the partition thoroughly from this perspective, whose importance is so obvious once it is pointed out. The centrality of the strategic motive is no mere speculation; Sarila validates it powerfully with quotations from British documents.

    This way of looking explains some key British attitudes. Sarila may be going too far in suggesting that the British were consciously insincere in their claims to be seeking Indian unity. It may have been a severe case of divided purpose. Yet the facts are troubling. Why, for instance, should Wavell have been so adamant that only the Muslim League should represent the Muslims at the 1945 Simla Conference, when the league’s support among Muslims was less than overwhelming? Such favouritism, protested against by the Governor of the Punjab, helped the league to eclipse its Muslim rivals, as Sarila points out. Again, Wavell kept warning London not to disregard Muslim separatism because the Muslim population was so big that this would cause terrible disorders. However, his own director of intelligence, as well as the Governor of the Punjab, had made it clear that a partition would bring enormous bloodshed.

    Yet the British are by no means the only culprits. Sarila is harsh on the Congress leaders, particularly Gandhi, whose deadly bungling bears as much blame for the partition as anything else. Gandhi’s reckless 1942 “Quit India” campaign, a seriously disruptive rising against the British when they were fighting desperately to prevent a Japanese invasion of India, is a case in point. No wonder the British took such a grim view of the Congress after 1942. Damningly, no Congress Party leader tried to sound out the strategic concerns of the British and assure them that these would be protected in a united, Congress-led India.

    Britain had its reward. For several decades, Pakistan became a crucial anti-Soviet ally of the West. But now it is perhaps America’s and Britain’s worst strategic nightmare, a place from which terrorism and nuclear weapons technology are exported, and closely allied with the chief future rival of the West: China. Perhaps it would have been wiser, when leaving a century-and-a-half-old empire, to think more about its inhabitants’ fate than Middle Eastern strategy.

    Radhakrishnan Nayar is a writer on international affairs.

    The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India’s Partition

    Author – Narendra Singh Sarila
    Publisher – Constable
    Pages – 432
    Price – £20.00
    ISBN – 1 84529 370 3″

  219. Ganpat Ram

    I apologise for taking up too much space.

    I’ll quit this thread.

  220. Bin Ismail

    @Ganpat Ram

    “Hinduism will have her way with India. Let us see.”

    Haven’t we already seen it all. I think Hinduism has already had her way with India.