Jinnah, My Hero

Re: Rishi

I couldn`t get to all the replies, but did get a chance to read the last few. So, I hope I`m not taking this out of context.

``I FIND IT A TRIFLE AMUSING THAT MUSLIMS WHO ARGUE AGAINST LIVING IN A SLIGHTLY HINDU MAJORITY INDIA DON`T MIND GIVING UP THEIR ISLAMIC COUNTRY AND IDENTITY TO LIVE AS CITIZENS UNDER A GLASS CEILING IN A PREDOMINANTLY CHRISTIAN MAJORITY USA``

I did too, until I probed the issue some. Time and again, I come across Pakistanis who exhibit an unabashed hatred of Hindus. I never thought of it twice while I was living in Pakistan; this was just the way things were--no sweat. But then I came to the United States and noticed that Indians were, generally speaking, much more tolerant of Pakistanis/Muslims. Frankly, this was very fascinating to me; on the one hand, I was enraged by Pakistanis` narrow-minded bigotry and on the other impressed by Indians` apparent openness. I tried to understand why that was. The answer (at least partly) is pretty simple and self-evident: Pakistan, with its roughly 10% non-Muslim population, is at least religion-wise, a very homogenous society. There is simply very little exposure to alternative beliefs, lifestyles, and cultures.

This past summer, a very intellingent friend of a friend was having dinner with us. The subject of India-Pakistan relations came up (in the context of the recent nuclear tests by both sides). One of us suggested the wishful scenario of economic ties between the two countries. We were shocked at this guy`s undisguised HATRED of Hindus/Indians. He said he`d rather see a mile-high wall go up between the two countries. He completely denied that the two countries shared so much in their cultural and heritage.

The thing is, this was not an isolated case; I would guess that MOST Pakistanis share this point of view. Hindus are the enemies, the kafirs, the idol-worshippers. Hence the aversion to any idea of occupying a common space.

As for your ideas of what could have been in the case of a united India: with so many variables shooting from all angles, it really is anybody`s guess.

--AS

Ferozk this one is long (again !!). Apologies..

re: Ferozk
``Getting back to the ideology of Pakistan, had Pakistan not materialized, do you feel that the Muslims would have felt politically secure within a Hindu dominated nation? ``
- This right here is the million dollar question. I have to keep the context of my old posts. So we agree that Jinnah spoke of a real problem. Jinnah did not want a unilateral central state with procedures of political representation that threatened to put it in the hands of the numerically dominant RELIGIOUS community. So the question really is WHAT DID he want ? Are the Muslims of the subcontinent any more politically secure within a Hindu majority area ? THe largest population still live in India. There is Bangladesh and there is Pakistan. Millions of Bangladeshis flow into India every year looking for work. An entire Assam crisis has been created around this. India and Pakistan fight wars over the LOC everyday (Kashmir, etc.) THe defense budgets are draining them. It has been argued that South Asia NEEDED an expensive Nuclear deterrent. 3 wars have been fought. Lets say we FORGET the 12 million migrations, the 1 million deaths, the internal ethnic fights in each of those area, and then what are we left with.
None of this supports what Jinnah supposedly wanted, does it ? I fail to understand his contradictions. I tried to explain this a little clearer in my previous posts. Did he even have any solutions ? Did he even understand the issues ? I agree with Syed Ahmeds conclusion on his solution.
You argue that Muslims needed to have a separate homeland. What if Hindu nationalists made Jinnahs arguments to the Muslims. An analogous demand could be that there are already two homelands for Muslims and so Hindus should get their own homeland. Do you think that would be fair ? Even if Kashmir could then secede, what about all the other Muslims in the rest of India ? Do you think it solves any problems ?
Feroz, ethnic cleaning is ethnic cleansing. A fundamental basis in my arguments is that religious identity is NOT a grounds for a Nation. I believe in secularism. There were plenty of other SOLUTIONS, there still are. But that is a whole different debate.


``Why did not Congress leaders seek a compromise with Jinnah at that point. This was before the idea of Pakistan had even been considered, let alone thought of.``
- You are failing to see that there were always three political fronts. A Muslim right, a Hindu right and a secular front. In India there still are (in addition to about 15 other fronts amongst the regions), so this is an extremely relevant debate for present day India. I refer to Syed Ahmed`s and my earlier post on the pre-partition political situation. Also you would have to read about the visions and `histories` of the COngress leaders. They were all different. The COngress did not have one voice any more than the Muslim League.
The COngress leaders were always trying to seek a compromise with Jinnah. The debate was open for the nature of the future state. Gandhi, contrary to what you believe (would require a lot of details to go over his contradictions) was pretty much marginalized by the Hindu Nationalists and Muslim nationalists by the 1940`s. In any case, he swung left (secular front) while the `secular front` of Jinnah swung right (Muslim Nationailists). Nehru, a strong ideologue (with a pretty interesting `history` and vision of his own) stood at a polar end of the Hindu Nationalists and crushed their cause immediately after gaining independance. Have you followed developements in Indian politcs since 1947 to about 1990 ? Would you still argue that Muslims were faced with only 2 choices (Hindu nationalists or Muslim Nationalists).
And if you are interested in Indian politics. The Congress (and others) are still seeking compromises with the Muslims in India. In fact every political front is seeking compromises with their electorate.

``You may disagree on with me on this, but I think that Jinnah intended that Pakistan should be choice for the Muslims, because there were genuine concerns on the part of the Muslims vis a vis living with the Hindus in a post British India.``
- What if Hindu Nationalists today brought up similar concerns for Hindus living with others (amongst about 5 states where Hindus are a minority) and asked for a separate Hindu Nation ? Would you support such lunacy as a solution ? Are you secular at all ? I am not denying the concerns, I am questioning the supposed solution. And the legacy of religous politics it has left.

``More than anything else, it was the increasing Hindu nationalism which breed a coressponding Muslim Islamic nationalism that divided India.``
- I could argue that the concept of the Ummah as a separate nation was in existence and action long before Savarkar ever dreamt of his version of `history`. But where would this argument lead. THere always was a 3rd front. The British had implemented a lot of the secualarist principles. Now don`t take this offensively. But I find a great many Muslims extremely confused between Islamic nationalism and secularism. Even your arguments for supporting a separate homeland for Muslims is the Hindu Nationalists. What about the 3rd front (secular front) which prevailed in India for the next 40 years.

As an aside: look at the data of how states which are now in Pakistan voted. It throws a major yorker lenght inswinger into this whole debate. What Muslim `majority` was Jinnah speaking for ? And which `Muslim majority` was he envisioning a secular nation with a Muslim majority for ?

A question to all:
As Muslims do you believe in Secularism ?
In all the arguments I see (re: temporal) justifying a nation based on a religious identity people blame the Hindu Nationalists. Do you honestly believe that the move of Pakistan since 1947 towards an Islamic theocracy (away from the secular front) was also the fault of Hindu Nationalists ? Is that indicative of something else ?

And please stop saying Jinnah was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. Even if he had this aberration in his head at some point, his actions had quite a different effect. If you focus on only your differences you could separate from anyone (spouse, parents). Alternatively, show me HOW he was an ambassodor of Hindu/Muslim unity at one time.

Re: Afrasiyab

``Quaid, I believe, atleast, had the vision to see what would have happenned had the ML not insisted on its demand for Pakistan.``

--what would have happened ? In a United India we would have had a nation with 417 million Muslims (117 bangladeshi, 140 pakistani and 160 million Indian) and 610 million Hindus ( 600 Indian and 10 bangladeshi ). And there would have been an absolute muslim majority in kashmir, punjab, sindh, united bengal, Baluchistan, and NWFP and a somewhat muslim majority in Kerala and Uttar Pradesh. Three states would have been christian dominated and one would have been buddhist. Of the total states (25 indian, 4 pakistani and 1 bangladesh ), 12 states would have been populated by the minority being the majority. And the minority by being united would control the majority which is fissiparous in nature. United India would have been the worlds most populated country and Asia`s most powerful. There still would have been religious right wing fundamentalism among both hindus and muslims but that would have been easier to keep in check given the almost equal ratios . Ayodhya would not have happened and bangladesh would have not happened either. All cities in India would have had a demography more like Hyderabad in India with almost 50% muslims living in them. Muslims of India would have never felt themselves as secondary citizens. Probably the Hindus might have felt as such.

give it a few more years, Muslims might have even out numbered hindus. the 40 - 50 % muslims would have voted as one single block, while the 50-60 % hindus would have split up on aryan, dravidian, brahmin, kshatriya,bania, shudra, dalit, harijan, fc, bc, mbc, sc, st etc, etc., We would easily have had more than one muslim primeminister by now with our first primeminister being Jinnah himself and race riots could have been easily kept in check (probably not !). India would still have had a muslim cricket captain but he might have been Imran Khan and probably not Asharuddin. We would have had two of our main nuclear scientists as muslims (abdul kalam from India and Khan from pakistan ).

The possibilities are immense. The downsides are high too, more demands for seperation based on linguistic and ethnic identities rather than religious. Ironically, my guess is that India would finally have gone the way SR sees it. A Confideration of independant states. If anything Jinnah did, he actually made india into a reality when he created Pakistan.......

you say

`` The theory behind the creation of Pakistan was as moral as anything can get. It was the right thing to do.``

-- Really, then does that excuse the 160 million muslims who are left without a muslim nation in India. Why did`nt Jinnah invite all of them to come to Pakistan ? And why are Mohajirs still treated as secondary citizens (or atleast they feel so ?) in Pakistan ? And why are so many bangladeshi muslims migrating to Bombay in Hindu/Shiv sena Maharastra in search of job ?

you say

``All the arguement that I need, I get from a place called Ayodhia and a mosque called Babri Masjid.``

-- Really, were no temples and gurudwaras destroyed in Pakistan during partition ? Actually Ayodhya would not have happened if only Pakistan stayed in India. There would have been almost as many muslims as hindus in India and Ayodhya would be possible only in the dreams of the RSS.

An aside, in a southern city of India called Coimbatore, two temples were destroyed by muslims in a muslim predominated area of the city (though muslims accounted only 4 % of the city`s population ). And this happened much before Ayodhya. After a few skirmishes, normalcy returned and the destroyed temples staye`d destroyed even to this day and few care about it. Only Ayodhya was on a grander scale and more publicized.

Note : I am not advocating destructions of any place of religion. Only trying to explain some misleading images that media provides us with.

Note again : I am not advocating a united India. Things are best to leave them the way it is. And probably hope that things would turn better after the countries involved settle down and improve the lives of their citizens. After which SR`s solution can be taken up if people require it.

`` Let a generation wiser than us decide their future ``

Note once again : I FIND IT A TRIFLE AMUSING THAT MUSLIMS WHO ARGUE AGAINST LIVING IN A SLIGHTLY HINDU MAJORITY INDIA DON`T MIND GIVING UP THEIR ISLAMIC COUNTRY AND IDENTITY TO LIVE AS CITIZENS UNDER A GLASS CEILING IN A PREDOMINANTLY CHRISTIAN MAJORITY USA where even their religous festivals are not state sanctioned holidays and where the constitution is based on the bible unlike India where it is based only on god and not the gita or the Quran. Is it moolah or mullah that matters ? Can this be labelled as hypocritical ?

Sorry, if i hurt anyone`s feelings with this question, but i really would like to know your viewpoints

Rishi

Afrasiyab:

You find affirmation of the two-nation theory in Babri Masjid. Strange that you need our failures to calibrate your success.

I used racism in the sense that racism sees people as part of groups and not as individuals. In some sense, we are all part group and part individuals. The two nation theory only saw the group identity and in that sense was racist or if you prefer ``religious racist``. In fact that racism plays itself out through your statements when you make bald statements about how the Hindu majority would have acted based on your assumptions of SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION people.

Your idea that the killings of 1947 were not triggered by partition strain credulity. Yes, every INDIVIDUAL should be held responsible for his acts. All I was pointing out was that I was not blaming any GROUP, be they Hindu, Muslim or Sikh. All the INDIVIDUAL actions can be attributed to the madness of partition which in turn can be attributed to the two nation theory.

Merely recognizing Hindus and Muslim as different is as revealing a statement as saying the sky is blue. It adds NOTHING to the debate about the appropriateness of a division of a geographical region (note that I am not using the word India or Punjab or country or state) based on religion.

Please dont assume that because you believe and love something, it is correct. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Good luck to you and Pakistan. We do not share the same geographical space now - you have a destiny - follow it. I leave you to your beliefs as you leave me to mine.

Re: waheed

About Indian Muslims, there is no ceiling. Not in government employment, industry, education and even politics to an extent.

My guess is there is a ceiling in the police and the armed forces..not enforced but practiced.

If my guess is right, Even your nuclear scientist was an Indian who emigrated to Pakistan after getting his education in India in the mid 60s.

I can forward many email ids of Indian Muslims who are doing very well indeed in all facets of life. There is absolutely no discrimination in terms of education, employment, industry etc., We still have not had a muslim premier or a muslim joint chief of staff. But then we have had other minorities heading the army and the navy. And probably we might have a christian premier next time around.

however given the fact that most of the muslim elite opted for pakistan, the majority of the muslim population left behind in india are from the lower economic strata and are still left in the same strata. And we all know that excessive religious fundamentalism among muslims prevents the community from undergoing modernisation. But then, the better off among the indian muslims have done really well for themselves. Our cricket captain is a muslim, our major film stars are muslim and our foremost nuclear scientist is a muslim too. About muslim premiers, that might take some time. Till a few years ago, we never expected even a south indian to become a prime minister. For a muslim premier we have to wait for a little while longer

Rishi

Re: waheed

I agree with your statement on india, pakistan and bangladesh. Some additions...

Most Pakistanis view kashmir in a parallel cause as Bangladesh. The fact is that Kashmir is not descriminated against in India. Kashmiris instead enjoy a special status and regional autonomy which even the azadkashmir (to us POK) does not enjoy. For example, non kashmiris cannot purchase land in kashmir nor can they settle down in kashmir. They have their own elections and can administer their state much as a tamilian or keralite does administer their states. In the center they can throw their lot and determine the ruling party...ironically, today the BJP is in power with the support provided to them by the NC party from Kashmir led by Farooq Abdullah. Economic discontent is present all across India and is no reason for demanding independance. It is just the fact that with material and other support and infact connivance and instigtion from across the border the youth are indoctrinated with religious fundamentalistic beliefs and they are drawn into a protracted warfare with India. kashmir would have really prospered if only the fundamentalist movement did not flare up. And this happened only in the last 10 years. Before which Kashmir was indeed a paradise. The seperationist movement for Kashmir is based only on religion. Unlike with Bangladesh where it was based on discrimination and dominance. The khalistan movement failed because the cause was not strong enough as is with the kashmir liberation movement where it is islam at stake. IF Pakistan had been a sikh country today, india would have faced a kashmir in India Punjab. The truth is a hindu south indian is more discriminated than a muslim upper-caste north indian in India. Discrimination is hardly a state sponsored thing in India. It is more to do with your caste and the color of your skin and your language. And on all counts a Kashmiri muslim would have come a winner. Unlike in erstwhile East Pakistan where discrimination was sponsored by the state. If Pakistan had treated east pakistan the way India has provided Kashmir constitutional guarantees, Bangladesh would not have been in existence today. But then you`d never know, would you ?.

Rishi

Re: Ferozk

you ask ``had Pakistan not materialized, do you feel that the Muslims would have felt politically secure within a Hindu dominated nation? ``

--probably yes. Muslim atleast would have had the safety of a common criminal code and the advantages of the Muslim civil code as it is now in India. That`s like the best of the both worlds. That apart, lets look at numbers . The Muslim population in India is today about 20 % and with the muslim population of Bangladesh ( 10 % Of total Indian Population)and the muslim population of Pakistan (15 - 20 % of total Indian Population )thrown in, India very well would have had atleast 40 - 50 % of muslim population. in absolute numbers that is almost 140 million pakistanis, 112 million Bangladeshi muslims, and 165 million Indian Muslims totalling up to 417 million muslims in a total population of 1060 million (140 million from pakistan, 120 million from bangladesh and 800 million from India.). Now comparing this data with the hindu population (excluding sikh, buddhist,jain and christian population -- 4-5 % of Indian population) hindus today would number 610 million ( 600 from India and 10 from bangladesh ). The difference between the hindu muslim population in United India would be 150 - 200 million. Take into account the various divisions within the hindu society,aryan-dravidian, brahmin-low caste etc., hinduism would hardly be a solid block. Also United Bengal, United Punjab, United Kashmir, United Sindh, and Baluchistan and NWFPs and Uttar Pradesh to an extent would have been Muslim dominated states in United India. With such a clout from the states the Muslim impact on the central government would have ensured that India would never have been a Hindu country. ( this is evidence by the way, Jayalalitha a politician from a southern state of India is ruling over the ruling BJP due to her 20-30 MP support ). On the brighter side, the muslim lot of united India would have been better off, since the best educated, and the top creme of the United Indian Muslim society would have stayed in India and would have bettered their society.

Would such an India be more chaotic than it is today ? Nope i don`t think so. With a stronger muslim population, Hindu fundamentalism would have been relegated to the back benches along with muslim fundamentalism in India and heck, India could have had many muslim prime ministers too. (Remember that even today India has had Muslim Presidents, Muslim film stars, Muslim Industrialists, Muslim cricket captain, Muslim nuclear scientist, etc) A United India would hav e had much more -- (muslim chief of army , muslim premier, etc., etc.,)

On the downside, we would have been the most populated country in the world and probably more chaotic., but then it is anybody`s guess. For India , a united India would not be very much different from today in terms of politics and demographics and society. for pakistan it would have been very different.... which is why pakistan was created...for the elite muslims of united India to serve their own needs. (if this assumption is wrong, then i am sorry--it is just my guess)

You say ``I think that the Muslims had no choice, but to ask for their own homeland.`` and by questioning the hindu motives you almost place the reason for partition with the hindus. probably these two excerpts from the encyclopaedia might throw some light

you also say

``More than anything else, it was the increasing Hindu nationalism which breed a coressponding Muslim Islamic nationalism that divided India. I think the inability of a compromise, by 1940s, had validated the idea of a two nation theory as means to break this incompatiable gridlock. Any thoughts? ``

some info from the encyclopaedia brittanica :

`` While the Congress was calling for swaraj in Calcutta, the Muslim League held its first meeting in Dacca. Though the Muslim quarter of India`s population lagged behind the Hindu majority in uniting to articulate nationalist political demands, Islam had, since the founding of the Delhi sultanate in 1206, provided Indian Muslims with sufficient doctrinal mortar to unite them as a separate religious community. The era of effective Mughal rule (c. 1556-1707), moreover, gave India`s Muslims a sense of martial and administrative superiority to, as well as separation from, the Hindu majority.

In 1857 the last of the Mughal emperors had served as a rallying symbol for many mutineers, and in the wake of the mutiny most Britons placed the burden of blame for its inception upon the Muslim community. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817-98), India`s greatest 19th-century Muslim leader, succeeded, in his ``Causes of the Indian Revolt`` (1873), in convincing many British officials that Hindus were primarily to blame for the mutiny. Sayyid had entered the company`s service in 1838 and was the leader of Muslim India`s emulative mainstream of political reform. He visited Oxford in 1874 and returned to found the Anglo-Muhammadan Oriental College (now Aligarh Muslim University) at Aligarh in 1875. It was India`s first centre of Islamic and Western higher education, with instruction given in English and modeled after Oxford. Aligarh became the intellectual cradle of the Muslim League and Pakistan.

Sayyid Mahdi Ali, popularly known by his title Mohsin al-Mulk (1837-1907), had succeeded Sayyid Ahmad as leader and convened a deputation of some 36 Muslim leaders, headed by the Aga Khan III, that in 1906 called upon Lord Minto (viceroy from 1905 to 1910) to articulate the special national interests of India`s Muslim community. Minto promised that any reforms enacted by his government would safeguard the separate interests of the Muslim community. Separate Muslim electorates, formally inaugurated by the Indian Councils Act of 1909, were thus vouchsafed by viceregal fiat in 1906. Encouraged by the concession, the Aga Khan`s deputation issued an expanded call during the first meeting of the Muslim League (convened in December 1906 at Dacca) ``to protect and advance the political rights and interests of Mussalmans of India.`` Other resolutions moved at its first meeting expressed Muslim ``loyalty to the British government,`` support for the Bengal partition, and condemnation of the boycott movement. ``

and also ``Khilafat movement,

that arose in India in the early 20th century as a result of Muslim fears for the integrity of Islam. These fears were aroused by Italian (1911) and Balkan (1912-13) attacks on Turkey--whose sultan, as caliph, was the religious head of the worldwide Muslim community--and by Turkish defeats in World War I. They were intensified by the Treaty of Sèvres (August 1920), which not only detached all non-Turkish regions from the empire but also gave parts of the Turkish homeland to Greece and other non-Muslim powers.

A campaign in defense of the caliph was launched, led in India by the brothers Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali and by Abul Kalam Azad. The leaders joined forces with Mahatma Gandhi`s Noncooperation campaign for Indian freedom, promising nonviolence in return for his support of the Khilafat movement. In 1920 the movement was marred by the hijrat, or exodus, from India to Afghanistan of about 18,000 Muslim peasants, who felt that India was an apostate land. It was also tarnished by the Muslim Moplah rebellion in South India in 1921, the fanatic excesses of which deeply stirred Hindu India. Gandhi`s suspension of his movement and his arrest in March 1922 weakened the Khilafat movement still further. It was further undermined when Mustafa Kemal Atatürk drove the Greeks from western Asia Minor in 1922 and deposed the Turkish sultan in the same year; finally it collapsed when he abolished the caliphate altogether in 1924. Thereafter, the Ali brothers veered toward communalism, which eventually merged with the Pakistan movement.``

This might point that contrary to your argument that hindu excesses caused muslim paranoia, the truth is that pan islamic ideology and the thought of india as an apostate land created muslim ideologies and muslim homeland demands, which in turn fanned hindu fundamentalism.

My guess again is a few well placed of the Muslim intelligentia and muslim elite were the proponents of pakistan and even today they are the only beneficiaries and Jinnah was a part of this. (the hindu fundamentalists were another beneficiaries of pakistan`s creation,,,they could never have grown to what they are now, but for pakistan..guess bal thackeray should thank pakistan rather than bait it).

Sorry for the long reply

Rishi

``Guilt by association is one of the oldest tricks in the bag. You are associating me with BJP statements.``

No, I am not associating anyone with anything, however, I am COMPARING the two where you took the liberty of comparing something I believe in with nazism. I am only comparing wht you `merely` said. You are comparing my basis and the country I call home`s basis of existance with nazism. So, I have not even taken a jab, as of yet, of the same calibur.

``I cannot be held responsible for what the BJP says - a party I detest. The rest of your post is full of your ASSUMPTIONS of how the Hindu majority would have acted. You are free to assume whatever you like.``

No, you cannot be held responsible. What effect can you or I have on events unfolding half way across the world. However, it is how we act collectively is what matters. You, I am assuming as a learned person, as an educated person, are not willing to give up your `hostility,` hence the assumtpions I made about the rest of the majority of the, mind you, not so educated Hindus. Decisions that Jinnah made were based on certain ASSUMPTIONS. Decisions that every leader makes are based on the same assumptions. Quaid, I believe, atleast, had the vision to see what would have happenned had the ML not insisted on its demand for Pakistan.

``I find the two-nation theory racist``

Racism is an entirely different matter here. I have no idea where you come from trying to impose an image of racism on the idea of Pakistan. The two nation theory is not about race, it is about religions. It is a fact, Hindus and Muslims are two different people. What is wrong over there, I fail to understand.

``The migrations and murder associated with partition can ONLY be laid at the door of the two-nation theory``

Excuse me, but are you trying to offer an excuse here for all the killings. You appear to be saying you are not, but in the same breath you make a statement that does attempt to exonerate all the killers and rapists.

``please note that I am not blaming Hindus or Sikhs or Muslims, I am blaming the two-nation theory.``

Well, you should. Is it easier to make your ramblings more acceptable if you don`t criticize the people, is that it. I blame every Hindu, Sikh and Muslim for his or her individual actions. A good idea would be to find these people, not for the purpose of punishing them but to find out what was going through their heads at the time they were committing those attrocities. You will, to your sheer surprise, find that MOST of these people wouldn`t know anything about the two nation theory.

``I am willing to move forward in every possible way. But dont ask me to accept that the theory behind the creation of Pakistan was moral.``

The theory behind the creation of Pakistan was as moral as anything can get. It was the right thing to do. All the arguement that I need, I get from a place called Ayodhia and a mosque called Babri Masjid.

Waheed:

With regard to representation of Muslims in official positions in India, you ignore ONE major factor.

MOST professional Muslims opted for Pakistan - the Muslims in India are the poor that were left behind. Every community should develop but unfortunately, the Indian state has followed wrong economic policies for the last 50 years. So the Muslims suffer like every disadvantaged group. Hopefully economic liberaliztion will change that.

The title threw me off, but the article was thought provoking.
Aliya

Afrasiyab:

Guilt by association is one of the oldest tricks in the bag. You are associating me with BJP statements.

I cannot be held responsible for what the BJP says - a party I detest. The rest of your post is full of your ASSUMPTIONS of how the Hindu majority would have acted. You are free to assume whatever you like.

I find the two-nation theory racist in THEORY and a disaster in PRACTICE. The migrations and murder associated with partition can ONLY be laid at the door of the two-nation theory and the idea of Pakistan. And please note that I am not blaming Hindus or Sikhs or Muslims, I am blaming the two-nation theory.

If you think 500,000 dead was an acceptable price to pay for this theory for future genrations - let me introduce you to Mao and Pol Pot. Join the club.

Jinnah in his famous secular speech of Aug 1947 conceded that people would always question whether this was the right decision but the important thing was to move forward. I am willing to move forward in every possible way. But dont ask me to accept that the theory behind the creation of Pakistan was moral.

Ferozk:

I am going to try to answer some questions you had directed to Rana.

First of all, you ask the question would Muslims feel secure in a Hindu dominated India? This is a question that Muslims have to ask themselves - it is meaningless for a Hindu to answer the question about a state of mind of the Muslims. I can only say that Muslim law would not have been disturbed, the azaan would be heard, you would be able to eat beef, you would be able to try to convert Hindus if you so desired, your mosques would be respected (even accounting for Babri which in addition to the religious aspect has some elements of a property dispute - a demolition I am deeply ashamed of plus all the violence that goes on in India). That is what the Hindu majority would have agreed to as the rules of the game - obviously they would not have Sharia as the law of the land or declare Islam the state religion. If this cocktail of compromises provides a sense of security, then yes the Muslims would feel secure. I`m a linguistic minority - I feel secure. But YOUR SENSE of security is a state of mind that I cannot address for you.

When you say that you think it was OK for Muslims to demand a separate homeland, do you acknowledge the right of the minorities of Punjab and Sindh to have a say in the matter? I hope you recognize it was NOT solely a Muslim choice.

Now when you say Gandhi alienated the Muslims - what SPECIFIC acts of a POLITICAL nature are you refering to? Surely, you cannot the grudge the man for being deeply religious in his personal life. Name ONE policy initiative of Gandhi that you would dub as anti-Muslim without assuming the worst of him?

You ask me if I ask Pakistan to reject its raison d`etre? Well, yes and no. TODAY, Pakistan is overwhelmingly Muslim - so the idea of an ISLAMIC state or a SECULAR state is really a theoretical issue. It has very little practical significance, even less so for Indians. It was important in 1947 when you had significant minorities - at that time it was natural for Hindus to be suspicious of a state spearheaded by the MUSLIM League espousing a TWO-nation theory. Today, the debate of secular vs islamic is academic so Pakistan can feel whatever it likes in choosing whatever it likes. Today it is YOUR call. Back in 1947 it was OUR call.

Re: Truth

``So my `hostility` is political and personal. But it remains targetted at the `ideology` behind Jinnah`s two nation theory and it does not extend to the state of Pakistan or the people of Pakistan if those views are repudiated.``

Personally I have never been more disgusted at any comparison than at the comparison you have made between the idealogy of Pakistan and Nazism. An interesting word you choose, however, hostility, to define this relationship of thought. Also, what you are saying in the end is that as long as the state of Pakistan and the people of Pakistan `repudiate` their basis of existance and keep away from it, you will have no problem. Now compare your arguement to the arguement of BJP today in India:

``We have no trouble with the Muslims in India as long as they are `Indian` but if they want to be `militant Muslims` they can move to Pakistan.``

(BJP rep. to the press, India Times, 13 June 1995)

I am sure if it were a united India today as oppposed to two states, the Hindu majority and not just a faction of it would have been chanting the following mantra:

``No, we donot have any problems with you being HERE, however, do revise your Islamic `crap` to another form that is more accepttable to US.``

That is what needed protection when Syed Ahmed refers to Islamic Ideology, in Quaid`s opinion.

Had muslims taken the passive role and let United India become a reality they would have paid a more devastating price than the migrations and uprootings since I believe that the Hindu fanatacism would have metamorphised more deliberately had there been no resistance.

Temporal`s post # 30

That is an interesting hypothesis. This line of thought takes on extra credence when one considers that Pakistan was in response to the growing nationalism of the Congress. Also, the creation of Pakistan was never seriously considered as a likely outcome. The idea of Paksitan was often dismissed by the British as an uptopian non-sense. There is an argument which suggests that Nehru et al acceded to Pakistan and the idea of Pakistan, because they felt it would never happen. Another thing which supports this view is that British, who had no intentions of leaving India, after the war suddenly capitualted on the issue.

The problem is that in present day Pakistan we have idealized the struggle for Pakistan and have in the process elevated Jinnah to a near mythical status. History in Pakistan tends to be revisionist in nature and ladden with a pro-nationalistic bias and such, it is not an account of what happened, but rather what we construed it to have happened!

Jinnah did not have a ``blue print``, because he was completely suprised by the British decision. Did the British call Jinnah`s bluff, I really do not know, but I know is that Mountbatten was not interested in dividing India. Did Mountbatten offer Jinnah a fait accompli? Was partiton the ultimate bluff by the British to forge a consensus between Muslim Leaque and the Congress?

In hindsight, I think that partition was the unlikely result of the rigidity of the positions taken by Jinnah Muslim Leaque and Nehru, Ghandhi Congress. The issue was so conflicted that there was no choice, but to accept the unthinkable.

The thing that often suprises me is that countless books and articles have been written on why partition was necessary, but no has bothered to discuss whether it could have been avoided! Partition was not an act of God, but a man made event. Like any man made event, it too could have been avoided!

Feroz:

Have you ever wondered if Jinnah only wanted to secure maximum possible constitutional guarantees for the Muslims within the framework of a confederated India?

I base this on the evidence that this highly organised person had no `blue-print` as late as June `46 about how he/ML will function once they get Pakistan. And once Patel, Gandhi and Nehru (am not sure of the order) gave in and Battenberg (the good German ancestry was whitewashed by the results of the earlier world war into Mountbatten) offered a truncated Pakistan (in essence calling his bluff) the proud man had no choice but to accept it.

regards

Re: Rana Ransher, Rishi and Truth

Thanks for your detailed replies! Those answers were real illuminating and highly interesting to ``see`` whats on the other side of the fence! They really gave me a clue to the Indian mind and what shapes its perceptions of and about Pakistan.

A note; I do not mean any disrespect, to anyone, in asking these questions and I would really appreciate an answer to the following questions discussion.

Re: Rana Ransher

I agree with you. I think that the ethnic differences which exist today were the creation of the British to consolidate their own influence in India. It is highly regretable that we, India and Paksitan, have not out grown that aspect of our colonial yoke. Getting back to the ideology of Pakistan, had Pakistan not materialized, do you feel that the Muslims would have felt politically secure within a Hindu dominated nation?

I think that the Muslims had no choice, but to ask for their own homeland. Lately, I have been reading a lot on the creation of Pakistan and I honestly think, that the present justification of Pakistan as a Islamic state for the Muslims of India is wrong. That argument does not hold water, because there are more Muslims residing in India than there are in Pakistan! You may disagree on with me on this, but I think that Jinnah intended that Pakistan should be choice for the Muslims, because there were genuine concerns on the part of the Muslims vis a vis living with the Hindus in a post British India.

My question to you is this: why did the Congress leaders, particulary Ghandi, polarize politics so much that the Muslims had no choice, but to ask for Pakistan. Lets remember; Jinnah once argued for Hindu-Muslims unity and was even considered to be the best ambassador for that idea. It was only after Congress turned increasingly nationalistic and Muslim Leaque followed the same path, that Jinnah left Indian politics in disgust and moved to England.

Why did not Congress leaders seek a compromise with Jinnah at that point. This was before the idea of Pakistan had even been considered, let alone thought of. Why did Congress, specially, Ghandi, become so nationalistic that they marginalized all Muslims concerns and gave the Muslims a cause for Pakistan? Granted, that the idea of Pakistan might not be logically sound, but why did the Congress leaders legitimized it by their own inflexibility?

More than anything else, it was the increasing Hindu nationalism which breed a coressponding Muslim Islamic nationalism that divided India. I think the inability of a compromise, by 1940s, had validated the idea of a two nation theory as means to break this incompatiable gridlock. Any thoughts?

Re: Rishi

India baiting...why are the Indians so afraid of Pakistan when they out class it in every sphere; economic, military, etc.

If that is the base for Indian paranoia, then I am disapointed! Even so, I can understand this sentiment, as you say, when the Indians consider Pakistan as an agent provecteur in their internal affairs. I hate to let you down my friend, but Indians are crediting Pakistan with too much in this case. Have the Indians, in fact, created a false mythology of Pakistan as this evil state and over the course of time, have come to believe their own myths?

As to your other contention, the present vision of Pakistan, as articulated, is not what Jinnah wanted. Jinnah wanted a secular, modern Muslim state, much like Turkey, with a western style democracy and not a Saudi inspired theocracy. I will not speculate, historically, what would have happened had Jinnah lived. Pakistan was never intended to be a Islamic state, but a home land for the Muslims. There is a subtle, but a critical difference in this distinction. Pakistan did not become a Islamic republic till 1956 when Iskander Mirza staged a coup and changed the constitution to add this facet.

The fault is not Jinnah`s, but our own that we have made mess of everything. I think that still haunts us, because we are, as a nation, still confused as to what national idenity we want to project: a secular democracy or a Islamic theocracy. Hence, what Jinnah wanted and what Pakistan is today are two diametrically opposed view points and that is the question which we a nation have to answer: who are we?

Re: Truth

You said that you accept the state and the people of Pakistan, but not its ideology.

If that is the case, are you not in fact denying its rasion d` etre in the present context?

Pakistan was never meant to be an ideological state, but thanks to the banality of our politicans and the so called, but false champions of religion, it is now a nation based on the ideology of a religious myopia. Hence, seculurism will not succed in Pakistan, because that would be a diluation of its ideological base and because it would undermine what Pakistan, in the present context, stand for.

That is the question we have to grapple with; how do we seculurize Pakistani politics without undermining its present ideology which is religion based.

Sorry for this long reply!