Husain, Hinduism, Hindustan: Testing Tolerance

This lady is typical moslem ( and thus liar).
Hussein is basically a urdooo movie poster painter. Congress to get favour from moslems and arab nations had tried to promote him through various institutions. Illegal money from middle east are used for his art selling ( kind of hawala). Recently one guy was caught in such scam (G P Srivastava). They generally choose some non-moslem businessman to avoid suspicion from police. Regarding his paintings, the intentions are clear and most problematically Indian establishment/media provides un-necessary importance to this scoundrel. He, like Dawood Ibrahim (now included in international terrorist list), is fugitive (to evade arrest from large number of court cases, is living in Dubai. Periodically you will read from M J Akbar etc. about his love for country!!!!). I am for free press and freedom of expression. But, if a person leaves country to avoid court proceedings, he is not an ordinary criminal.

I wonder how Farzana Veresy can trivialize percptions of those calling themselves `Hindus` about the depicting their gods or faith objects, in `nude`. If creating fuss over that was bukwas (which may be), then the huge violence and raving and rantings by Muslims on that Danish cartoon of depicting the Allah was thousands time more bukwas! Same about Christian or Jew sensibilities. But the conventional secularist-modernist seem to be selective in this matter. Like the `community identity` of the Muslims, other communities also can have the same `privilege`. We must not have double standards. At this juncture again you bring out Kama Sutra and Khajuraho temples etc. to justify what Hussain does and to ridicule his opponents. That is a chicanery. Someone may also bring the Arabian Nights, escapades of Mughal or similst feudal era and all that to justify `sacrilege` of Allah and the faith objects of Muslims. We have to have some discipline in arguments. Heere what we can have the general common agrement is to disaprove the physical violence as a means of protest aggainst any work of art. If the artist is given the freedom of expression, can we deny similar freedom of expression ( and only expression and not physical realization of that!) to others who have different opinions than the artist. The artist is not crating something for the `people` or rather aptly for the `market` - so let him follow the rules of that business. Artist cannot claim the best of both the worlds. Nor his supporters.

Nachiketas

I wonder how Farzana Veresy can trivialize percptions of those calling themselves `Hindus` about the depicting their gods or faith objects, in `nude`. If creating fuss over that was bukwas (which may also be), then how we can justify the huge violence and raving and rantings on that Danish cartoon of depicting the Allah? We must not have double sandards. At this juncture again you bring out Kama Sutra and Khajuraho temples etc. That is a chicanery? Someone may also bring the Arabian Nights and all that to justify `sacrilege` of Allah and the faith objects of Muslims. We have to have some discipline in arguments.

Nachiketas

Our George of the Jungle has blood on his hand and pieces of human flesh on his shoes...

he has come to Pakistan and India in the hope that the two will clean his stinking shoes and hand him desi towels to wipe his bloody hands...

and of course the passive aggressive sub continentals will clean his shit, bathe him and sanitize him to make him a little presentable to his own people in the US (34% and falling) -- and to the world at large -- where he is one of the most despised leaders that ever came out of the land of Jefferson and Washington.....

whether the Dr Strangeloves of Indian nuke and Missile establishments get their hands in the US nukear cookie jar or not -- or whether Petulant Pervez permanently perpetual dreaming of Kashmir gets a Virtual Valley on a US platter -- or not.....

the hand & feet washing ceremonies will be performed for Dubya the Disgraced Devo in India and Dubya the Demented Deliverer in Pakistan...

…....after all Bush`s British Butlers ruled India for 150 years -- not for nothin....

Dear Sadna...

Yes the parting of the ways was that and I accept it. My point was in response to your point. I am glad you`ve come to see that as such.

So you admit that Jinnah agreed to Congress nominating a Muslim? Asif Ali ... there you have it... Look closely I am not misleading the people. What you are saying proves my point.

The agreement said that Muslim League would represent the Muslims of India as the majority party and in turn Muslim League would have no objection to Congress nominating a Muslim amongst its ranks... as a representative of the Congress...

So in essence Jinnah`s representatives (including Jogindranath Mandal) were representing the Muslims (since League`s claim that it alone represented the Muslims was accepted by all parties) while Asif Ali was representing the Congress Party.

-YLH

#531
The parting of ways was the British Parliament`s India Independence Act which Jinnah and Congress both accepted so I still don`t understand what you mean.

Re the quote in #530, you`ve got to stop misinterpreting stuff and thereby misleading people.

Firstly, Jinnah insisted to Nehru in a letter dated 7th October that the agreement you quote in #530 be accepted along with a condition `That the Congress should not include in the remaining five members of their quota a Muslim of their choice.`

Secondly Jinnah himself ditched that agreement a few days later when he agreed to bring the Muslim League into an Interim government which contained Congress Muslim Asaf Ali.

PS: I don`t know where you are getting this ``forever`` business. The claim that the League made was based on 1946 elections ... I haven`t seen any claim from any leader that this was a ``forever situation``. Instead it was a situation there and then... for the purposes of determination of the future...

Dear Shishapa...

When a party wins 78% of the popular vote and 87% of the seats allocated for that community- that party effectively represents that people - especially when the claim is that the people represent a nation unto themselves- for example when Labor Party wins elections in the UK it represents the British people. This is what happened in 1946... Furthermore... it must be remembered that the 90% of the remaining 22% was taken by smaller Muslim and regional parties and not Congress...

FYI When Nehru backed out he did not reject this position but said that he accepted the position that Muslim League represented the Muslims... Frankly I never understood his convoluted reasoning. In a democracy it is the right of any party to claim that it alone commands the confidence of a minority ... it has to prove it through electoral politics.

If any community party ... like the Christians for example... claim that they alone represent the Christians and then prove it by showing that effectively all Christians in Pakistan support them- I would much rather deal with them then propping up some Bishop here and a priest there who is making politically correct (for the Majority) noises..

Re: # 530

I am so glad Nehru rejected this formula and Gandhi backed out of it.

It is preposterous. We are in a democracy. Just because people voted for a certain
party in certain election, does not mean that certain party owns them for life.
They have to have option to vote for different party in future if they think that party
or candidate of that party represents him/her best.
This is against the basic grain of democracy.
I do not think in Pakistan anybody insists shias should vote for this party or only
this party will represent shias and only this party will represent Sunnis.
So why was it expected so from Hindus and Muslims in India?
What if that party splits into two or three factions, each claiming to be genuine
representative of the original?

Man, what a suffocating thought! Rightfuly discarded.

Sadna...

Lets not confuse issues...

The issue here is of the competing Bourgeoisies in both communities.. the parting of the ways were ofcourse in areas where the Muslims formed majorities... and ofcourse Congress used the Mullahs against the Muslim middle class, lawyers, businessmen etc and therefore there has never been a parting of ways between Deoband and the Congress (hence the regressive Muslim Family Law as a vote-bank guarantor)

You are right Muslim League was a Muslim only party which still went out of its way to appoint a Hindu first on the interim government and later as the law minister of the new state.

-YLH

Dear BJKumar,

Another long winded response to justify your lack of tolerance for an opposing point of view and to justify your abuse against Farzana. The ``Fun`` you are having is apparent in your desperation or maybe you are just the sado-masochistic type.


Shishapa...

Not exclusively Muslim... but a Muslim majority homeland... a multicultural state with Muslim bourgeoisie in charge - that Muslims made a mess of things because of their stupidity forcing people J N Mandal to abandon Pakistan is another issue. In any event 50-60 years are too short a period to judge nation states by...

As far as United India is concerned... where there are competing visions and competing bourgeoisies... one uses ``consociationalism`` as a legitimate tool.

Jinnah and Gandhi signed a formula which I produce here now:

``The Congress does not challenge but accepts that the Muslim League now is the authoritative representative of an overwhelming majority of the Muslims of India. As such and in accordance with democratic principles they alone have today an unquestionable right to represent the Muslims of India. But the Congress does not agree that any restriction or limitation should be put upon the Congress to choose such representatives as they think proper from amongst the members of the Congress. ``

Later Nehru renounced this formula and Gandhi backed out of it.

#525
`` coming to an arrangement on even a parting of ways``

Dunno what you mean. Muslims and Hindus might have parted ways in Pakistan(which was not surprising since Muslim League was a Muslim-only party) but I am unaware of any indication that Hindus and Muslims have parted ways in India.

#526 Manto
[BJ search my name on Google]

You must be kidding!

I think people here get more than a sufficient dose of your rantings right over here - on this website. More than most humans can handle!

It is much more fun than any one individual should be allowed to have. It ought to be criminal to have so much fun.

#525 Manto
[...Apologise to Farzana...]

I already did. Didn`t you read #515?

But then, you - like all lawyers - like your OLD man - always pick and choose what you want to present - reality be damned.

Farzana got my apology - as far as I know, she never got yours - YOU who continued with this buckwaas of Gandhi name-calling inspite of her request to stop it!

And your wife shall never receive my apology or that of any decent person around here for what the two of you have been doing on this site - including on this board!

No Yasser, in this case, it was not me - I was only the medium, the bullet - my sweetheart, you were pulling that trigger - shooting left and right - mostly into your own feet - with your mouth!

And by the way, where is the answer to the last four questions in #523?

I KNEW that people like you prefer to spend your life in the past.

Perhaps because the present gives you nightmares!

And as stated before - every nightmare has a reason!

And this could only be achieved in a separate and exclusive homeland for Muslims?
That is like running away and retreating in one`s little corner. How the mighty had fallen!
Millions had to pay with their lives and sacrifice their families so that somebody
else`s indequacys were catered to, so that bourgeoisies can make peace with themselves,
someday, eventually.

And all hindus in Congress and in general everybody become ``fanatic Hindus`` because
they, who otherwise you refer to as educated and liberal (compared to Muslims), refused to
grant Mr. Jinnah and Muslim Leage the right to be sole spokesman for Indian Muslims
which was ridiculous in the first place.

Anyway, last note from me. Would read your response if you do.
As usual, thanks for you time and patience.

PPS:

BJ search my name on Google.

If you think Gandhi got you India... then you are more delusional than I imagined.

PS: BJkumar to quote ``Uzr-e gunah bud tur uz gunah``..... stop making excuses for your abuse.
Apologise to Farzana... even Sadna has told you that you are wrong.

Sadna,

The issue is very simple...

It was logical and justifiable that the Indian nationalist movement would serve the purposes of the Majority community`s (Hindu) Bourgeoisie interests. Thats how it is in any country.

What was not logical was that instead of coming to an agreement with the minority community`s bourgeoisie in a consociationalist agreement or barring that coming to an arrangement on even a parting of ways... the Congress chose to coopt the religious clerical class against the Muslim bourgeoisie... this is my problem with the Congress... other things equal Congress` movement was a great idea.

-YLH

#522 Yasser

[...only facts are and facts don`t favor you...]

Fact: Jinnah got you Pakistan. Pakistan screwed up.
Fact: Gandhi got us India. India shines.
Fact: Pakistan could have been shining, but screwed up.
Fact: Your ``dream`` Pakistan appears little different from what India already is.
Fact: Everyone hates lawyers - it is almost like a nightmare.
Fact: Every nightmare has a reason.

Fact: Your heart is inside your chest.
Feel free to eat out!

I LIKE facts.

#522 Yasser

[....but your defence is pathetic that is the problem. You may continue to defend him- we disagree- we will continue to disagree- ....]

Manto, the eternal two-bit lawyer - the case must be won - no matter what the price. Yes Yasser, you have the books and you have picked and chosen (and based on past experience perhaps manufactured) as per your need and prepared your ``case`` - the problem is this side is not even a lawyer (and has no intention of becoming one (shudder)) - you have all the books - you only lack some common sense!

So, how come your ``findings`` only grace this (non-paying) web-site?

And when are you publishing them in a journal and start winning literary awards after review by some REAL peers of that trade? And print them in a bestseller and flash those wads of money right into the faces of the fat-cats running this site?

And when are you becoming a candidate in your elections?

And when ARE the elections?

Bjkumar...

It is not that you defend Gandhi but your defence is pathetic that is the problem. You may continue to defend him- we disagree- we will continue to disagree- which is our democratic human right ... Merely making statements of bravado is not going to help... only facts are and facts don`t favor you.

This is precisely why you resorted to abuse.


Shishapa...

Yes it says a lot to the credit of Hindu Bourgeoisie which was in any event more educated and liberal than Muslims. Pakistan however was an attempt to create a Muslim majority version of the same... and it is too early to write it off because it is the Muslim Bourgeoisie is only beginning to come into its own..

#All

I read the article one more time to see if I had any new thoughts.

My disadvantage is I had not known much about Husain (and perhaps still do not (just like I do not know much about many other topics)) but the newspaper interview held on his ninetieth birthday was quite an eye-opener for me. Knowing how he feels about his art, and how he feels about his country, what a terrible thing that some of his own countrymen would attack him! The whole world pretty much knows that the motivations behind attacking Husain are strictly political - if it were not Husain, any other Muslim would have sufficed. The author`s mistake is to treat these goons as if they were reasonable people, as if they need a legitimate reason - they certainly do not need HER approval - if they had a chance, they would be just as happy to haul up the author on some pretext as well!

I won`t repeat the sentiments that I already explained in #20, they all hold.

Which brings me to Gandhi - because in many ways Husain reminds me of him - even the author calls him a modern-day Gandhi.

I particularly like this quote from Husain:

``I have always wanted to share the process of my painting, nothing in my life has been hidden. I haven`t deceived anyone.``

Gandhi - in my opinion was among the very few people of his time - no matter what his idiosyncracies (peculiar to his times), he was perhaps the only person who never tried to deceive anybody and who cared about ALL the people of the subcontinent. He is long gone - but in India we carried his legacy for a while - not to the extent he would have wanted it - but a good part of it still holds.

I personally feel that without him, India would have NEVER energed a secular country - and the way feelings had heated up (of course I was not around) at the time of partition - I doubt it would have stayed secular for too long afterwards except for the tears of remorse that followed his assassination. Sometimes I privately wonder that over time, those tears have washed away and we are coming back to that great Hindu-Muslim divide again.

It is quite touching to see many Indian nationalists insisting that Hindus and Muslims are so well-bonded now they can never break up - even this author repeated that.

The reality is that they are, yet they are not. They are equals as per the law but they are segregated. They are friendly toward each other but parts of them are scared of each other and quite mistrustful.

The bonding has strengthened over the last five decades - to the extent that the Shah Rukh Khans of today do not have to change their last name to that of this interactor.

I do not buy the symbolisms alone - I look for results.

But that bonding is not unbreakable! Keep pumping those Jihadis in and who knows where it will all end up. Prior to 1984, who could have imagined that there can be such a thing as Hindu-Sikh riots - those sons of the same mothers - the younger siblings versus the oldest sibling that was given over to the Wahe Guru?

Anything is possible - it only needs the ``right`` combustible mixture of circumstances.

That`s why I will never forgive the Pakistani army brass for what they have tried to do - and the Pakistani intelligensia and its bureaucrats for going along with it - the Pakistani Mullahs do not count because their power (in my view) is limited to raising street rucus and recruiting human fodder for the Jihadi factory through sermons - and the general Pakistani population has perhaps never counted in the scheme of things - what with having no power, and no literacy, and no nothing.

And for exactly the same reason, I will defend Gandhi once, I will defend him ten times, I will defend him a million times, if necessary. Not because I am a ``Gandhiwadi``, or a Congressman, or any of those labels - this interactor is none of those labels - but simply because I would like to think that I still have an ounce of decency left in me. And others who do, will do the same. The fact unfortunately is that there are few on this site.

Call me a sufferer from the ``knight`` disease, if you have to - and feel free to laugh derisively - if that is the extent of your vision and the extent of your understanding!

You Pakistani guys and gals enjoy your Jinnah! Whether you identify with the Indians or with the Arabs is also your very own business. I feel no bitterness - if YOU are happy with what Jinnah accomplished for you all - it is your very own pleasure to experience.

It has been only sixty years but some of those pleasures can never be satiated.

It is almost like having sex!

nasah #518
OK, that`s good to know. Thanks.

bjkumar:

I am glad that you cooled down. We can all hope that the moderator will now get back to his/her desk.

dear Sadna for heavens sake no -- not by any means...

the translation od the persian proverb -- excuses for a sin sometime sound worse than the sin.....

Re: # 510

``First of all the credit for the Indian constitution goes to Dr Ambedkar who steadfastly stood against Gandhian ideas from flowing into the constitution. It would do you a lot of good to read those debates. Nehru was not too impressed by Hindu terminology etc ... ``

No doubt about it. But Ambedkar does not exist in vaccuum. There has to be
fertile and receptive and sustaining ground and support structure for him to stand on.
Afterall, he was allowed to complete the task unlike Jogindernath Mandal who fled.
Does not that speak volumes about the ``fanatic Hindus``?

bjkumar
Frankly this is what I think. FV doesn` t believe in the middle or moderate majority and the sooner it disappears the happier she is to be `vindicated`. It has been a constant implicit or explicit theme in all her writings on Hindu-Muslim affairs (according to me) that there are no Hindus who are not genocidal and no Hindus who are not hard core Hindutva-vadis pretending to be something else. This could be the general Indian Muslim belief or not, I have no way of knowing. Pakistanis are certainly 100% behind her on this as it is their national ideology.

Now if Hindus in turn believe that there are no moderate Muslims, that they are all genocidal, that of course is also welcome to FV since then she gets to be a victim twice over. It is an ideology one wields, leaving all responsibility for the complexities of real world to everyone else. It is labelled patriotism by some.

#All

Okay, I have cooled down a bit.

Perhaps I could have made my point in #480 without using the particular metaphor, and perhaps I should have – since the end result seems to be that everyone is talking about the metaphor itself – rather than the actions which prompted it.

I also recognize that whatever their level of “validity,” such terms do hurt!

Therefore, it is appropriate to make my apology to the author/moderator of this board. (I do realize that a lot of text is continuously flowing through these channels and the editor has to look at everything and can not be on top of everything all the time.)

Therefore, Farzana – I am sorry I used those particular words – they were unnecessarily strong (although not atypical from this interactor). (If chowk wishes to throw in a punishment of any kind, it is its prerogative and that will be quite acceptable, I suppose.)

Having said that, here is a question for you:

Where are you going with this site?

My own guess is that the basic idea is to promote goodwill/understanding between the people of the two countries and more – and hopefully, such goodwill can lead to other things – bigger and better. (Some people have claimed that there is a specific agenda behind what you/chowk “owners” are doing.)

Assuming that my own guess is right – do you think that cause gets helped by letting YLH and wife go on their anti-Gandhi tirades?

This is not a rhetorical question – so think carefully.

The Hindu-right wing is quite happy with such a drubbing – they could not care less – it only alienates the moderates – the people in the middle – and the vast majority as far as I know – although my guess is that the middle rank is shrinking. Keep this kind of stuff up and believe me it will shrink a LOT more.

No answers needed, but something to consider, hopefully carefully.

nasah #513
I don`t understand your comment. If it is directed towards me, pl. do translate.

Uzr-e gunah bud tur uz gunah.....

Mantolives #various
I don`t understand what it is you are arguing. I have been arguing right from the start that India needs to see genuine grassroots activism among Muslims(and other communities too of course) in favor of women`s rights, discarding of harmful patriarchal traditions and modern education, allied with increase of economic opportunities.

If anything, India needs more of the Muslim mass contact program and focus on Muslims` economic issues/daal bhat by its political parties, which Nehru attempted in 1937.

``It was even happy to indulge in tokenism and promote Mullahs etc. ``

Tokenism like that famous speech by Mr. Jinnah or an appointment of a Hindu minister
in the cabinet? Tokenism like Muslim League did to Pakistan being secular after using
religion to found it!
So whatever Mr. Jinnah and Muslim League did was substance and whatever Hindus
did was tokenism!
There you go again.

Dear Shishapa...

This is a very simplistic argument... we are not discussing form but content. Now we are confusing issues...

First of all the credit for the Indian constitution goes to Dr Ambedkar who steadfastly stood against Gandhian ideas from flowing into the constitution. It would do you a lot of good to read those debates. Nehru was not too impressed by Hindu terminology etc ...

The Hindu Bourgeoisie was well developed and secular anyway. They understood very well that a Hindu majority state would protect their rights and therefore there was no need to make a theocracy or a Rashtra... the Hindu Bourgeoisie did not believe in a theocratic state because it was well developed and therefore was ready to accept modernity and democracy- It was even happy to indulge in tokenism and promote Mullahs etc.

FYI India is not a secular nation- it is a secular state. Lets make no mistake about it... and the two things are not necessarily the same.

Re: # 508

I still fail to see, if Congress was such a fanatic Hindu party, how come it did not enact
to make India Hindu Rashtra after independence.
What could have stopped it if it was striving for that all along?
How come India turned out to be a secular nation and not Hindu Republic of India?

Shishapa ji...

If you read history you will realise that the difference between Hindu Mahasabha and Congress was only that Hindu mahasabha was open about its objectives while Congress operated in a sinister fashion claiming one thing publicly and another behind closed doors...

To quote Maulana Zafar Ali Khan editor of Zamindar and the right hand man of Sadna`s favorite Sir Fazli-Hussain:


Ik heen hain Savarkar o Gandhi
Jhoot ka chalta hai ik jhakkar, makkar ki uthti hai ik Aandhi

Gandhi and Savarkar are one and the same
One is a storm of lies, the other a tempest of deceit.


Read my post addressed to D-M.

Dear D-M,

Congress at the end of the day represented the Hindu bourgeoisie interests - Indian nationalism- tokens aside- was a euphemism for this self confident bourgeoisie class and it generally is that the majority community provides the lead (which is why the nuanced idea of a Muslim majority nation state as a smaller India is a very attractive one for those who could be called Muslim bourgeoisie)... whether we admit it or not. Ofcourse like any national movement it gave a broad facade.

Azad was the Congress president. His admission counts more than an objective historian. I am actually going way beyond what he is saying. To my mind Azad was a simpleton Mullah always easily fooled by Gandhi`s tactics... Recall the ``Hijrat Fatwa``.... Mullahs were always more amenable to Hindu bourgeoisie`s interests because the Mullah did not challenge them politically or economically ... the Mullah always asked for theological power over ``his flock`` so to speak. Therefore there ws a natural alliance between the Hindu Bourgeoisie and the Deoband Mullahs .. with Muslim nationalist movement being an object of their common scorn- one flank describing it as ``too westernised and secular`` and the other flank describing ``medieval and backward- communal -`` ... this was a two pronged strategy from within and without.

Mantoji,

If you have time and inclination, can you please list the things Congress did to be
termed as ``fanatical Hindu party``?
Were they comparable to any existing party in India or Pakistan which can be
labelled as ``fanatical hindu/muslim party``?

What would you term parties/organizations like Hindu Mahasabha, RSS, Abhinav Bharat?
Most, I would say all them did not get along with Congress I think and were not in the
same camp.

Yet this ``fanatical Hindu party``, when came to power in India after Independence, gave a
constitution which is secular in nature, and India has remained secular to whatever degree
because of this party.

And a party in the name of Muslims, striving for only Muslims, asking for a nation
only for Muslims, using communal politics was going to be keep the new nation secular.

Why always blame Hindus for the actions of Muslims? May be Mr. Jinnah was being
influenced by somebody else, may be his thinking was changing, may be he was
being eclipsed by other personalities and he did not like that.
Is it not common in US for a coloured person to sue claiming discrimation based on colour?
May be it is true, may be it is not, but there is always a possibility that there is a better
person to do to job that this coloured person for whatever reason.
All I am observing is this habit of blaming Hindus for all Muslim problems/shortcomings
since days of Sir Syed Ahmed.

``Congress on the other hand was claiming to be a party representing all Indians but was at the core a very fanatical Hindu party that discriminated against its Non-Hindu cadres (please refer to Azad`s belated confession) ... and yet it contnued to claim that it was an Indian party.``

That was certainly not the impression of many Hindus who viewed the Congress as a party which bent backwards and sacrificed the Hindu interests to apease the Muslims. Not that they were correct but, in those communally charged times, the perceptions of Hindus and Muslims were quite different. While you present Azad`s testimony as that of an objective historian, many Hindus presumed that he represented Musim interests in the Congress and accused Nehru to be in Azad`s pocket and therefore also looking after Muslims` interests.

My own perception - very subjective - is that Hindus generally viewed only Patel to represent their interests in the Congress and Muslims expected Azad to do so. Gandhi was, of course, assasinated because he was perceived by the Hindus to be pro-muslim. And it was not just Godse, the surprise in 1948 was not that a Hindu killed Gandhi but that it was a Maharashtrian and not a Punjabi Hindu or Sikh refugee. So, who did the Congress really represent; that question is not very appropriate because the Congress was - and still is - a large tent and it accomodated people of varied lobbies and ideologies connected solely by a desire to achieve independence from the British then and to stay in power now.

Dear D-M,

I certainly did not make that proposition. I believe that Muslim League was a part representing communal interests and Jinnah after 1937 was very justifiably taking a communal stance. It was open and out there. There was no trickery about it...

Congress on the other hand was claiming to be a party representing all Indians but was at the core a very fanatical Hindu party that discriminated against its Non-Hindu cadres (please refer to Azad`s belated confession) ... and yet it contnued to claim that it was an Indian party.

Manto#499:

My post had nothing to do with Jinnah or Gandhi. You and sadna are well aware of my agreements and differences with each of you on that debate. Several years and several thousand posts later, I do not see any reason to change those views.

My post was simply to question the proposition that Sindh politics was/is non-communal.

bjkumar#501:
No, I am not consistent and do not claim to be. If the language you used for FV had been used by someone like ali_1, I could not have cared less. But certain Interactors - nicks to be precise - have established certain personna and one has certain expectations, this is why one reacts. As for the use of sexual references, it all depends upon the context - the context in which you used it for FV seemed to me and others as highly explicit imagery of a degrading type. Hence, the reaction.

BJ...

First make a saint out of a person who is in essence is casteist bigoted Hindu politician... and then beat down on those who disagree.. Beautiful- So you abused Farzana because you are not happy with the views expressed on Gandhi...

The only person without any sense of integrity here is you- even Sadna cautioned you... imagine that.

#496 DM-jee (further thoughts)

And let me make one thing categorically clear to all of you.

I strongly insist that there was not the least element of sexual ``degradation`` implicit in that metaphorical comparison (made in #480) that you alluded to - and that riled you and others up so much!

The sexual allusion is perfectly legitimate - it is used all over the place to make a point, which has been done even on this web site. If gods and goddeses are not exempt from it (as seen on another board), what is the big deal about humans (This writer IS human, or isn`t she?) Unlike many of you, I took the same position on that depiction, also. So what`s wrong in thinking of this author or any other or depicting in sexual terms? Such thinking perhaps takes place all over the place for every high profile person - why is it to be considered wrong - and especially why so if it takes place openly?

And who is more consistent - and open? You or I?

And by the way, the proverbial real-life whore who sells her body for a few bucks is only trying to make a living. Why should such a person be an object of hate? Aren`t we all out there trying to sell something or other? A physical body is something concrete - some value for the money.

Perhaps it is much worse to be selling ``snake oil`` of the kind that YLH and some others constantly are ``selling`` here - because snake oil is highly dishonest!

In my personal opinion, the ``whores`` who sell their souls are in a much worse situation. Let me excerpt this quote from an earlier time - it was applied in another instance - but many parts are also very much applicable here.

....This writer, supposedly a woman who professes feminism as her goal, is little different from her male stooges here and those cowardly jackal-like cohorts – that callous company of clueless culprits – who superbly give the appearance of simulating a level of openness of thought exactly like a high class lady of easy virtue simulating first-rate orgasm – an act which, in reality, all that it represents – and indeed CAN represent is an intellectual harem which can only inbreed – and is only comfortable with its own. Period!

The ultimate form of “penis envy” meets the ultimate safe-sex of solutions – kick the non-violent guy – the violent guys are just too risky – and feel the warmth of victory rushing through – that high to end all highs – that crumb to end all cramps – no matter what time of the month it be!

Individuals committing intellectual dishonesty at this level (in my personal view) rank many a notches worse below the lowliest of those ladies making a living in an ocean of sin!!

But hey, this is the chowk – bazaar, you know, and everything is for sale, and professional integrity does not really fetch a high value – not in these shark-infested waters – and certainly not when one is trying to look TOUGH like a man – especially THIS bunch of REAL men who really specialize in dealing with women, yeah! Don’t believe me? Go ask that lady who got that special salty treat – that flavor of flavors to end forever her own thirst, and through vicarious extension – that of all the other women ....!

Will this weasel lawyer ever have the courage to rain his choice words over THOSE people –those paragons of feminism embodied – SURE! Pigs do indeed fly!

So the “brains” of this pathetic excuse for a web-site help themselves to a big helping of that “adrak” and send this baby-face Yasser the lotion to lubricate the passage – with that voluminous outflow from his mouth – .... the figurative “penis” now in full thrust as exemplified in all its glories through this article.

And thus these morons climax! They hoop, and they applaud!

Oooohhhh….What a feeling! O what a mind-blower! You see, we SHOWED this Gandhi guy, didn’t we!!! Look, how ALL those ... problems just disappeared, especially in Pakistan!


However, even such individuals - who willingly ``sell`` those souls for a few ``bucks`` are not to be reviled - rather simply pitied, perhaps. Therefore, there ought to be no element of revulsion on the part of you, or Ms. Sadna, or Nasah, or anybody else from the vast chowk multitudes.

I wonder WHY you get such feelings of revulsion.

Each of you should perhaps ask that question of yourself - why such double standards?

PS:

Yes- I am sure looking for feudal politicians in Sindh Punjab etc is a remarkable enterprise.

It is amazing that you guys claim that Gandhiji came and used religion to mobilise the masses and wrested the freedom movement from the ``Elite`` (actually Gandhi was in reality just a British pawn) ... but when Muslim League wrested Punjab and Sindh from lackeys like Sir Fazli-Hussain etc its a problem.

Remarkable hypocrisy.

India ought to realise what caused the staunchest secular politician in the subcontinent to abandon the Indian Nationalist enterprise and jump on to the ship of Muslim communalism... answering that question would solve many problems... but no- we would rather look for lackeys.

Dear D-M, Sadna...

The issue is here is very simple. Lets put the self righteousness aside for a minute. We know that what Muslim League`s stance after 1937 was and we know what you think of it and we know what we think of it... it is hardly necessary to drum this point. If anything Muslim League after 1937 remained constant... and went the other direction with Jogindranath Mandal...

You see the problem here is simple... and this is why we consider your stance completely dishonest... I quoted the Azad book ... it shows that despite its purported claims the Congress was an ``Indian Party`` it only promoted Hindus as leaders on many occasions.

To quote something from Sindh in 1938 from Jinnah who had effectively abandoned his Indian Nationalism for Muslim Nationalism by then... is just mere obfuscation ... this is my problem with the whole thing. Because Muslim League did not claim to be an Indian party and Jinnah did not deny that after 1937 he was a politician favoring communal interests.

But Congress continued to claim it was an Indian Party and yet continued to discriminate against Muslims, Parsis, Christians etc nevertheless. This is the problem.

-YLH

#496 DM-jee

May I turn the question around and ask - ``can`t a writer be provocative without using sexually suggestive language``? Now, who bears a higher level of responsibility - writers or interactors? Has that happened around here?

Forget it, I did not mean to put you on the spot by asking that question!

PS: I disagree that my posts contain any malice - perhaps they are more intense so they may stand out more!

#494 Sadna

I almost missed the choicest part of your note.

[...To use your own words, why are you whoring your time here...]

I am sorry Sadna - try as I may, I can not find that word anywhere in my interacts - in fact, I don`t remember having used it for a long while. Besides, how CAN one ``whore`` time - at best one utilizes it, usually one spends it, and at worst, one wastes it. You probably mean it in the latter sense. However, the emotion you convey through the intensity of your statement is appreciated - because most people (and especially you) do not use such strong language unless they hold specific expectations and perceive that those expectations have been damaged or hurt - so I do appreciate your holding me in sufficiently high esteem to have felt that way. Of course, in reality one can not read others` minds.

I thought about the question a bit - why do people like me spend so much time here? In reality, I have been spending less and less time. I skipped the web site for two whole months without too much (but not zero) difficulty. Certainly, I spend a lot less time than many other interactors here - certainly a lot less cumulative time than veterans like yourself.

People like me do not have a very in-depth knowledge of most of the topics discussed here - especially those which are historic in nature - yet I put in my two cents wherever I can - usually it is humor, sometimes humor that can bite, sometime it bites rather deep and sometimes I simply use plain, simple statements which occasionally can still connect with part of the readership.

I do not think I have been wasting my time here. I also do not think I have been wasting others` time, either. How so?

You see Sadna, while many interactors here are regular, active participants in the proceedings here - like reactants in a chemical reaction, they get consumed by it - I am unable to give very much yet I sometimes feel that my presence here HAS made a difference (others may disagree if the difference was for the better or otherwise). It is somewhat analogous to a catalyst - it speeds up or slows down the reaction. There have been times when - after I posted something - the interactions paused - as people tried to munch it (or perhaps got ``intimidated`` by its intensity). The reverse has also taken place. And call it my fancy if you will, I DO feel in my bones that I have brought about changes in SOME people`s perspective - to the extent such changes can take place in a site of this nature.

With best wishes,
BJK

bjkumar#495:

Provocation is the spice of chowk and most of us, especially me, have no problem with it. But can`t one be provocative without using sexually degrading language? For what it`s worth - and it ain`t worth much - I am otherwise an admirer of your malice-towards-one-and-all style.

#various

Sadna (and DM, and others)

(Parts of Sadna’s interact need no reply from me, because some of your (and others’) choice superlatives already indicate what answers you have assumed. Your answers are your own prerogatives – you can see it any way YOU choose to.)

People have different ways of expressing themselves – I have mine. Some people were made to write in a more provocative manner than others, I am no writer but my style is what you see – and what virtually everyone here has been at the receiving end of – at one time or another! (This paragraph was for everyone, but especially for DM.)

Nobody is completely objective – that is not the way people were created. Most people can not help being so. But few make a virtue out of not being objective. When one is less than objective on purpose and is so consistently – it is called dishonesty. There is no such thing that being open about being dishonest makes one honest. (Just like attacking sitting ducks does not make one a hunter and spearing weak victims does not make one a crusader!)

I speak my mind when I sense dishonesty (as I did in #480). I do so using my own style – which is God-given and certainly not something which I cultivated!

Also, I stick to my guns when I believe I am being accused unjustly (as I did in #488).

Anyway!

I will make it REALLY simple for everybody and especially the writer of this piece.

The writer can show up here and say just one sentence (no qualifiers or additions or elaborations):

“What was said in #480 has no substance!”

Just that one simple sentence and I promise not to interact on her boards (and perhaps other such boards). And then Sadna and her old chums and the rest of these crowds can return to their usual chit-chat – a long-term activity sans resolutions – from all indications!

What could be simpler? Go for it!

bjkumar
How is the space `made available` to you and me any different from the space `made available` to anyone else ? Why is your vivid imagery only for the latter and not for the former? I fail to see in most of your own posts too any connection to the article. To use your own words, why are you whoring your time here, bjkumar? Be honest if you are asking others to be honest.

dost-mittar
I agree with you. My biggest problem with Pakistani readings of history is that they wilfully de-emphasize or malign the many Muslim politicians who stood against the communal tide often at great cost to themselves. I think Indians instead of buying the Pakistani line w/o second thought, need to honestly acknowledge that these were noncommunal Muslim politicians, the same species we Indians claim to be in search of today for god`s sake.

Jinnah`s statement to the press on October 13 1938 which Wolpert writes about is 6 pages long so I am not posting until someone asks for it.

From `Speechs, Statements and Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam`, it appears Jinnah was on a general Sindh tour addressing public meetings in Karachi, Jacobabad, Larkana during 2-3 weeks of October 1938.

One of his public meetings was at Shikarpur on Oct 17 1938.

``Mr Jinnah was accorded a hearty reception on his visit to Shikarpur. Thousands of people came to receive the party at the station and took the guests in procession proceeded by bands. Mr. Jinnah addressed a public meeting at Jumani Hall attended by over 3000 people.

During his speech he said it is no use complaining about others when we have not brought unity amongst ourselves. Twenty-seven members have joined the Muslim League and seven are still outside. ``It is in your hands to make the Ministry. The Allahbux ministry is reigning with Hindu support but if there is unity among the Muslims they can compel him to resign in case he does not join the League.``

Mr Jinnah in concluding his speech advised the Muslims to join the League.(F.O.C)

The Daily Gazette, October 18 1938 & The Sind Observer, October 19, 1938.

bjkumar:

How does the only person you are answerable to, yourself, think about this statement, after introspection:

``then makes her ``space`` available to this ``gang`` more willingly than the proverbial ladies of the night open up their legs for a few ``bucks````


sadna, manto:

I have since long stopped following Jinnah-Gandhi debates because I do not think that I would learn anything new from these debates. However, I did follow the discussion on Sindh. The Wolpert piece quoted by sadna and the Dawn piece on Soomro quoted by HP, esp. the Dawn piece which I had also pasted last year, show clearly one thing that it is simplisitic to say that Sindh politics have always been only Feudal. They show that there was always a communal element there - people like Soomro tried to bridge the gap while others did not. Read once again this excerpt from the dawn article:

Allah Bux Soomro was chief minister when communal riots broke out in Shikarpur. He intervened to stop the trouble. Extremist forces had gathered in Sukkur on the Masjid Manzil Gah issue. Braving all odds, Mr Soomro delivered a moving speech, appealing to the people to remain calm. He assured the Muslims of the right to pray at Masjid Manzil Gah and at the same time assured the Hindus of safe access to Sadh Belo, the way to which passed close to the mosque. Opportunists had stirred up feelings against Hindu traders and the unrest was used to grab Hindu properties. The incident was exploited by Mr Soomro’s political rivals, and he lost the support of the Hindu members. As a consequence, his government was brought down.

No, I do not know Sindh politics or history. Neither am I a mathematician but it will not stop me from disagreeing with a mathematician who says 2+2=3. Nobody can deny that Sindh escaped the communal holocaust that engulfed East and West Punjab but this does not prove that there were no communal politics in Sindh. Nor does there seem to be a complete communal harmony in Sindh at the present time. I do have an Indian Sindhi friend who had successul Hindu relatives in Sindh; they have all left Pakistan claiming that their daughters and sisters were not safe in Sindh from kidnappings/conversions.

#481
The point remains Sindh was 30% Hindu and yet Jinnah wanted an all-Muslim government there. Because he could not get it Islam was in danger.

BJkumar,

There is no justification for the kind of remarks you made about the author. She has been called names etc... but you are one of those fanatical characters who feel that simply because some one disagrees with your rather blighted world view... the person becomes deserving of your abuse..

Nasah is on the dot about you.. and guess what nasah and I barely agree on anything.

#483 Nasah

I see it - so now it is a ``sexist`` thing - and this comes soon after I am given such ``honors`` as being HER proxy, and another interactor makes rather suggestive comments. All that is fair game but my honest statements are not!

Dear Nasah - the ``respected`` interactor of long - (by the way, I personally never ``respect`` anybody - I am convinced that term is at the root of many problems plaguing the subcontinent - I only respect what people do - each individual act by individual act - and I give clean chit to no one - and I do not have to go around making half-hearted defensive proclamations like ``my opinions are not written in stone``) - you are too smart not to see how the author stopped the discussion and an open examination of her own statements from the rather recent past (which had probably more to do with the topic at hand) than any of this Gandhi-Jinnah discussion did, which she allowed to flow on.

Perhaps because she ``enjoys`` THIS line of argument (don`t tell me she did not see how it was going to evolve - she has only seen it probably a million times before)!

And don`t tell me she has no control over it. She HAS - and she has exercised it again - and again! So this highly dishonest gesture of flailing hands in helplessness - which used to be a trademark of the stereotypical ``begums`` of yore - it does not wash with me.

There is dishonesty at the core - this interactor knows it - and the rest of the world can see it - except those people here who are DETERMINED not to.

Determined to protect those dishonest acts at any cost - these knights of various orders!

``Knights`` or mere ``dalaals``?

I find it quite ironic that individuals who claim to seek equality of men and women sometimes end up asking for ``special`` consideration because the female gender is involved. I consider it rather hypocritical.


#487 Kaal
I said what I genuinely felt. I do not seek your approval - or that of anybody else. You are entitled to your opinions and perhaps you are well-meaning - but I am determined to point out dishonesty wherever I see it - no matter who commits it and under what subterfuge or camouflage.

That is the only camp I belong to - because ultimately that is the only thing I will have to answer for - to myself!

Sincerely,
BJ Kumar

re: Beej # 480

You know that was a bad slip.

Gratuitous, sexist harassment and abuse of female interactors is a totally acceptable form of argumentation on Chowk, but its practice has evolved into an art form.

That whole dirty business is best avoided, IMHO.

Dear Majumdar...

After Independence Mr Jogindranath Mandal became the Law Minister of Pakistan and did some good work ... till 1950 ... when he resigned from the Law Ministry citing the fact that Pakistan had wavered from what Jinnah had promised- a modern democratic liberal state.

He then moved to India in protest. It is quite a sad story- but please see that it does not take away from the point I was making.

Re: #472

Dear Manto,

(Despite this clear policy, the Muslim League appointed Jogindranath Mandal as its Interim Government member... )

What happened to JMandal after Independence. If I am not mistaken he spent his last days in exile in India. Would you say that Mandal`s story is a parable of what happened to minorities in general in Pakistan.

Regards

Every interactor across the divide... be it Sadna or I .. should condemn this abuse by BJKumar. This is disgusting and wrong.

``then makes her ``space`` available to this ``gang`` more willingly than the proverbial ladies of the night open up their legs for a few ``bucks`` - ``(BJK)

is this the way for a goddam educated Indian interactor to address a lady.....when these bazaari subcontinental male chauvinist pigs -- a sorry excuse for being called `men` -- will learn to address and respect their educated women........probably never.....

Indeed -- ``All of them stink terrible (especially the writer of that filthy sentence). I find it all highly disgusting!``

it`s amazing -- the same interactor sounds so fair, balanced and objective in other posts on highly partisan topics with men -- and then suddenly goes berserk vulgar and personal to a woman editor who has no way to shut the goddam circular meaningless meandering `discussion`......except to lock the board

weird people.....

HP-

Sadna`s tactics are well known. She might fool people like BJKumar... but her attempts are too transparent to be taken seriously academically.

Dear BJKumar,

I am afraid HP and I are the only ones concerned about facts. Keep firing from Sadna`s shoulders... Calling us dishonest will not change the facts...


Sadna...

Allah Bux Soomro was a CP Ramaswami like figure with much to admire yet the facts were different.

HP is right when he says that the politics of Sindh, as always, has been one of feudal alliances. Allah Bux Soomro was defeated - that was the extent of the revenge. His son Rahim Bux Soomro was around till 2004 atleast boasting of his family`s friendship with Jinnah... even famously showing off the family pictures with Jinnah-

Defeated and out of politics, Allah Bux ultimately lost his life to the Hurs of Sindh who he had annoyed.

-YLH

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I have Jinnah`s entire statement to the press made on Oct 13 1938 and it is not Stanley Wolpert`s `opinion`. In his statement, Jinnah says exactly what Wolpert says about the incident and quotes Jinnah as saying.

Stanley`s opinion doesn’t constitute the whole truth. There is lot to it then simplistic explanations that Stanley Wolpert provides.

Sindh`s politics was at that time and still to some extend is feudal politics. Ideologies play a very small role. Feudal alliances and behind the scene games were more important than the little ML or Congress tussle in Sindh of that time.

I am not here to teach people Sindh`s history. So keep talking about things that only make you look stupid and ignorant.

Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan

On the morning of October 9, 1938, Karachi`s District Board formally welcomed the Muslim League and its leaders...

...That afternoon Jinnah met with Sikander, Fazlul Haq, and Khan Bahadur Allah Bux, United party premier of Sind, who though a Muslim had earlier refused to join forces with the League. Bux`s coalition government relied mostly upon Congress support. Jinnah was determined to add Sind to the League`s still paltry provincial list, which consisted as yet only of Bengal and the rather anomalous Punjab, both in fact coalitions.

After his arrival in Karachi on October 7, Jinnah had met with no fewer than twenty Muslim members of the multifactional Assembly, convincing them all to join the League and finally persuading-or so he believed-Allah Bux to join his party as well.

``It was agreed that one solid party of Muslim members of the Sind Legislative Assembly should be formed as Muslim League Party,`` Jinnah reported in his irate statement to the Associated Press a few days later. Allah Bux and all his Muslim ministers promised to resign, Jinnah explained, then a provincial League party election was to have been held to choose the new leader by ``unanimous vote,`` or ``in default he should be nominated by Mr. Jinnah and the party would abide by his choice.``

Early the next morning, however, Jinnah learned that Sind`s leader of the Congress party had wired Sardar Vallabhai Patel, president of the All Indian Congress Parliamentary Board, to alert him to the League`s intentions and ``When we met at 11 o`clock on the 12th of October 1938 much to the astonishment of every one Khan Bahadur Allah Bux backed out of the agreement.``. Shocked by such ``gross breach of faith in resiling`` Jinnah still felt it worth fighting for ``unity at any cost`` and sent his closest Sind deputy, Haji Sir Abdullah Haroon, to appeal at night to Allah Bux at hime but concluded next morning that the latter ``was in the hands of the Congress Party``.

It was a most bitter pill for Jinnah to swallow. He had labored long and hard for an independent province of Sind, since well before the first Round Table conference, being convinced that as a Muslim-majority province, it would surely elect a Muslim League government. Now the Sardar, Congress`s strong man, the shrewd organizational hand behind Nehru`s idealistic velvet glove, had snatched this plum from Jinnah`s lips just as he was about to savor its sweetness.

He would never forget, or forgive, Sardar Patel for having ``cheated`` him of Sind, ``robbing`` his home province out from under him at the very meeting of the League. ``You had almos achieved a triumph but the dogs fo the Congress have snatched from you the cup of victory.`` wrote Malid Barkat as soon as he heard the bad news. ``I have not the least doubt that the Mussalmans of Sindh will teach a lesson this traitor Allah Buksh.`` Bux was murdered in the May of 1943 and his assasin never caught.


sadna`s comment: Sind was 30% Hindu in 1946 and presumably also in 1938. From Muslim League point of view, having a Muslim only govt. in Sind was of course just and fair to 30% Hindus. However, having Congress govts. with absolute majority in U.P where Muslims were 16% and C.P where Muslims were in smaller percentage than U.P(unless I am mistaken) was of course outright persecution of Muslims and put Islam in danger.

Yassar,

Sadna has a habit of lying thru her teeth. I don’t have much time nor am I inclined to discuss something with an ignorant liar like Sadna.

We are talking about a prominent family in Sindh. The Soomros are the staunchest supporters of the army in Sindh.

Sadna! you are a pathetic liar. Instead of making up stuff as you go, I recommend you do some fact checking before running your mouth allover the net.


Yassar,

Read the Highlighted sections. It is clear that the sindhi leadership was interested in Pakistan because of 1940 resolution. Though, Soomro was probably thinking of independence.

Read about him and his family.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/05/14/fea.htm

Today marks the death anniversary of Allah Bux Soomro, who was assassinated in 1943.

IN THE political history of Sindh, May 14, 1943 will be remembered as a day of great loss. On that day, Allah Bux Soomro, the visionary leader, was murdered in Shikarpur at the age of 44.

It is not clear why he was killed but it is generally believed that elements hostile to Sindh’s centuries’ old tradition of peace among different faiths and creeds were responsible.

Allah Bux Soomro was chief minister when communal riots broke out in Shikarpur. He intervened to stop the trouble. Extremist forces had gathered in Sukkur on the Masjid Manzil Gah issue. Braving all odds, Mr Soomro delivered a moving speech, appealing to the people to remain calm. He assured the Muslims of the right to pray at Masjid Manzil Gah and at the same time assured the Hindus of safe access to Sadh Belo, the way to which passed close to the mosque. Opportunists had stirred up feelings against Hindu traders and the unrest was used to grab Hindu properties. The incident was exploited by Mr Soomro’s political rivals, and he lost the support of the Hindu members. As a consequence, his government was brought down.

Mr Soomro, from a middle class family, began his political career from the local bodies. Then he became chairman of the district council, a member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly, and when Sindh was separated from the Bombay Presidency, his party, the United Party, won 24 seats — the single largest party in the house. But the then Sindh governor invited Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah to form a government. Soomro’s party agreed to sit in the opposition. Allah Bux knew this would not last long. Soon the governor realized his mistake and Mr Soomro was invited to form the government.

In those turbulent times, with the Congress leading its Quit India Movement and the Muslim League formulating its demand for a separate state for the Muslims of India, Mr Soomro kept away from both the Muslim League and Congress. To him the autonomy of Sindh was important and he didn’t see its future in either of the parties.

G.M. Syed writes that Allah Bux held both parties as centralists which could not serve the interests of Sindh. “In my conversations with him, he said that since we have recently won freedom from the Bombay Presidency, we should not take any step that may harm our autonomous status. When I told him that in the recent resolution for Pakistan at the All-India Muslim League session held in Lahore, the point of provincial autonomy had been explicitly mentioned, he said that I was living in an idealist planet and therefore did not know how practical politics worked. In practical politics only might is right.” G.M. Syed adds: “Experience suggests that he was right and I was wrong.”

Mr Soomro had returned the British titles of Khan Bahadur and Order of the British Empire (OBE) while he was chief minister for the second time in reaction to a speech by Winston Churchill in which he had used derogatory language against the leaders of the freedom movement and declared that he wanted to keep India as a colony of the British Empire.

He was removed as chief minister and spent the last days of his life mostly in Shikarpur and kept himself busy in welfare works including flood relief measures.

Allah Bux Soomro was a leader without any pretensions and will he remembered as a great savant of Sindh.

He was murdered by unknown assailants; a year after his government was dismissed.

Dear Sadna,

Regarding Maulana Muhammad Ali (the Gandhi disciple who you quote) as well as your baseless assertions/faulty understanding about/of the Pakistan movement... I suggest you read my ilog.

I have been asked too many times to stop posting about Gandhi-Jinnah on this board and now even I am quite ashamed.

corr:
Congress went to jail and Jinnah had a veto on India`s constitution and central government for the length of the whole war. Is helping keep Hindus out of national government unjustly an OK thing to do? Who is going to quote a book about that?

#472
The Sindh Chief Minister was labelled a traitor by the Muslim League and Jinnah was very angry with him. Where`s the book on that? Jinnah had a big problem with the Unionists too for having Hindus within their ranks and for including in its party platform the interests of the Hindus within its ranks. Who is going to write a book about that?

It is cowardice to say `Muslim League was a party of Muslims only so had every right to be opposed to Hindu parties in the govt`- that excuse doesn`t work once it demanded Pakistan.

A secretary to the Cabinet Mission wrote in 1946 `` If it was immoral to surrender 80 million Muslims to the Hindus in the whole of India, would it be right to put 48 million nonMuslims at the mercy of the Muslims in Pakistan?``

So many Hindus in Pakistan but the party which demanded Pakistan could be totally opposed to Hindu parties in govt. Which Hindu from Pakistan or Bangladesh is ever going to write about this?


You are accusing the Congress and Gandhi of what Muslim parties themselves did. Muhammad Ali said about Gandhi - something like even a Muslim murderer or thief is better than a kafir like Gandhi(a view no doubt shared by you). But Gandhi is more maligned among `liberal` Muslims for his `extremism` than Muhammad Ali is for his extremism who was after all a Muslim and for a Muslim 100000000 khoon muaaf.

The Congress during Khilafat was trying to forge grassroots links with Muslims which the British couldn`t co-opt as Britain had always done via Muslim leaders since 1906, including Jinnah 1939 onward.

Unlike the way you keep framing the issue, it was not in Congress hands to grant any rights to Muslims, it was wholly and completely in British hands. The Muslims themselves were in the driving seat with respect to their rights from 1906 and as Ambedkar pointed out, often got concessions from the British that even various British commissions examining the concessions thought unfair to the Hindus.

Nothing the Congress ever did could change the symbiosis of Muslim leaders and the British, though via the Khilafat movement, Gandhi certainly tried.

We hear that Jinnah was so opposed to it, sure. What no one points out is that from 1937 Jinnah went all over India telling Muslims that the fact that Congress had withdrawn from the Khilafat movement was proof that Congress was an enemy of Muslims.

What Jinnah wanted was for Congress to come to an agreement with him in the nationalist (read anti-British) movement. The Congress was not denying Muslims any rights as it was in no position to do so, it was simply refusing to become a wholly Hindu nationalist party as Jinnah demanded by designating Jinnah as the sole spokesman of Muslims in its nationalist movement. Every formula short of that demand, Congress was willing to offer to Jinnah.

Jinnah wanted Congress to grant separate electorates and inviolable sovereignty of Muslims down to the local councils level, in other words an India-Pakistan border in every municipality where only Muslims would lead Muslims and have a veto over Hindus irrespective of their numbers. The Congress did not think that was a stable basis for nationhood and wanted to leave separate or virtually separate electorates behind.

After 1940 Jinnah`s demand for parity and later two nations came to forefront and Congress refused to accede to that either but the British certainly were immediately happy to agree in principle. Congress went to jail and Jinnah had a veto on India`s constitution for the length of the whole war. Is helping keep Hindus out of government unjustly an OK thing to do? Who is going to quote a book about that?


btw, which Muslim party since 1906 talked of daal bhaat? Perhaps some parties in Bengal and Unionists briefly under Fazli Hussain, thats all. Not even Jinnah. Economic issues he said were secondary to making sure only Muslim parties could seek Muslim votes. Why deny his own words?

Not imposing a Uniform Civil code at independence was Congress deciding not to take on another battle with Muslims in the violent and communally charged aftermath of Partition. Denial of Sharia is also considered a fit pretext for launching jihad, btw, though the question is are you or any other Muslim honest enough to mention that. I think not.

That is again part of the same framing, where barring the pre-independence nationalist Muslims who worked on the ground and went to jail, the trend in Muslim leadership has been to demand authority but take no responsibility. For that there are the Hindus.

About Sindh`s politics... Is that an invitation to HP to come and set you right?

AllahBux Soomro (and after him his son Rahim Bux) and Jinnah were personal friends... Allahbux and Sir Shahnawaz Bhutto were the two people, Jinnah would stay with - so much for calling him a traitor.

Allah Bux refused to come to an agreement with the Muslim League or the Congress primarily because he believed that both parties were all India parties while he had a Sindhi nationalist vision . As far as I know he was never described as a traitor by anyone - especially since he never was part of the Muslim League or the Congress. He also had been defeated and was out of power- concentrating on welfare programme

His assassination was probably at the hands of the Hurs of Sindh who had been upset with him for non-political reasons.

Here is why you don`t have a point Sadna...

Unlike the Congress Party which purported to speak for all indians, Muslim League claimed to speak for Muslim community. Despite this clear policy, the Muslim League appointed Jogindranath Mandal as its Interim Government member... Meanwhile Congress, which claimed to speak for Indians, on numerous occasions only nominated Hindus on positons of power - as documented by Maulana Azad- its his words not mine... Please read again.
(BTW - irrelevant to this discussion...You still haven`t provided the citation for your claim that Azad and not Nehru was the candidate for PM-ship)..

Similarly for separate electorates- that was not a Jinnah demand as he had opposed for a very long time the separate electorates as an attempt to divide and rule by the British... but after 1936 Jinnah did think that Congress was a Hindu Party (a claim that was reaffirmed by Azad`s confession)... The top down approach Sadna is a term I used for pre-Gandhian India which could have won dominion status earlier... Once the masses got involved it was never top down... and Pakistan was won through a mass movement- which is what upsets Indians so much.

The issue here- may I repeat- is not your understanding of Pakistan Movement, which is in any event prejudiced and colored and unsubstantiated.

The issue here is with your usage of the words “Dal Bhat” ... I am not even going to go into the usage of Dal Bhat … instead I will proceed with your argument…

1-Was it Daal Bhat when Gandhi pandered to the Khilafatists against the advice of secular leadership like Jinnah? Was it Daal Bhat when Gandhi made excuses for calls of Jehad and killing of Kafirs by his new found Mullah allies?

2- Was it Daal Bhat when Congress coopted the JUH and Majlis-e-Ahrar tasking them to call Jinnah “Kafir-e-Azam” and Pakistan “Kafiristan”.

Congress always pandered to the Muslim sentiments (which were religious and not just daal bhat) like Khilafat and particularism of the Islamic Mullahs … always and used these sentiments against the Muslim League which was speaking for the legitimate rights of Muslims …

The issue is not with tasking Muslim leaders with Muslim issues… the issue was tasking the unrepresentative Mullahs the leadership of the community. Tell me – is it E Ahamed or even Banatwallah of Indian Union Muslim League, a communal party, who have given this bounty? Or is it a Muslim member of a secular left party who has? Was Mr Qureshi ever a Muslim Leaguer?

Accept the responsibility… all regressive legislation in India pertaining to Muslims largely has to do with Congress’ covenant, a faustian bargain if you may, with the Mullahs of Deoband designed to discredit true leaders of the Muslims who the Congress regards as “Communalists”… I know that you know all of this and it is this ideological confusion and guilt that this in reality has to do with you guys more than us which is forcing you to react the way you do.


Yours sincerely,

YLH

#463 by bjkumar


[And just to add this follow-on thought.

Both Manto and Ajeya are very much in that ``blame game`` mud-slinging. Perhaps flip sides of the same coin.

When I asked about solutions - each of them wimped out!

But that result was expected, anyway! ]

Not that I need an excuse, or owe you a on-time reply, but just as a FYI - the Chowk server was down when I tried to post my response.

You are an idiot if you think that wimping out/ bravery are at issue for posters at Chowk. You are only fighting a brave fight in your imagination. This is a two-bit site where all kinds of people spend some time.

In any case - if I refute 10 out of your 10 points, you ask me a counter question on number 10, completely ignoring the other nine. That shows a lack of self-respect. Case in point - posts 453 and 459.

Anyway go ahead and keep tilting at windmills.

#459 by bjkumar

[Honestly, most people who have spent a bit of time here are well aware that the solutions do not come out of this or ANY web site.]

Well, YOU are the one who said the following:

``I don`t see any solutions mentioned in your response. Are you giving up? ``

I am a simple guy, easily confused. Are you trying to confuse me?



[Most of the time, the end result has been that individuals get defensive and dig into their heels.]


How is that relevant, if your position is that ``solutions do not come out of this or ANY web site``.



[However, the fact that people can talk about their feelings is a good thing - it means that they are not out there expressing those same feelings using more destructive means. At least that`s how I see it.]


Except for people like ali_1, haroonellahi, ahmedmadani, urstruly etc, I don`t think