Risky Routes and Rootless People

Re: # 243

Looks like Aks deliberately missed this post that puts to rest Sadna`s lies:

Dear Sadna...

I am glad that you`ve now distanced yourself from your previous assertion that every ill arises from the creation of Pakistan and not the mistakes that people might have made later.

Now coming to your other points... so that you may understand my point of view better in a bout of fairmindedness - rare but we all live on hope.


1. The same year that you quote the ``religious duty`` speech, Jinnah also said:

Musalmans of India are PROUD to be Indians and believe in India for the Indians. It is in that spirit that the Lahore Resolution was adopted. 22nd February 1941. Source : SK Majumdar`s ``Jinnah and Gandhi: their role in India`s quest for freedom``

The point being that the distinct identity issue was not about India but about merging into the majority... Now while it is true that it in 1910s... Jinnah believed that through intermarriage Hindus and Muslims could evolve a common identity ... I think his later position was much more reasonable...

Consider... do Christians need to merge with Muslims of Pakistan in order to be true Pakistanis? Better yet.. I`ve come across many patriotic Indian Nationalist Sardars who balk at the idea of merging their distinct Sikh identity with the Hindu one...

So your objection is more in line with your view that Muslims need to accept Hinduism as part and parcel of Indian nationalism in order to be good Indians and therefore adopt it...

Furthermore... Gandhi, as the leader of the majority, himself had said this:

`Sanghtan is a really sound movement. Every community is entitled, indeed bound to organize itself as a seperate entity` : Mahatma Gandhi



2. a) The Interim Government issue is really indicative of your desperation. Interim government was exactly that - interim government- in lieu of a constitutional agreement... The Cabinet Mission Plan that Muslim League had agreed to did not by any mathematical gymnastic give the Muslims as a whole (not ML btw) 35% of the seats... you confuse parity for Muslim Majority regions with Hindu Majority regions. Recall that Jinnah wanted an absolute majority (your argument) but not as much as 3 to 1... so in any event the Muslim majority regions would have around 30% Non-Muslims as per the plan after any gerrymandering to bring about the equipoise.

b) Furthermore democracy does not mean the tyranny of the majority. The majority leader of East Pakistan and Pakistan as a whole - Shaikh Mujiburrahman- understood this and his 6 points were a perfectly reasonable and democratic parity-based solution based on Lahore Resolution ... which West Pakistanis rejected because our civil military elite wanted to oppress the Bengalis... It is a great tragedy but has nothing to do with your spin of the event. If anything it is the failure of the principle. If we were to accept your view on the matter and not Shaikh Mujib`s... then one would imagine that equal representation of provinces in the Senate is not a democratic principle. And while you chastise us for ``drawing rooms`` - please remember that as a lawyer in Pakistan, I park my car and walk between courts in the scorching heat of Lahore summer meeting people from all walks of life.. while you sit and theorise like an armchair general trying to win all battles for Hindu supremacy .


3- On the issue of missing women ... I have already mentioned the social ills that exist in Pakistan but you deliberately did not quote them.... Pakistan`s problems are honor killing and other such evils... but please produce this evidence of female foeticide. Have there been mass abortions in Pakistan of female fetuses?

You can produce many fudged statistics (which by no means are conclusive proof - as always- of your claims) but unless you produce substantial piece of evidence indicting some Pakistani doctor of first determining the sex of the baby and then aborting it, like the evidence produced of Indian doctors, you have no case.

Please understand that we will not take your view on anything but only substantial proof and evidence.

Ah... another one trying to prop up Sadna.

Her facts and figures never back up her claims. She quotes them in form of obfuscation and nothing else. I have used the same facts and figures to prove the exact opposite of her claims many times.

If anyone is a charlatan here ... it is you who fails to see that nothing quoted by Sadna here can be presented as conclusive proof of anything.

I have been following this debate for quite some time now and I am amazed at the shameless charlatanry (if such a word exists) of Mantolives. Sadna puts forth the figures and all Yasser Hamdani can do is note:

``Please understand that we will not take your view on anything but only substantial proof and evidence.````

The same kind of nonsensical behaviour that many Pakistanis displayed about terrorism till 9/11 burst open their ties to such organizations and how deeply they had taken root.

Hamdani, whom the heck are you kidding? Finally you make a maudlin appeal to Sadna wrt age! This after the personal abuse which litters your posts throughout the exchange!

Having interacted with a lot of Punjabi Muslims from the land of pure, this is such typical behaviour that I cannot help but chortle as I note your tactics.

First obfuscate, lie and attack Sadna, and at the end, when the evidence and sources become too much to glibly explain away or cover up with a blitzkreig of abuse - promptly end on a maudlin note!

Sadnas words are essentially accurate- I doubt anyone here was foolish enough to not see through your rigmarole. And please, about female foeticide- lets not just go ``there`` with respect to Pakistan. Its a big problem there as well. Only that unlike India, you prop up the myth of an egalitarian Islam and lip service to religion being enough to eradicate social evil, when its anything but.

Dear Sadna,

I am afraid you did say this no matter how much you deny it... I am not trying to bother you but this is exactly what you said and you know it. I have asked you several times as to what you exactly said but you were unable to produce your own words - why? Because you know this is exactly what you said.

As for claiming that I have no arguments left-please -keep dreaming. The problem with you is that you unable to accept that there might be an argument or a point of view other than yours which might be valid. As for arguments... I have raised several points which you haven`t answered or unable to answer... which is why you come to ``You Pakistani elite this and you Pakistani elite that``... and then you bring up poor tapeworms.

So let us grow up... you are 20 or 30 years senior to me but you act like you are stuck in some sort of teenage one-upmanship. Look whatever your personal issues- its not Pakistan`s fault. Please learn to live that.

-YLH

#240
``So your objection is more in line with your view that Muslims need to accept Hinduism as part and parcel of Indian nationalism in order to be good Indians and therefore adopt it``

You have no arguments left except unsubstantiated lies about me.

``You can produce many fudged statistics (which by no means are conclusive proof - as always- of your claims) but unless you produce substantial piece of evidence indicting some Pakistani doctor of first determining the sex of the baby and then aborting it, like the evidence produced of Indian doctors, you have no case.

Please understand that we will not take your view on anything but only substantial proof and evidence.``


Who is `we`? You and your tapeworm?

If this 97% pure Muslim country and an evil Hindu-majority country have the same sex ratio at birth(according to the CIA website which you say fudge their statistics), why is an evil Hindu asked find the reason why?

Was it the evil Hindus who killed those Pakistani babies before birth? No. Don`t Pakistanis like you take any responsibility for finding the reasons for their own sex ratio at birth statistic? No, they would rather abuse Indians who have the same sex ratio at birth. Thanks for proving my point.

Dear Sadna...

I am glad that you`ve now distanced yourself from your previous assertion that every ill arises from the creation of Pakistan and not the mistakes that people might have made later.

Now coming to your other points... so that you may understand my point of view better in a bout of fairmindedness - rare but we all live on hope.


1. The same year that you quote the ``religious duty`` speech, Jinnah also said:

Musalmans of India are PROUD to be Indians and believe in India for the Indians. It is in that spirit that the Lahore Resolution was adopted. 22nd February 1941. Source : SK Majumdar`s ``Jinnah and Gandhi: their role in India`s quest for freedom``

The point being that the distinct identity issue was not about India but about merging into the majority... Now while it is true that it in 1910s... Jinnah believed that through intermarriage Hindus and Muslims could evolve a common identity ... I think his later position was much more reasonable...

Consider... do Christians need to merge with Muslims of Pakistan in order to be true Pakistanis? Better yet.. I`ve come across many patriotic Indian Nationalist Sardars who balk at the idea of merging their distinct Sikh identity with the Hindu one...

So your objection is more in line with your view that Muslims need to accept Hinduism as part and parcel of Indian nationalism in order to be good Indians and therefore adopt it...

Furthermore... Gandhi, as the leader of the majority, himself had said this:

`Sanghtan is a really sound movement. Every community is entitled, indeed bound to organize itself as a seperate entity` : Mahatma Gandhi



2. a) The Interim Government issue is really indicative of your desperation. Interim government was exactly that - interim government- in lieu of a constitutional agreement... The Cabinet Mission Plan that Muslim League had agreed to did not by any mathematical gymnastic give the Muslims as a whole (not ML btw) 35% of the seats... you confuse parity for Muslim Majority regions with Hindu Majority regions. Recall that Jinnah wanted an absolute majority (your argument) but not as much as 3 to 1... so in any event the Muslim majority regions would have around 30% Non-Muslims as per the plan after any gerrymandering to bring about the equipoise.

b) Furthermore democracy does not mean the tyranny of the majority. The majority leader of East Pakistan and Pakistan as a whole - Shaikh Mujiburrahman- understood this and his 6 points were a perfectly reasonable and democratic parity-based solution based on Lahore Resolution ... which West Pakistanis rejected because our civil military elite wanted to oppress the Bengalis... It is a great tragedy but has nothing to do with your spin of the event. If anything it is the failure of the principle. If we were to accept your view on the matter and not Shaikh Mujib`s... then one would imagine that equal representation of provinces in the Senate is not a democratic principle. And while you chastise us for ``drawing rooms`` - please remember that as a lawyer in Pakistan, I park my car and walk between courts in the scorching heat of Lahore summer meeting people from all walks of life.. while you sit and theorise like an armchair general trying to win all battles for Hindu supremacy .


3- On the issue of missing women ... I have already mentioned the social ills that exist in Pakistan but you deliberately did not quote them.... Pakistan`s problems are honor killing and other such evils... but please produce this evidence of female foeticide. Have there been mass abortions in Pakistan of female fetuses?

You can produce many fudged statistics (which by no means are conclusive proof - as always- of your claims) but unless you produce substantial piece of evidence indicting some Pakistani doctor of first determining the sex of the baby and then aborting it, like the evidence produced of Indian doctors, you have no case.

Please understand that we will not take your view on anything but only substantial proof and evidence.

``affirmative action``

This is what BR Ambedkar said in the 1940s about the ``affirmative action`` which Jinnah and the Muslim League were asking on behalf of Muslims.

``It seems to me that the Congress has failed to realize two things. The first thing which the Congress has failed to realize is that there is a difference between appeasement and settlement, and that the difference is an essential one. Appeasement means buying off the aggressor by conniving at his acts of murder, rape, arson and loot against innocent persons who happen for the moment to be the victims of his displeasure. On the other hand, settlement means laying down the bounds which neither party to it can transgress. Appeasement sets no limits to the demands and aspirations of the aggressor. Settlement does. The second thing the Congress has failed to realize is that the policy of concession has increased Muslim aggressiveness, and what is worse, Muslims interpret these concessions as a sign of defeatism on the part of the Hindus and the absence of the will to resist. This policy of appeasement will involve the Hindus in the same fearful situation in which the Allies found themselves as a result of the policy of appeasement which they adopted towards Hitler. This is another malaise, no less acute than the malaise of social stagnation. Appeasement will surely aggravate it. The only remedy for it is a settlement. If Pakistan is a settlement, it is a proposition worth consideration. As a settlement it will do away with this constant need of appeasement and ought to be welcomed by all those who prefer the peace and tranquillity of a settlement to the insecurity due to the growing political appetite shown by the Muslims in their dealings with the Hindus.``
...

``All I would like to say in this connection is that the Hindus, before determining their attitude towards this question, should note certain important considerations.

In particular they should note that there is a difference between Macht Politic[politics of power] and Gravamin Politic[politics of grievance]; that there is a difference between Communitas Communitatum and a nation of nations; that there is a difference between safeguards to allay apprehensions of the weak, and contrivances to satisfy the ambition for power of the strong; that there is a difference between providing safeguards and handing over the country. Further, they should also note that what may with safety be conceded to Gravamin Politic may not be conceded to Macht Politic. What may be conceded with safety to a community may not be conceded to a nation; and what may be conceded with safety to the weak to be used by it as a weapon of defence may not be conceded to the strong who may use it as a weapon of attack.

These are important considerations, and if the Hindus overlook them, they will do so at their peril. For the Muslim alternative [to Pakistan] is really a frightful and dangerous alternative. ``

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/308.html


``but when you, in classic McCarthy fashion, tried to pass them off as a natural consequence of the creation of Pakistan``

Prove I ever said anything like this. Learn to take responsibility for your own lies and your country`s policies. You are not puppets of Indians, you are human beings with full control of your mouths and brains, living in a 97% Muslim country, moreover.

``The issue of female foeticide is mainly an Indian problem. In Pakistan, the one upshot of emphasis on Islam is that this evil practice is non-existent.``

There is no difference between the Pakistani female foeticide problem and the Indian female foeticide problem. That still you keep repeating this lie, not once but many times, tells me a lot about your Islam.

http://www.economics.pomona.edu/GarySmith/Econ190/PakistanSexRatio.pdf

[Amartya] Sen`s assessment of Pakistan as having the largest percentage of missing women has remained robust to recent research, though the actual value of the percentage has decreased from 9.1% to 7.8%. The number of missing women in Pakistan given by Klasen and Wink is 4.9 million.In the most recent census(1998), Pakistan`s overall sex ration was 925 females per 1000 males.

CIA website:

Pakistan
Sex ratio at birth:1.05 male(s)/female

India
Sex ratio at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html


Pakistan government website:
Sex ratio: 108.5 males to 100 females aka 922 females to 1000 males, less than India

Indian government website
Sex ratio : 933 females to 1000 males, higher than Pakistan

http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/pop_sex_ratio_growth_rate/pop_sex_ratio_growth_rate.html
http://www.censusindia.net/results/resultsmain.html

``Jinnah`s speech was the result of the politics that necessitated that Jinnah put forth the Muslim case forcefuly. ``

Yeah right. Mantolives tells us that Jinnah said Muslims had a religious duty vis a vis Hindus which they followed for 1000 years since the first Indian converted from Islam but for Jinnah that religious duty of Muslims derived not from Islam but from Gandhi`s politics. But for Gandhi, Muslims would not have followed their religious duty for the last 1000 years. Well, Gandhi lived in the 20th century not in the 11th century so Islam bears the responsibility for for Muslims` religious duties vis a vis Hindus not Gandhi.


``Muslim League`s demand was based on a democratic principle`` ``Muslim League was the second largest party in the assembly even before the 1946 victory...``

Oh yes, the Congress held 201 seats and Muslim League held 73 seats in the Constituent Assembly and Jinnah insisted on Congress-League parity in the Interim government. That definition of ``democratic principle`` is one which you will not find anywhere else in the world. Pakistan`s own such experiment with that sort of ``democratic principle``, enforcing parity between representatives of 56% population (East Pakistanis) and 44% population (West Pakistanis), ended in civil war.

Pakistanis need to stop theorizing about democratic principles in the comfort of their drawing rooms and instead go out into the harsh real world and actually practice them.

Muslim League`s demand was based on a democratic principle (democracy never meant tryranny of the majority but the government of all people not just a section based on religion i.e. Hindu Majority- remember government of the people, for the people by the people- not some people or most of the people but all the people)

Muslim League was the second largest party in the assembly even before the 1946 victory... unfortunately the Congress wanted to make alliances with smaller groups amongst Muslims...

Here is a time magazine report that proves what I am saying:


21st November 1941

Meeting this week at India`s magnificent capital at New Delhi, the Legislative Assembly, top representative body of the Indian Government, found itself shy 26 of its 141 members. The 26, members of the Moslem League, most important political party in India after Gandhi`s India National Congress, had walked out in a body, led by the League`s astute president, monocled Mohamed Ali Jinnah. Stated reason for the walkout: to protest against the way Britain and the British-run Indian Government were handling the defense of India in World War II. But the gesture meant more than just that....

Sadna...

Trying to get off on another technicality are you?

I meant more than proportional. In many countries this is called affirmative action. I for one have no qualms about conceding more than proportional representation to minorities of Pakistan... I think it would be fair. You may say whatever you wish to it...

As for demanding 50% representation... this is your imagination... Not even in the Cabinet Mission Plan was that going to be a reality. There is a difference between 50% representation for Muslim Majority Areas and 50% representation for Muslim.. the former, as I proved again and again, would at most get Muslims 35% over all representation.. as opposed to the 28-29% which was their actual population.


Now I must put up some clarifications which you unfortunately are not fairminded enough t realise...

1- I did not blame Gandhi and Nehru for taliban problem... but when you, in classic McCarthy fashion, tried to pass them off as a natural consequence of the creation of Pakistan, I pointed out that those in Pakistan who spawned and fathered Taliban were in alliance with the Congress party during the Pakistan Movement ... and that Pan-Islamic politics were started off by Gandhi and Co. against the British in form of the Khilafat Movement.

2- The issue of female foeticide is mainly an Indian problem. In Pakistan, the one upshot of emphasis on Islam is that this evil practice is non-existent. What replaces it is another social ill... or several... a- Honor Killing b- Large families. Both these have nothing to do with hindus or India... but are indigenously Pakistani ills.

3- Jinnah`s speech was the result of the politics that necessitated that Jinnah put forth the Muslim case forcefuly. Had Gandhi not brought the politics to that corner.. where Muslims had to look for alternatives... it wouldn`t have been necessary.



--

Now here are some additional points that I would like to make...

1- Given the power politics and megalomania Indian National Congress and its leadership indulged in after isolating erstwhile Congressmen like Jinnah ... and given that its politics was mainly a front for Hindu Bourgeoisie interests... the creation of Pakistan (and ultimately Bangladesh) was the best solution and history will no doubt accord its verdict in its favour... once the dust settles...

2- No matter what confusion people like you create... Pakistanis have to follow the vision of Pakistan that Mahomed Ali Jinnah gave on 11th August 1947 ... and we will have it one day. Pakistan will emerge as a great secular democracy of the future and its existence as a stable and modern republic (and on the ground it still is on many counts much better than India) will be a slap in the face of people like you, who live on an irrational obsessive hate, derived wholely from an inchoate religious idea of one bharat mata...

#235

Produce a single piece of evidence that Jinnah was for proportional representation of Muslims ANY SINGLE TIME in his career.

A politician`s politics is known by what he supports and what he speaks about in public about not the OPPOSITE of that, which we are always told that he had in his inner mind. The Lucknow Pact not only had Jinnah`s full support, he was known for having brought it about. Even in the late 30s he was demanding an agreement from the Congress similar to the Lucknow Pact.

Declaring that Islam was in danger because a party Muslim League which had won 4 and 1/2 percent of the entire Muslim vote was not included in the U.P coalition govt (where Muslims were 14%) and in C.P (where Muslims were 4.7%), while also saying that Islam was in danger because in Sind where Hindus were 30% an all-Muslim government could not be formed, is not fighting for safeguards, it is megalomania and power politics. Asking for 50% of 25% Muslims as Jinnah and Muslim League did in 1938-1939 otherwise Islam is in danger is not a safeguard it is megalomania and power politics.

The basis for these strong political positions was the already existing Muslim overrepresentation in the central and provincial legislatures and British willingness to offer even more. It was the politics of the possible not a quest for minority safeguards.

Pakistani politics since then has only been a continuation of the pre-Partition tendency of
1. Having full Muslim sovereignty but refusing to extend real franchise beyond a favored circle of military, noveau rich, landlords and bureaucracy, making Hindus the excuse for it.

2. Having full Muslim sovereignty but trying to extract more leverage from nonMuslims in the name of Muslim rights instead of actually attending to Muslim rights.

Demanding overrepresentation in legislatures of Muslims at the cost of other communities is not a minority safeguard in today`s world, it is Muslims declaring they are more important than all others. It is better to take one`s head out of the 1920s and stop trying to impose the values of that period on nonMuslims in 2006.

It makes even less sense for Pakistani Muslims to whine about eveil Hindus not giving them Muslim overrepresentation when those same Pakistani Muslims are today a 97% majority but will not admit to ANY responsibility for what Pakistani Muslims do as evidenced by your whining about a. how the Taliban problem is because of Gandhi and Nehru b. female foeticide in Pakistan is because of Hindus of India c. Jinnah speech on a Muslim`s religious duty was because of Hindus d. more of the same ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Soyasauce,

It is my challenge to you to go back and see for yourself each time this particular issue has come up. It has come up in tit for tat. As for Jinnah, his honesty and integrity was well respected by most ... Ambedkar called him the most incorruptible politician of his time... my own reading of history does not suggest opportunism but at times stubbornness...


Sadna...

Jinnah had opposed separate electorates when they were initiated and had agreed to them at Lucknow pact because that was the demand of Muslim League leaders ... If you recall then it had been opposite to his later position. Muslim League had agreed to give up Muslim majorities in Punjab and Bengal in exchange for separate electorates.. while Jinnah was ready to exchange separate electorates for Muslim majorities and reservations ... As a principle he always stood against it..

As for over representation... minorities always demand safeguards and that is hardly a new thing ... the term ``secular politics`` can be construed liberally or narrowly ... and it can both cut down and raise up minorities.. After all was Congress` stance on Shah Bano case ``secular``? And that is an instance where Jinnah would have stood up against that stance... I say this because of his legislative experience where he had faced up the Mullahs to win support for the Child Marriages Restraint Act ... for Vithalbhai Patel.

-YLH

Re: # 232
Sadna
When you read some of Gandhi`s writings they remind me very much of a great deal of rambling. It`s almost as if he was writing those things while trying to clear his mind and think things out. Obviously it evolved as time went on.
I also think Jinnah was manipulated by circumstances somewhat.

Manto
I am not attacking your basic beliefs if that is what you meant by impugn. Just arguing. I wasn`t aware that Sadna was blaming Pakistan for everything. I was under the impression she was saying don`t blame us for everything. Still on another note have you read ``The Great Indian Novel`` by Shashi Tharoor? Rather decent except for the verses.

Bharath
Again Nehru is a bit of an enigma. From what I have gleaned he was a bit of an elitist. He did believe he was an aristocrat of sorts. But I don`t think that is terribly bad either. It`s not good to be like everybody else. Also I think after the China debacle he should have stepped down or at least taken the blame on himself as much as V K Krishna Menon. Rajeev Srinivan`s take on Nehru seems to be completely built on his hatred for socialism, and the Congress. Especially when they project themselves as a secular party. May have been. Certainly not today. A bunch of opportunists. Nehru and people of those times did believe in some principles . Some of his policies did help India. I mean to a large extent , the IITs, the IIMs , BARC, TIFR were all aided by his vision of India. I`m not saying he did it alone but he at least did see that it would produce something. Rajeev Srinivasan attended Madras IIT. He did benefit from Nehru`s vision. I did some work at BARC in the mid 80s on reactor physics and control and I was thrilled to be there.

By the way, I do respect Gandhi too. Even my father who couldn`t stand the Congress etc.. always maintained that the man had courage. Of course he said that about Jinnah too. So you see a Hindu Mahasabha supporter saying that. -) Must have been the whiskey. My father liked his drink.

At one time I probably with a lot of people did hope that the BJP would provide a more balanced viewpoint without playing the secular card and stating things exactly the way they are. But they have failed too. It is not Jayprakash Narayan`s party any more. Playing the religion card will get us nowhere. I would really like to see that card moved out of the political arena completely. But it`s going to be so difficult. We must remove the ghettoisation that is creeping into some Indian life. I remember reading an article by Madhu Kishwar on that some time ago. She made a lot of sense.

And most of all in these things the press is terrible. The only interest they have is in kicking up rows and improving their ratings. They have learnt the worst possible things from the American prime time rubbish. Numb people`s senses with rubbish and you will hold them forever in your thrall.

Sort of like the so called technical document I am trying to read now. -)

#227 Yasser
It`s perfectly understandable that the maulanas would oppose a whiskey-drinking, pork-eating anglophile presenting himself as savior of subcontinental muslims. They recognized an opportunist when they one...

#230

``Some times I think Gandhi has talked too much on too many things. ``

This same Gernier Mantolives had quoted from below, complains about Gandhi `` he produced a quite unconscionable number of articles and speeches and wrote an average of sixty letters a day.``

#223 Yasser, all right if you take back your accusation. I don`t know who Grenier is, but he seems to be insinuating that Gandhiji was guilty of all those things you have highlighted. Does he furnish any proof? He very much sounds like a rumor mongerer.

BTW, I suspect there`s more than one person in your household (as in mine) ``defecating in the same room`` - just not at the same time. So there`s some wiggle room for you.
Gandhiji was heavily into ``nature cure`` that he had learnt from visiting westerners.

Now about your bringing these up as tit for tat, if memory serves me right, you have been bandying about this ``sleeping with his nieces`` thing for years now. Therefore, it was not like an unusual outburst provoked by other things.

Feel free to believe Greinier or whoeverelse says about Gandhiji but be prepared to be challenged when you quote them as authentic sources.

Re: # 228
SADNA,
You wrote ``As for Gandhi, just like Jinnah`s views on the Hindu-Muslim question evolved, so did Gandhi`s on caste. The evolution was in opposite directions - Jinnah became increasingly and stridently communally divisive in his politics, while Gandhi became successively less divisive in his views on caste. ``

BIG THANKS for this clarification. Even otherwise we respect him
for so many other reasons.

What was his disciple Nehru doing all this time? He must have rubbished all this ``varnavyavastha``? Did Nehru have any influence on Gandhi?

or did anyone have any influence on Gandhi:-))))
Was it always a one a way street?

Some times I think Gandhi has talked too much on too many things.