Risky Routes and Rootless People

PS: Your latest post and cop out proves you don`t have a single honest bone in your body. Therefore- good night and keep obsessing.

Dear Sadna...

Lets not get ahead of ourselves... and distort every thing.

1- Nobody abused your family. Hasn`t your brother been writing on several blogsites... with particular reference to myself? Is this a lie? How is stating that your family members have been doing this on several websites abusing your family?

2- The reason I brought it up was because you claim that it is we who are obsessed with India... when it is you whose entire existence revolves around Pakistan and Pakistanis.

3- You have the right to your views and obsessions. I have no right to question them... but I have the right to point out the obvious.

4- Calling me a loser will not prove anything except that you don`t have a point and therefore must resort to abuse.

5- Is Alephnull going to make an appearance to save you?

Mantolives is now questioning my right to post my views on chowk and elsewhere on the internet and abusing my family as well. What a pathetic loser he is.

And when Aryan Mahatma declared in Germany that the Jews were less German because they were Jews... the Jews made Israel...

191,

Don`t start with what ``his`` two nation theory was... You are merely repeating the same old. The two nation theory was a fact ever since Gandhi brought Mullahs and Pandits to the forefront through the Khilafat Movement ... it was a genie out of the bottle... don`t take the credit away from the man who said religious identity was more important than political identity... Jinnah was merely a late and temporary convert...

It is the right of every minority in any country to preserve its identity, whether religious, ethnic or linguistic... this is preserved by the United Nations human rights charter... it is fascism of the majority that is the problem... I can well understand why you say what you say... because you believe that ``Hindu cultural identity is the central motif of Indian nationalism.`` Your entire case is religious couched in modern terms...

As for wider implications... I think the jewish community is amongst the most progressive and modern in the world... it is also very conscious of its identity... The deliberate confusion people like you create between identity and state is the problem here.

Swarrier...

It is not a technical point. There is a difference between strategic commitment and tactical maneuvering... the point was that they took up the separate electorate issue as a defence and not an ideal situation.

As for Gandhi... I`ve taken up the issue in detail elsewhere and I do not see it being challenged effectively. But I am sure you have a point when you say Gandhi did not believe in justice and fairplay for anyone but himself- my own research confirms this... however Jinnah`s entire life was to committed to this one goal and he may have made mistakes but no one will question that he was committed to this one goal through out. Indeed, Jinnah was a lawyer in the victorian sense ... fired by principles which he took to heart...

Sadna,

Look at your conduct on this website... you are obsessed with Pakistan and are extremely boring and repetitive.

Your entire life revolves around proving that we Pakistanis are obsessing over you and Indians... quite the contrary, I believe you know very well that it is Indians like you who obsess over Pakistani and indirectly the Muslim threat... Not only this, but your entire family is involved on the internet through various web blogs and internet websites with this single purpose ... lets not forget that you also admitted at one point to subscribing to Pakistani Geo TV to get more dirt on us Pakistanis...

It must be said to your credit that you singlehandedly forced Pakistanis like me to become more vigilant in face of your distortions ... but hardly any Pakistani blames India or Hindus for our current state of affairs... but every Indian I know has Pakistan to blame for this or for that. So why don`t you give up this facade and just come out and accept it... Pakistanis are the ``other`` in your life... it has indeed a seductive simplicity which hides the bad consequences and offers emotional comfort to people who want to shed responsibility for all their actions ...

Don`t worry about us Pakistanis though... we are doing just fine. Most Indians who visit Pakistan find it a very prosperous place, as liberal and open as India if not more so... and less poverty stricken, more developed and as pluralistic .. so your hogwash is confined to your head and your little insignificant life in New Jersey - far away from the subcontinent- where you feel it is your responsibility to play the defender of the world against Evil Pakistanis... but beyond making noise and discrediting yourself, you have so far achieved nothing.

#186
``1- Your problem is that you make an assumption that the identity Jinnah was speaking of was that of Islamic fundamentalists (who in turn were ironically allied with Gandhi and the Congress Party) ... when that is just historically untrue.``

I have made no such assumption, you are the one making the assumptions here. His exposition of his two nation theory couldn`t be clearer - Jinnah was describing a principle or duty applicable to all Muslims and he was calling that principle the basis for Pakistan.

To what extent Muslims must adhere to this principle or duty and whether his description is accurate or not is not for me to comment on as I am not a Muslim.

I only point out the obvious which is that, to uphold as universal principle, the eternal territorial, political, ideological, legal, economic, what have you, separation from nonMuslims whom Muslims live among in modern society, has wider implications than just the creation of Pakistan in the 1940s, and puts an impossible burden on Muslims. Just like others who want to preserve their identities of choice, Muslims too have to ``negotiate`` their identities just like everyone else does, and such a principle precludes any such negotiation.

#187
I have never expressed a view on Israel as a great achievement and given that I have repeatedly expressed my thankfulness for Pakistan`s existence and always explained precisely why, to say that I react badly against the existence of Pakistan is a blatant and desperate lie.

It is for Precious Pakistanis like yourself to ponder why you keep whining about how evil Hindus are and even 60 years after independence, keep blaming Hindus for everything in your precious Pakistan including your precious Pakistani state`s existence and Jinnah`s own speech on Muslims` religious duty.

The M R Jayakar quote in #184 is from

Readings In the Constitutional History of India, 1757-1947, Desika Char, Oxford University Press, 1983.

Gandhi-Jinnah Negotiations - M.R. Jayakar`s warning against the policy of appeasement, 9 August 1944

Re: # 181
Manto

Have you checked the source in Ajeet Javed`s book. I have not read the book, nor do I intend to, in the near future but unless the source is proven true, I will say this quote is a matter of conjecture. Besides the quote that I put up is not the problem. It can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Just as there are quotes by Gandhi stating `` I am a Hindu, and also a Christian a Buddhist ...... etc``. Why do you not quote that?

I would agree on the basis of the document syou have provided that Jinnah was not in favour of separate electorates till later on (however he supported joint electorates only on his preconditions being met). The rest again Gandhian fascism etc is only your conjecture. It means nothing.
Now why would you call this a distorting of the facts. You are arguing on a technical point. The 1906-1947 timeline. In between those dates the argument for separate electorates did occur.

Much the same argument that soysauce could use against your statement, since you have not furnished complete proof in support your statement that he quoted.

I hold no brief for Gandhi or Jinnah. I just see them as individuals. And I do not believe that either of them stood for , justice , fair play etc. all the time. They were pragmatists, and well knew, that who paid the piper called the tune. Life is not an Enid Blyton book.

PS: ... Ben Gurion forms the state of Israel on the basis of Jewish identity through armed struggle... and people like Sadna hail Israel as a great achievement... Jinnah, who Indians used to hail as the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, supposedly (historically the facts are a bit different) forms a state on Muslim identity through an electoral process and an act of partliament ... but because it is Muslim identity... it is not kosher.

The truth of the matter is behind this mask of secularism and pluralism... the real ideology that forces Hindu Indians to react so badly to Pakistan and its existence is ancient religious ideology which holds India as ``Bharat Mata`` and the creation of Pakistan the vivisection of the Hindu holyland... this is in a nutshell Hindutva and Gandhiism.

Sadna...

I am afraid none of posts you`ve put up prove anything that you claim they do.

1- Your problem is that you make an assumption that the identity Jinnah was speaking of was that of Islamic fundamentalists (who in turn were ironically allied with Gandhi and the Congress Party) ... when that is just historically untrue.

2- Jinnah`s statement, that you have quoted out of context, was not in isolation. Was the same guy not hailed by the Congress Party as the best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity for three decades... But yes after 1940 ... Jinnah was bargaining... In a game of tit for tat , Jinnah upped the ante... but you forget that Jinnah, when Pakistan was in sight, gave a clear vision of what principles the state would be run on... Is it not true that Jinnah`s nominee on a Muslim seat was a Hindu... the same gentleman becoming a law minister... and while you hide behind the fact that as an all India party Muslim League was unable to change its basic structure and open the party to non-Muslims... Punjab and Sindh Muslim Leagues had opened their doors to Non-muslims even in 1946....

3- I can see how you wish to create anti-Muslim hysteria but the demand for Pakistan itself arose out of the constitutional history of India. I am sure every Musalman in the US or Europe would only want to make a Pakistan if a Christian demagogue in Europe or US declared ``I am a Christian first and therefore a true American or European``...

4- M R Jayakar`s dishonest testimony flies in the face of reality that Durga Das puts down in his book. He speaks of British frustrating Jinnah`s pact with Hindu leadership through your favorite Sir Fazli Hussain .... the feudal champion of separate electorates you admire so much because at the very end of his life he was ready to give into Gandhi and Co.

5- As for hiding behind this new statement for which you have quoted no source... here is what Jinnah`s vision for Pakistan was ... for some reason these words cause heart burn not just to the Mullahs but the Indians as well.... because not only did Jinnah thwart the ambition of the Congress party ... but also put forth a vision that is as modern, democratic and secular as any state in the world....


Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do?

Now, it we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor.

If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make.

I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this.

You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today.

The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class.

Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step.

Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

This was not a contradiction but a consolidation of a life`s work... the work that Indians and their Mullah allies have been trying to undo for many years ... but facts have a funny way of coming up again and again...

I want to rephrase in #174 #175-

``Secondly, relating to his future Pakistan`s nonMuslims. NonMuslims would have constituted about 44% of the Pakistan he demanded - the percentages were 62/37 in the North West and 52/48 in the North East. I find it this statement most shocking ``They are our homelands. They were taken from us and we want them back. What title have Hindus to it?``. 44% population of his future Pakistan, a people who had lived there for millenia before Islam even came into being had no title to their homeland, according to him? In 1944 he made it clear that nonMuslims of the region must have no part in any plebiscite for Pakistan as `only Muslims have the right of self-determination`.``

swarrier #180
As long as Congress agreed to the overrepresentation of Muslims in provincial and federal legislatures, Jinnah was willing to back joint electorates as a compromise device. After Congress refused to consider either overrepresentation of Muslims or separate electorates (from mid to late 1920s onward), after that Jinnah used the separate electorates as a pre-condition in order to try and to force Congress to concede their other demands including for over-representation.

(Separate electorates were in any case an article of faith for Muslim parties in general - who would want to give up a captive constituency of limited franchise, heavily weighted in provinces like Punjab in favor of special groups like landlords).

And everything the Congress wouldn`t concede, meanwhile the British kept granting - the Congress always offered Muslims much less than the British simultaneously willingly made into law.

Here is M R Jayakar writing to Gandhi in 1944 trying to persuade him not to negotiate with Jinnah and telling him about the First Round Table Conference in London in 1930:

``..I will give you one of my experiences. At the first Round Table Conference, Dr Moonje, with characteristic generosity (which turned out in the end to be foolish), went on conceding one point after another to Mr Jinnah, on the latter`s assurance that the price of these concessions would be joint electorates.

After this parleying had gone on for five or six days, Prime Minister McDonald telephoned to me one evening enquiring who was carrying on these foolish negotiations. He asked me to stop them, adding that every evening, Mr Jinnah took to him the paper on which were noted the concessions made by Dr Moonje and the Prime Minister was asked : ``The Hindus are giving me so much. How much more are His Majesty`s Government willing to give me? ``.

The result was that these negotiations had to be stopped with what consequences you know...``

In 1932, the British passed the Communal Award, which conceded virtually everything Muslims asked for, including separate electorates. After it was passed, Jinnah made the acceptance of Communal Award by the Congress as a precondition for any agreement.

#178
``What is this god forsaken obsession on part of the majorities to want the minorities to merge into them and give up their identity? Why do Sunnis want Shias to give up shiism or Ahmadis Ahmadism to be true Muslims? Why do Punjabis want smaller ethnicities to give up their ethnic pride in being a Sindhi or Punjabi or a Baloch or a Pushtun? Why do Hindus always want Muslims to merge into them to prove their loyalty to India? ````

Where is this obsession except in your own imagination? Now you are saying without any basis whatsover that Jinnah made that statement in support of Pakistan because Hindus wanted/want Muslims to merge their religious and cultural identity with Hindus. Jinnah did not say that he said it was the religious duty of Muslims living in the alien society of Hindus to have Pakistan.


``As for the Muslim, it was a duty imposed on him by Islam not to merge his identity and individuality in any alien society. Throughout the ages Hindus had remained Hindus and Muslims had remained Muslims, and they had not merged their entities - that was the basis for Pakistan. In a gathering of European and American officials he was asked as to who was the author of Pakistan. Mr Jinnah`s reply was `Every Mussalman.```

This is something which is indeed worth telling Europeans and Americans - that according to Jinnah, the Mussalmans living in Europe and America will one day create their own ``Pakistans`` as it is their religous duty.


``And identity need not be in conflict with the modern world. ``
This is not something that the Indians need to be told, this is something your own countrymen need to be told. They have taken Jinnah`s words seriously.


Pakistanis will have to accept responsibility for themselves some day. They can not eternally blame every last thing, even Jinnah`s own words, on Hindus. The great thing is that Pakistanis have been living in a different country for 60 years otherwise this `blame the Hindus` game would have been played by them without any limits.

PS: My inference is very clear- Sadna has distorted the facts because she knows as well as others that in face of Gandhian Fascism ... separate electorates were a last resort and temporary measure ...