Pervez Musharraf Ko Peace Do

``it would mean equal say of Muslim Majority areas and Hindu majority areas ``

But why even stipulate that? Why qualify with the religion?
What would have happened to Northeast of India when it it would have had majority
Chirstians (the way it has right now)? How about Sikhs, they were neither Hindus
nor Muslims!
Why get tangled up so much into religion? Why not just humans, man/woman?

Dear Shishapa...

On the basis of the Cabinet Mission Plan ... which was after all the brainchild of Congress` own Maulana Azad and which was accepted by Jinnah.

I think you are mistaken when you suggest that CMP would mean equal say of the Muslims... it would mean equal say of Muslim Majority areas and Hindu majority areas (meaning ofcourse that non-Muslims from Pakistan provinces would also be represented from its share at the centre). If you do the arithmetic... it came to 35% representation for roughly 25% to 30% Muslims of South Asia. Thus the principle of one-man one-vote was pretty much intact ...

Like I pointed out before... it was either a federation of United India with neither Hindu nor Muslim domination... or two states one Hindu dominated and the other Muslim dominated... the decision was made when Nehru, on the egging of Gandhi, rejected the CMP.

Now coming to the other part of your question- If you ask me ... I believe a consociationalist arrangement of the sort that Cabinet Mission Plan suggested should become part of Pakistan`s system and while there being no areas in Pakistan with a Muslim majority , I believe constitutional safeguards should be made whereby minorities should have a greater than normal say in Pakistan`s affairs... thereby providing the minorities of Pakistan affirmative action- I believe this process should continue for the next 50 years... this is what I suspect Jinnah was doing when he appointed a Hindu law minister....

-YLH

There is absolutely no doubt that Ambedkar hated Gandhi the most.
(Quite understandable, as Gandhi was his direct competitor for the dalit constituency)

Re # 529

``BTW two nation theory did not say that Muslims and Hindus could not live together but that they should have equal share in government. ``

Why? On what basis? Do Hindus have equal share in Pakistan? Why does not
two nation theory now apply in current Pakistan? Why only in United India?
Did two nation theory mandate that if Muslims and Hindus do not have equal share in the
government, they should reside separately, in separate enclaves, ruling only themselves?

Are you saying one hindu vote was less than one muslim vote?

This discussion has veered off from the original subject but here is a relevant article...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1374350.cms


`In Musharraf, we have an illegitimate leader`
Rahul Chandawarkar


Imran Khan, former Pakistan cricket captain and presently, a member of parliament in Pakistan, has always been known for his outspokenness. Khan tells Rahul Chandawarkar that General Musharraf`s days are numbered and that democracy will resurface in Pakistan:

Why do you think that the General`s days are numbered?

History shows that military dictators do not leave peacefully. Either there is a public movement against them or there is an accident. We in the opposition had planned a countrywide agitation against Musharraf.

But the quake happened and the matter has been kept in abeyance. If the combined opposition does launch a movement against him, it will be difficult for him to stay the course.
...
...
What is the state of Pakistan politics today?

Simple. There is no substitute for democracy. Elections do not mean democracy. Saddam had elections, Mubarak had elections and Musharraf has had them. What you need is an independent judiciary and an independent election commissioner.

Sadly, we do not have these in Pakistan. Even the civilian governments who worked for 11 years did not allow these two agencies to function independently. This stunted the growth of local leadership.

What do you expect in the 2007 elections?

The nation`s collective wisdom has grown. The people have learnt from their past mistakes and are willing to move forward. The independent television channels have worked wonders.
...
...
Regular political debates being beamed across the country have transformed public opinion. Musharraf has also played his part. He has not only discredited the army but has exposed the political mafia and himself.

Why are you so hopeful?

Let me give an example. The 2002 elections were controlled elections. However, the Pashtun people from the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), the most politically aware and free ethnic group in Pakistan, created a revolution through the ballot.

They voted en bloc for the MMM party, defeated Musharraf`s candidates and caught the secret agencies by surprise. This magic can spread in the 2007 elections and the winner could be a coalition that represents change.
...
...
Do you think India and Pakistan can resolve their political differences through an active exchange of sports, trade and culture?

I would love to think so. However, our past 15 years of start and stop relationship does not suggest this. It is clear that the two countries have to resolve the Kashmir issue first.

Today, all you need is a major incident in Kashmir and all the tensions come out in the open again.

The hardliners on both sides get back to action once again. To make matters worse, there is no strong leadership on both sides. In Musharraf, we have an illegitimate leader.

Puyu... Absolutely- I acknowledge it. Please see post 545 again to see the issues at hand.


--

Some Views on Jinnah.


H V Hodson writes in his book:

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


Dr Ambedkar`s view :

It is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah.... Indeed Mr. Jinnah is the one person who had all the chances of success on his side if he had tried to form such a united non-communal party. He has the ability to organize. He had the reputation of a nationalist. Even many Hindus who were opposed to the Congress would have flocked to him if he had only sent out a call for a united party of like-minded Hindus and Muslims. What did Mr. Jinnah do ? In 1937 Mr. Jinnah made his entry into Muslim politics and strangely enough he regenerated the Muslim League which was dying and decaying and of which only a few years ago he would have been glad to witness the funeral. However regrettable the starting of such a communal political party may have been, there was in it one relieving feature. That was the leadership of Mr. Jinnah. Everybody felt that with the leadership of Mr. Jinnah the League could never become a merely communal party. The resolutions passed by the League during the first two years of its new career indicated that it would develop into a mixed political party of Hindus and Muslims.

(Pakistan or Partition of India)


Nelson Mandela:

`Ali Jinnah is a constant source of inspiration for all those who are fighting against racial or group discrimination.` (Nelson Mandela had come to Islamabad in 1995 and had insisted on including Karachi as a destination to visit Jinnah`s Grave and his house in Karachi where upon reaching he drove straight to the Quaid`s Mazar)


Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (not that his patronisation counts much) said famously:

``Jinnah is incorruptible and brave``


M C Rajah, the leader of the scheduled castes and made this comment on Christmas Day 1940:

``All religions hold that God sends suitable people into the world to work out his plans from time to time and at critical junctures. I regard Mr Jinnah as the man who has been called upon to correct the wrong ways in which the people of India have been led by the leadership of Mr Gandhi. Congress took a wrong turn when it adopted wholesale the non cooperation programme of Mr Gandhi and assumed an attitude of open hostility towards Britain and tried to infusew the minds of people a spirit of defiance of law and civil disobedience more of less thinly veiled under a formula of truth and non violence. Moreover by Mahatmafying Mr Gandhi it appealed to the idolatorous sperstition of the Hindus, thus converting the religious adherence of the Hindu section of the population to the Mahatma into political support of his non cooperation movement.While this strategy was of some avail in hustling the British Government to yield more and more it divided the people into Hindu and non hind! u sectionsIn these circumstances a man was needed to stand up to congress and tell its leaders that their organization however powerful numerically and financially doesnot represent the whole of India. I admire Mr Jinnah and feel grateful to him because in advocating the cause of the Muslims he is championing the cause of all the classes that are in danger of bein crushed under the steam roller of the caste Hindu majority, acting under the inspiration and orders of Mr Gandhi `` (25th December 1940, 9 months After the Pakistan Resolution, Seen here are Scheduled castes of India)


Sarojini Naidu:

a sincerity of purpose and the lasting charm of a character animated by a brave conception of duty and an austere and lovely code of private honour and public integrity... Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emaciation, languid and luxurious of habit, Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s attenuated form is a deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance. Somewhat formal and fastidious, and a little aloof and imperious of manner, the calm hauteur of his accustomed reserve but masks, for those who know him, a naive and eager humanity, an intuition quick and tender as a woman`s, a humour gay and winning as a child`s. Pre-eminently rational and practical, discreet and dispassionate in his estimate and acceptance of life, the obvious sanity and serenity of his worldly wisdom effectually disguise a shy and splendid idealism which is of the very essence of the man. (Sarojini Naidu, Advocate of Hindu Muslim Unity)

NEHRU

The old Advocate of Unity, Mr. M.A.Jinnah, ... was advanced than his colleagues, and stood head and shoulders above them. (Paraphrased: Quoted from his book freedom at midnight)


SARAR CHANDRA BOSE

``Mr. Jinnah`` he said on his death on 1948, ``was great as a lawyer, once great as a Congressman, great as a Leader of Muslims, great as a world politician and diplomat, and greatest as of all as a man of action. By Mr. Jinnah`s passing away, the world has lost one of the greatest statesmen and Pakistan its life-giver, philosopher and guide.``

Ambedkar on Jinnah and Gandhi
The link is ...http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/txt_ambedkar_ranade.html
I think Manto knows this. I remember pasting this link on his thread on Ranade


``The first thing that strikes me is that it would be difficult to find two persons [Gandhi and Jinnah] who would rival them for their colossal egotism, to whom personal ascendancy is everything and the cause of the country a mere counter on the table. They have made Indian politics a matter of personal feud. Consequences have no terror for them; indeed they do not occur to them until they happen. When they do happen they either forget the cause, or if they remember it, they overlook it with a complacency which saves them from any remorse. They choose to stand on a pedestal of splendid isolation. They wall themselves off from their equals. They prefer to open themselves to their inferiors. They are very unhappy at and impatient of criticism, but are very happy to be fawned upon by flunkeys. Both have developed a wonderful stagecraft, and arrange things in such a way that they are always in the limelight wherever they go.

Each of course claims to be supreme. If supremacy was their only claim, it would be a small wonder. In addition to supremacy each claims infallibility for himself.``

``... the spirit of domination exhibited by these two Great Men has transgressed all limits. By their domination they have demoralised their followers and demoralized politics. By their domination they have made half their followers fools and the other half hypocrites. In establishing their supremacy they have taken the aid of ``big business`` and money magnates. For the first time in our country, money is taking the field as an organised power.``

Dear Harish...

Once again I have seriously tried to apply myself to your train of thought but you seem to be jumping from argument to argument and in the process have entangled yourself hopelessly. So for your sake I am going to try and sift through our discussion.

What the issue is not :

Therefore I must say that lets start by stating the obvious and framing the issue between us at the moment. The issue here is NOT that you dislike Jinnah or have a low opinion of me or that I dislike Gandhi or have an even worse opinion of you. The issue is here is certainly not whether you view Ambedkar as a saint or a sinner or the gospel of the truth or an outright contradictory liar, or whether I see him as this thing or that. Similarly whether I view Jinnah as a secular liberal or Gandhi as a casteist bigot and you the opposite... or whether you think India is a great safe haven for all minorities and I the opposite is not an issue here.

I hope you agree with me when I say that we have the right to our opinions.


The issue between us is:

The issue between us arose, when in a bid to show that Indian constitution owes its strength to a man who was opposed to Gandhi and held Gandhiism in contempt, which in any event is true, I quoted Ambedkar on Gandhi. You emerged and made the claim that he hated Jinnah more than he hated Gandhi. I have contested this view.


Evidence

I produced Ambedkar`s comments on Jinnah in which he described Jinnah as an incorruptible politician who has never been bought and who has never been a soldier of fortune- and that hence the customary hindu explanation falls flat-

I produce here the quote from the larger excerpt I produced:

I asked you to prove your statement- and after much prodding you produced today, an analysis of Jinnah`s demands, you produce the statement where Ambedkar criticises the plan which suggests that the whole of Bengal and whole of Punjab be made part of Pakistan-and criticises Jinnah`s demand as ``illogical`` and ``unreasonable`` (it must be recalled that in 1947 Bengal and Punjab were indeed partitioned)...

But in any event this is my conclusion about what Ambedkar`s view of Jinnah and Gandhi is:

Jinnah

Ambedkar holds Jinnah to be a man of incorruptible integrity who is fit to lead the a non-communal movement against the Congress- indeed the only man as he says- but criticises Jinnah bitterly for abandoning Secular Indian Nationalism for Muslim Nationalism and calls Jinnah`s decision as well as the decision of the Muslims in general to be illogical and irrational..

Gandhi

Now Ambedkar`s view on Gandhi is that Gandhi was a blue blooded Hindu fanatic who manipulated the scheduled caste Hindus and was their worst enemy. I refer to ``What have Gandhi and the Congress Party done to the scheduled castes`` and ``Gandhi or Gandhiism``.. two of his most famous pamphlets.


--

Coming back to your claim in #203 we must address this issue. Who did Ambedkar hate most in light of evidence produced by both of us? It must be remembered here that it is immaterial whether you think Ambedkar was being contradictory or that he is an outright liar or whatever else you may believe.

Similarly my views on Jinnah or Gandhi as well as yours are completely immaterial to our discussion dear friend.

Hope this helps.

#543 by Mantolives

[I reject Ambedkar`s statement about Jinnah`s demand being illogical- but if we were to accept it... the question naturally arises.]

Well if you agree with his assessment of Jinnah`s ``impeccable integrity`` (whatever the heck that meant considering the fact that the man didn`t care for the lives of millions of Indians), I`m afraid you`ll have to put up with his negative comments as well. Selective agreement won`t cut. Maybe in Pakiworld, but not elsewhere.

[Is there a contradiction? You are pretty illogical but does it mean you are corrupt?]

By the same token, just because Jinnah was a man of impeccable integrity, does it mean he was not a communalist and a religious bigot? See the contradiction?

[I have quoted Seervai, Ambedkar, Wolpert and Ayesha Jalal consistently - so it is not quite how you put it. None of them maybe gospels of the truth but one takes what is common between all writings... include in this Louis Fischer`s Gandhi as well.. and all of them consider Jinnah to be incorruptible.]

See the point made above.

[The reason why this discussion started was because I was quoting Ambedkar on GANDHI ... not on Jinnah. You claimed that he hated Jinnah more than Gandhi.]

The point is not whether he hated them both equally or one more than the other. The point is he had negative impressions of both. And that should suffice.

[Instead of tying yourself up in knots produce the quote where Ambedkar describes Jinnah like he described Gandhi : A manipulative casteist blue blooded Hindu fanatic.]

It is you who are tying up yourself in knots. Do show us why Jinnah was not a religious fanatic despite arguing and snatching a Muslim state and in the process causing the deaths of millions.

[For Muslims doing well... please tell that to the relatives of those recently found in the mass graves in Gujurat.]

Ha! Is that the only thing you have? Enough Hindus and Christians have been converted forcibly in Pakistan too. Will you shut them up by reading out Jinnah`s idiotic speech in which he prophetically claimed ``Hindus will cease to be Hindus`` or Yousuf Youhana`s (aka Mohammad Yousuf) opinion where he claimed that if all non-Muslims converted to Islam then Pakistan would truly become ``Paak``.

Dear Harish Hyd,

I am not entirely sure what you are arguing about... you seemed to have tied yourself up in knots

Ambedkar says:

It is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah.

Did Ambedkar not write this in the same book?

You write:

``any man with even an iota of common sense would understand that a man cannot be incorruptible and at the same time unreasonable and illogical. That is plain old contradiction.``

Now here is why this a logical sommersault for you.

1- I reject Ambedkar`s statement about Jinnah`s demand being illogical- but if we were to accept it... the question naturally arises : Is there a contradiction? You are pretty illogical but does it mean you are corrupt?

2- I have quoted Seervai, Ambedkar, Wolpert and Ayesha Jalal consistently - so it is not quite how you put it. None of them maybe gospels of the truth but one takes what is common between all writings... include in this Louis Fischer`s Gandhi as well.. and all of them consider Jinnah to be incorruptible.

3- The reason why this discussion started was because I was quoting Ambedkar on GANDHI ... not on Jinnah. You claimed that he hated Jinnah more than Gandhi.


4- Instead of tying yourself up in knots produce the quote where Ambedkar describes Jinnah like he described Gandhi : A manipulative casteist blue blooded Hindu fanatic.

5- If at all there is a contradiction- then it must have something to do with Ambedkar and not me.

6- For Muslims doing well... please tell that to the relatives of those recently found in the mass graves in Gujurat.

-YLH

#540 by Mantolives

You say he called Jinnah : An incorruptible man of integrity
Ambedkar says: Unreasonable and illogical

See the contradiction here?

[Your claim is brought to a nought with the quote I have presented earlier.]

First it was Wolpert, then Seervai, and now Ambedkar seems to be in vogue as the gospel of truth these days? Mr. Yasser, whatever happened to your own brain? Or is it that there is none? I don`t take Ambedkar to be the voice of God, but since you said he called Gandhi a fanatic, I had to show that he didn`t regard Jinnah too highly too. And while he may have called Jinnah an ``incorruptible man of integrity``, any man with even an iota of common sense would understand that a man cannot be incorruptible and at the same time unreasonable and illogical. That is plain old contradiction. But having been cast in the same mould as Jinnah, you wouldn`t understand, just as the man who thought Muslims would be doomed in Hindu-majority India. I`m sure the old crook must be turning in his grave to see Muslims prospering in India, his idea having failed spectatcularly.

Here is also what Ambedkar wrote from the same link:

Indeed Mr. Jinnah is the one person who had all the chances of success on his side if he had tried to form such a united non-communal party. He has the ability to organize. He had the reputation of a nationalist. Even many Hindus who were opposed to the Congress would have flocked to him if he had only sent out a call for a united party of like-minded Hindus and Muslims. What did Mr. Jinnah do ? In 1937 Mr. Jinnah made his entry into Muslim politics and strangely enough he regenerated the Muslim League which was dying and decaying and of which only a few years ago he would have been glad to witness the funeral. However regrettable the starting of such a communal political party may have been, there was in it one relieving feature. That was the leadership of Mr. Jinnah. Everybody felt that with the leadership of Mr. Jinnah the League could never become a merely communal party. The resolutions passed by the League during the first two years of its new career indicated that it would develop into a mixed political party of Hindus and Muslims.

Dear Harish Hyd,

Nice try but here is why you`ve fallen flat on your face...

Your claim was that Ambedkar hated Jinnah more than he hated Gandhi...

Now- he called Gandhi: A blue blooded Hindu fanatic

He called Jinnah : An incorruptible man of integrity

The best you could do is find ``illogical`` while dealing with an idea?


For your information my understanding of Jinnah doesn`t depend on Ambedkar either... but we are discussing your claim and specifically your claim.

Your claim is brought to a nought with the quote I have presented earlier.

Dear Mr. Yasser, you wouldn`t listen and now I have to call your bluff. Please visit the following link for Ambedkar`s views on Jinnah:

http://www.ambedkar.org/pakistan/40F.Pakistan%20or%20the%20Partition%20of%20India%20PART%20V.htm

But just to rub it in, here`s a small excerpt. Just see the logic that Ambedkar expounds, the simple logic that was way beyond Jinnah`s understanding:

``But does Mr. Jinnah seriously wish to argue that the Hindus of the Punjab and Bengal are only chattels so that they must always go wherever the Muslims of the Punjab and the Muslims of Bengal choose to drive them? Such an argument will be too absurd to be entertained by any reasonable man. It is also the most illogical argument and certainly it should not be difficult for so mature a lawyer as Mr. Jinnah, to see the illogicality of it. [What? Ambedkar calling Jinnah unreasonable and illogical?, but the picture you painted was so rosy.] If a numerically smaller nation is only a sub-nation in relation to a numerically larger nation and has no right to territorial separation, why can it not be said that taking India as a whole the Hindus are a nation and the Muslims a sub-nation and as a sub-nation they have no right to self-determination or territorial separation?``

As to my views on Gandhi, they are not formed by what others think and feel, they are by what he did. Like Jinnah, you seem to be reading too much between the lines and are becoming as paranoid of me as he was of Gandhi. You may be another Jinnah, but there never will be another Gandhi.

``As always, you seem to rely more on what others thought and wrote about Jinnah than what your own common sense says.``

This from a person who has been saying that Gandhi is great because the world thinks so and he couldn`t be a racist- despite the fact that in his own writings, he has described black people are subhuman.

Harish Hyd...

I am going to ignore your personal attacks and abuses....

On Jinnah and Partition : I have addressed the issue you have raised several times and my views on this are very well known. I disagree with you on this and I have given enough reasons which you can agree or disagree with.

Right now the issue here is simply of your lie. I have given you 3 or 4 days. All of Ambedkar`s books are archived on line as well. Why must you press an issue when you know that you are wrong. I have never received any such quote from you- I do recall that you put something up about a Mohammed Ali who turned out to be Maulana Mohammed Ali of the Ali Brothers. You had then acknowledged that I was right and that indeed it was Maulana Mohammed Ali and not Jinnah.

Your claim was that the man hated Jinnah more than he hated Gandhi who he characterised as a blue blooded Hindu fanatic.

I have produced the following quote from the man:

``it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah``

as well as the detailed account.


Now please produce this ``quote`` that you have claimed so many times but have failed to produce.

Yours sincerely

YLH