Mohammed Ali Jinnah Haazir Ho

re:#391 by Ashutosh_Gandhi
I agree with you there. Even though i respect Jinnah as a leader who was really concerned about the welfare of muslims, i think there is a difference between him and Gandhiji.
Gandhiji was perhaps the only saint who strayed into politics out of necessity (since he considered British rule of India as an evil just as he considered untouchability, corruption etc as other evils). When India became free, he could have named the entire cabinet and himself become the PM but he did not. Thereby, he remains etched in our memory as a great leader who lead by sacrifice.
Comparisons are odious. So,i will stop here before people like Manto and others start firing their salvo at me.
Sridhar

370 & Others by FV:
Gandhiji used satyagraph inspired by Jainism to get India, Pakistan and Bangladesh freedom from British Raj. But he never insisted freedom exclusive for Hindus. While Mohd. Jinnah used Muslim religion to get a part of land that he can rule. The elections prior to 1947 very clearly showed that he would have been unable to rule. He is only person who caused the breakup of India in terms of religion. Thanks for nearly half of muslims who did not believed in him decided to stay in India. But for many this wasnt the choice depending on their religion but also in terms of safety.
I clearly dont see any case of having Jinnah on the same pedastal as Gandhiji. Gandhiji is only person through him we got our independence. His contribution of satyagraph and peaceful resistance are enormous for humanity.

Mantolives

In post#294 you say: `` It was in all the Muslim League resolutions and directives.... Jinnah made it absolutely clear that the agenda of the direct action day was peaceful civil disobedience (he released a press statement again on 15th August 1946 and a directive for all Muslim League workers which said the same thing).... and that is how it was carried out through out India... ``

Now by which logic of yours you claim that congratulatory note/column of Blitz (an unknown writer, who could have been wannabe Pakistani...who knows..or wanted to see Pakistan as reality)was on the success of Direct Action day when riots did break out and thousands got killed? What is success here? That thousands got killed? If that is not to be taken as success then how Blitz (an unknown writer in/of Blitz) could have referred to success of Direct Action call? Recall, you are saying above that direct action day was supposed to be ``peaceful civil disobedience``.

Since direct action call did not turn out be peaceful then how Blitz (an unknown writer) could have congratulated Mr Jinnah on the so called success of direct action call? Or is it that congratulations were extended for different reasons? For, by no yardstick it was successful given that riots did break out and thousands died. Unless, success is to be measured by riots and that was the intention. But then, you claim that is was supposed to be peaceful. So when it was supposed be peaceful but riots did break out and thousands did die, then how it could have been sucessful? You cannot have it both ways. Either it was sucessful even when thousands got killed or it was failure because thousands got killed. How Blitz (an unknown writer) could have extended congratulations to Mr Jinnah on the sucess of direct action call, either way?

Mantolives

Post#385

I don`t think you have any idea whatsoever as to what is being discussed here.

Nonetheless, let me try to explain something to you....

So far, we have four things which hardly are disputable, as of now...

One, Suharawardy is threatening of civil war and is telling Mr Jinnah, to test him.

Second, Mr Jinnah gives speech (part of resolution?) which declares that he/ML is on warpath.

Third, riots did break out and thousands did die after above are mentioned/said/written.

In between, we also have press release of ML which says, direct action is meant to be peaceful civil disobidience..

Let us say, Mr Jinnah truly, genuinely wanted to have peaceful civil disobidience as per the press release. Since that direct all resulted into riots breaking out and thousands getting killed, at the least it raises questions on Mr Jinnah`s quality (?) of leadership.

Now how does it sound that here is a leader, who claims to represent a particular community and he gives a call in the name of community but he does not even know what his collegues (for example, Mr Suharawardy) what they are upto? Given that riots did break out and thousands of civilians did die, does it not raise questions on his having ear to the ground? Meaning, when he did not know what his collegues had in mind, ground situation was already emotionally surcharged, and he still went ahead with direct action call? And then, he expected it to be peaceful?

I can add few more questions on the same lines but I hope you get the drift. So even when Mr Jinnah is not to be blamed for ensuing riots and deaths but question of responsibility is still there.

Mantolives

As to press release, most of the press releases are for public consumption. Keep that in mind.

And if that press release was in the name of Muslim League, then `for public consumption` part, can have a role to play.

We already know what Mr Suharawady said, and wanted (implied), and it is reasonable to guess that Mr Jinnah did not know what was happening in the party (meaning he was not party to encouraging riots,knowingly) that he claimed to be representing and/or what his collegues wanted ( recall, according to you, direct action call was meant to be peaceful. But, fact is that it was not peaceful.), contents of that press release can become questionable. After all, a person (leader?) who did not know what the ground situation was (surcharged atmosphere) and what his collegues were upto, contents of that press release become questionable (assuming that press release was in the name of ML).

Mantolives

It is only people like you who do the biggest disservice to your own heores. You create thick walls around your hero/es and then do not let others even to scratch those walls leave alone penetrate. People like you think, your cherished heroes need your protection because they are so vulnerable to outside winds. Any question on them or someone tries to learn something on them, create fear among you that your hero/es will die.

Here I was, who really and truly wanted to learn more on the subject before forming an informed opinion either way. But, you being the true worshipper (?) or protector of your hero made me to express an opinion ( note, I have said, express opinion, not form an opinion).

There is a saying to the effect....With friends like these who ...

Mantolives

Post #382

Quote: Looks like you can`t be reasoned with....

That is more applicable on you.

A person who does not know difference between an opinion and evidence what kind of rational debate can be expected....And then that person has the cheek to call others basher, dishonest, and then claim it to be not personal attacks but criticism.

As to Mahesh G, check those posts again. I had quoted something and he mistook as that it was from your post and he also mistook that as Mr Jinnah`s speech. Later on he realised that it was not from Mr Jinnah`s speech. How does that change anything?

Now start counting your lies..

Quote:

`` I call a spade a spade... another one of your lies is just exposed. You did not quote any Jinnah speech. ``

Now read the following properly, which is from my post #298

``We want peace. But if war is forced upon us, we accept it.`` With this telling couplet from the immoral Firdausi did the Quaid close his memorable speech to the Muslim League Council meeting in Bombay on July 29,1946.

First sentence in the above quote is from Mr Jinnah`s speech. And the second sentence in above says so. So why you lie that I have not quoted anything from Mr Jinnah`s speech?

Second, is that sentence from his speech about putting rose garlands or is it about showing intent to go on warpath?

Quote:

`` Please show us a statement where Jinnah is calling for danga fasad as you allege? ``

Would you like to show us statement of Modi calling for danga fasad? Oh, yes, he was from the establishment but Mr Jinnah was not. So what the heck Suharawardy (spl?) was doing when he told Mr Jinnah to test him? One (Mr Jinnah) talks about if war is forced upon us and the other (Mr Suharawardy) is threatening civil war, and is asking Mr Jinnah to test him. Or is it that they were sharing some recipe of murgh mussallam?

Quote:

`` why direct Action day passed peacefuly all over India all except Calcutta?``

Another lie of yours so this time pay more attention.

Here is what I had quoted in post #300.

`` The one-member majority Muslim League government in Sind, formed after the assassination of the Congress Chief minister Allahbux, was also asked, but, because it was a shaky government, its Muslim League members could not be trusted. So, all the risks of the Direct Action Day fell on the Bengal government On that day Muslims were expected to gather in large numbers to proclaim their adherence to the concept of Pakistan Shaheed Suhrawardy declared a holiday for that day in Calcutta.``

It spread more in Bengal because it was Suharwardy who played bigger role in spreading riots and he himself was PM and could make some use of state machinery. Things went out of his control that is different matter. Muslim league had majority only in two provinces and as it says above, in Sind members could not be trusted. It did not spread in other areas as much because muslim league, whose chairman happened to Mr Jinnah, did not have rulers of other provinces which belonged to Muslim League party. Now how difficult is that to understand?

Quote:

`` why did Blitz a Congress Mouthpiece congratulate Jinnah on the successful direct Action day? ``

This also has been answered earlier ...

Once again, not only read properly but understand too.

It is saying two things. It is congratulating Mr Jinnah for his tactic of having called direct action and not for the successful direct action. And it is also saying - pay more attention now- `` confounded the common national indictment that the Muslim League is a parasite of British Imperialism.``

That means, Muslim League, whose chairman was Mr Jinnah, was viewed (actually the word used there is indictment), as parasite of British Imperialism prior to call of direct action. So this congratulation is about showing to that writer that Muslim League, whose chairman was Mr Jinnah, was not parasite of British Imperialism. It is not about success of direct action which was not peaceful at all.

Having said that let me add here, that is, if you still want to keep on clinging to that framed certificate from some unknown writer of Blitz, Blitz has only expressed an opinion and an opinion is not a fact. Those are merely the perceptions of the writer of the Blitz.

Quote:

`` 3) Why didn`t any major leader like Gandhi, Nehru, or any major historian or figure like H V Hodson etc blame the violence in Calcutta on Jinnah?``

What kind of question is that? You want me to reply to what actions or inactions those leaders have taken? Tell me, only till couple of years ago, why US govt did not declare Dawood Ibrahim, a terrorist?

Quote:

`` ) According to your source `Memoirs of Suhrawardy` the Hindus attacked the Muslims ... according to most reports of the time... it was the Muslims who died in greater numbers... this doesn`t seem to gel in with your whole theory ? ``

Do you have any idea what we are talking about? Is it so difficult to understand that Suhrawardy misread the situation, his own power, he was over confident in achieving a particular result but things did not go his way? Is it difficult to digest that Suhrawardy miscalculated on this? As far as killings go.

As per reports (IIRC), few years ago, Dawood planned to kill his rival Chotta Rajan in Thailand and sent his gang members for the kill. It so happened that even though Chotta Rajan got shot at but in the process some members of Dawood`s hit team also got killed. Would you ask how Dawood could have sent his hit team when more members of his hit team have got killed?

Quote:

`` Why the ML chose Bengal for violence where blame could have been easily placed on the ML.``

Since in Bengal ML had their own govt and they felt they could achieve the desired result and get away with it. In other provinces, govts were not cooperative with that agenda and it would have had been bit difficult to start the riots and even when they have had, it would have had been difficult to get away with it. And then, a particular type of results were also desired which would not have been that easy to achieve. As aforementioned (quoted part), in the case of Sindh, there was distrust among ML members for not being in position to deliver desired results. When they could not trust Sindh govt where ML had its own govt but with hardly any majority, could they have entrusted this job (?) to other provinces, where they did not have majority? Bengal was the only option where they thought they could reflex muscles and get away with it.

Quote

`` If there is material that points to other direction why have you failed to quote it? ``

One more lie of yours.

Is there some reading and comprehension problems or what?

I already quoted more than once, part of Mr Jinnah`s speech which shows intentions of going on warpath and also of Mr Suharawardy where he leaves hardly any doubt on his intentions on creating civil war.

Quote:

`` The point is that you haven`t managed to put up one verifiable authentic source and have so far tried rather shamelessly to call to question the credibility of even people like H V Hodson... and even the TIME Magazine... ``

Now which part of the following is not clear to you.

Opinion is just an opinion. It is neither a fact nor evidence.

It is possible that in your world opinion may substitute evidence. But then, that would be your own world. Not real world.

Quote:

`` Please spare me the trouble and believe whatever you want to... ``

It is you is living in that make believe world. And by all means, do continue living in that self created world.

Be assured, I have no intentions of taking you out from that world . Not that I can.

You don`t have to be a Jinnah admirer to appreciate the facts... Hindvi, no admirer of Jinnah writes in his post 96:


``Sure Jinnah gave the call for direct action day (that was the only call he gave in his life) but that call was given nation wide and yet violence only broke out in Calcutta, thanks to surawardy. Even in calcutta the fight was between two equal communities and muslims actually suffered more as Patel gloated in his letter....

or for that matter with Jinnah who atleast wept when he saw a destitute hindu refugee child in a karachi camp, modi on the other hand was trying desperately to close all such camps, he continued to make inflammatory speeches about the mians till long after the riots.

There can be no comparison with even Thakeray, the kind of unconstitutional and mob/goon behaviour he and his sainiks habe indulged in for the last 30 years is outside Jinnahs orbit, as is the hate speech he publishes in Samana, Jinnah was always civil in his speech. most importantly the way thakeray`s sainiks engineered the breaking of babri masjid or the subsequent riots in bombay in which there wa a one sided wiping out of muslims is in another league alltogether. jinnah was far more balanced and rational and i might say democratic, though he had a strong dictatorial streak as well, which led to the unfortunate fact that he was never second guessed on his selfish, insensitive and spiteful decisions by his partymen. Or maybe that reflects their own lack of character and sagacity.``


His objections to Jinnah are based on a legitimate question (what about Indian Muslims) and not some concocted story and illogical comparison...

-YLH

Mantolives

Post #383

Quote:


`` Glad to know you are not a lawyer... because no one will buy your (il)logic which is not Rational but is National ... extreme nationalist that is ... You wish the whole world bought into the Hinduunity.org nonsense.... but that is not going to happen...``

You have been boasting here that you are the person who thinks most logically (words to this effect). Well, let us see once again, kamaal of this great logician...and see how (il)logical he is..

In your post#382 you quote Mahesh G`s post 338 as follows:

`` YLH, you are right that was not Jinnah`s speech but Suhrawady`s. My mistake. } ``

And after this in next para you claim as: `` I call a spade a spade... another one of your lies is just exposed. You did not quote any Jinnah speech. ``

Now my question to this self proclaimed, boasting logician is, do you have any idea what sequence is and how logics are applied?

Let me give you the sequence of posts and then tell me how by which great logic of yours have you arrived at the conclusion, `` I call a spade a spade... another one of your lies is just exposed.

In post #312, Mahesh says the following to you (the self proclaimed big logical thinker)

`` YLH, you will do a great service to all of us if you can point out how and why rajsinghi`s sources are Hindu websites.

Big difference between you and rajsinghi, you are depending on the opinions of others whereas rajsinghi is presenting his own opinion based on what Jinnah actually said. Why depend on other`s interpretations when you can actually see for yourself what Jinnah meant when he called for ``Direct Action Day``

Then in post # 316 MaheshG quotes some excerpts and asks You a question.

In post#327 You reply to MaheshG and accuse me of distorting history. This, when quote has been presented by MaheshG and question is addressed to you, by him.

In post#338, MaheshG admits that the excerpts that quoted from was not from Mr Jinnah`s speech. Which means, he made some genuine mistake when he quoted that excerpt and asked question to you, on Mr Jinnah.

Now the question to the self proclaimed logical thinker is, what has all this exchange got anything to do with me? How my supposed lie has been exposed? MaheshG made a mistake and admitted to it .Why are you showing that as testimonial of some victory of yours, to me, and associating it with me? What logical thinking is involved behind this logic of yours?

Mantolives

Please ignore the first sentence/response in my post 379. I meant something different. By mistake it is there.

Mantolives

Just to clarify on the first part of post#379.

When I wrote that, I thought you were referring to my post #374 and not #375 because you had said, post#375 is good. So I was not even thinking about post#375 when I wrote first part of post#379.

Rajsinghi...


Summary : 378, 379...

Looks like you can`t be reasoned with.... but I will try one last time...


Re: Personal attacks... No one in their right mind will call them personal attacks... I have called you for what you really are. I call them as I see them.... learn to take some criticism. You`ve said a whole of nonsense about me too and you know it.


As for the Jinnah speech... please refer to Mr. MaheshG`s post 338 (recall that MaheshG was your supporter)...

{#338 by MaheshG2 on September 17, 2004 11:45am PT

YLH, you are right that was not Jinnah`s speech but Suhrawady`s. My mistake. }

I call a spade a spade... another one of your lies is just exposed. You did not quote any Jinnah speech. In any event your claims are sketchy and without logic as usual. Your argument stretches and presumes too much.

Now instead of wasting my time.... please respond to #336 by HP who calls your bluff rather eloquently. Please show us a statement where Jinnah is calling for danga fasad as you allege? I showed you one very clear statement of Jinnah calling upon the Muslims to be calm peaceful and disciplined (which they followed all over India, except Calcutta which was a Hindu Majority city) don`t you think you owe us the same?


``You want us to look only at one statement of Mr Jinnah and concur with your own conclusion.``


No ... you asked me for evidence. I furnished you with it. You on the other hand haven`t furnished any proof to the contrary despite your grandiose claims I also furnished you with personal testimony of those present at the time. And I asked you some very logical questions which you failed to answer:

1) why direct Action day passed peacefuly all over India all except Calcutta?

you responded by saying that you had the answer but that you had forgotten it...

2) why did Blitz a Congress Mouthpiece congratulate Jinnah on the successful direct Action day?

you responding by first claiming that it was a Pakistani newspaper... then you softened a little and claimed that it was not written by the editor in chief so it didn`t matter... and then when probed further you started with whole spiel about Jinnah being the lackey of the British...


3) Why didn`t any major leader like Gandhi, Nehru, or any major historian or figure like H V Hodson etc blame the violence in Calcutta on Jinnah?
You simply didn`t respond to this...


4) According to your source `Memoirs of Suhrawardy` the Hindus attacked the Muslims ... according to most reports of the time... it was the Muslims who died in greater numbers... this doesn`t seem to gel in with your whole theory ?


and this one is HP`s

5) Why the ML chose Bengal for violence where blame could have been easily placed on the ML. The best options were to choose Delhi or Lahore, where the ML could have easily blamed the violence on the Non Muslim League govts and the ML had the Muscles to incite a violent demo.

If there is material that points to other direction why have you failed to quote it? Or is it just that the material exists in your imagination and on Hindutva websites?


The point is that you haven`t managed to put up one verifiable authentic source and have so far tried rather shamelessly to call to question the credibility of even people like H V Hodson... and even the TIME Magazine...


-YLH


PS: If you are going to go in a circle again.... Please spare me the trouble and believe whatever you want to...

Glad to know you are not a lawyer... because no one will buy your (il)logic which is not Rational but is National ... extreme nationalist that is ... You wish the whole world bought into the Hinduunity.org nonsense.... but that is not going to happen...

Mantolives

Post#376

Quote: Please do show me exactly where I have indulged in personal attacks.

Here are some...




Post# 294, but that seems to be a common theme for the Jinnah-bashers....


Post#295, but somehow I don`t find you and your patriotic Indian nationalists (it has come to bashing a man dead 55 years now) questioning his decision...

Post#302, and enumerate the `cherish myths` your great armchair warrior Rajsinghi or for that matter Hindvi has undone?

Post#302 `` Wait is Seervai also Pakistani? I suppose the only true Indian in the opinion of self proclaimed scholars like you is one who bashes Pakistan and India... The only people making History as they go along are people like you sir... I am just surprised at the utter shamelessness with which this process is unfolding?``


Post#303, Atleast Gandhi and Nehru were more honest.... we don`t find any statement from them claiming such absurd nonsense as this google champion...

Post#313 As usual you are jumping from argument to argument... jumping from one outrageous analogy to another... the only one who is not indulging in a factual discourse is you.

Post#327, Rajsinghi is deliberately distorting history... and he knows it.

Post#328 Nonetheless It is important to call Rajsinghi`s bluff...

Above are just few of the samples...

As to my being lawyer...NO, not even near to it.

Mantolives

Post# 376

Quote:

`` Your acknowledgement of the fact that I have posted the evidence is not good enough as you immediately sought to couch it in a discussion on what constitutes an evidence. ``

Factually wrong. I have stated how the process works and not what constitute evidence.

You want us to look only at one statement of Mr Jinnah and concur with your own conclusion. Sorry, that is not how things happen. Especially when there is other material also available which does point towards different direction, as well.

And that is in the form of Mr Jinnah`s own speech and Suhawrdy`s (spl?) words.

Rajsinghi...

Summary of my post : Your post #375 is good, you should pay close attention to your own advice... #374 is pure Nonsense...

My dear friend... I believe how you have personalized this whole debate has indeed laid bare your own intellectual dishonesty, but you can go on living in your world of delusions. The fact remains that instead of having a logical and rational debate you have digressed into a lecture on what constitutes one... thereby proving to the lot of us that you are no longer interested in a fruitful debate, but merely here to make a mockery of what really a debate means. Still because you have put up another lie... Please do show me exactly where I have indulged in personal attacks. Your acknowledgement of the fact that I have posted the evidence is not good enough as you immediately sought to couch it in a discussion on what constitutes an evidence. I am not interested in converting you to my point of view or portraying Mr. Jinnah in a favorable light. He doesn`t need me to do so... anyone who will read his life with a fairmind and without prejudice will come to the same conclusions as me... I have no doubt about it... I merely got involved in this debate because you were trying to portray him as something he was not... and you failed miserably in it, not only because you failed to produce any evidence, but every single one of your claim was taken up and disproved... to your satisfaction may I add, but you are too self centered to accept it.

-YLH