'Constitutionally' Different Neighbours
Savail Hussain April 27, 2006
#31 Posted by MantoLives on April 28, 2006 9:38:50 am
Arjun mian...
Context is everything. My post about Jinnah`s reading habits was in response to the suggestion that his reading habits revolved around Law and law alone.
Context is everything. My post about Jinnah`s reading habits was in response to the suggestion that his reading habits revolved around Law and law alone.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#30 Posted by mohar11 on April 28, 2006 9:31:23 am
Re: # 24
it`s working very well for YLH.... his father is officially a non-muslim - YLH has to convert to sunnism - he has to declare his own father as non-mulsim to get a passport.....
All in all - everything is working out just as planned..... thank you very much :)....
it`s working very well for YLH.... his father is officially a non-muslim - YLH has to convert to sunnism - he has to declare his own father as non-mulsim to get a passport.....
All in all - everything is working out just as planned..... thank you very much :)....
#29 Posted by MantoLives on April 28, 2006 9:30:12 am
Dear Masanamuthu...
1- The Hasba Bill- passed by the sons of those who had opposed Pakistan`s very creation tooth and nail- was defeated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. I recently went to NWFP and I can assure you that most of our perceptions of the province are wrong and most people there voted for the Mullahs ...
2- As Prime Minister Chaudhry Muhammad Ali was never member of the Muslim League and was bureaucrat... but if you could produce the reference I can comment.. also Chaudhry sahab was not even a cabinet member in the period that Jogindranath Mandal was the Law Minister. If he said it ofcourse he was wrong..
Surely you don`t think India has become a paradise on earth... my question thus is a valid one.
Dear Mujumdar...
My own research shows that Jinnah was often surrounded by masses - especially after the Pakistan movement but even before that... the picture below is one of the many such pictures that I felt showed how comfortable people were in approaching Jinnah with their problems... For Pakistanis it is a big thing... in a country where leaders ride in huge escorts... Jinnah drove in a single car with a single escort... and stopped at railway crossings and obeyed the laws setting an example.
As for Bourkwhite... the question was raised by Richard Grenier and later he concluded no.
1- The Hasba Bill- passed by the sons of those who had opposed Pakistan`s very creation tooth and nail- was defeated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. I recently went to NWFP and I can assure you that most of our perceptions of the province are wrong and most people there voted for the Mullahs ...
2- As Prime Minister Chaudhry Muhammad Ali was never member of the Muslim League and was bureaucrat... but if you could produce the reference I can comment.. also Chaudhry sahab was not even a cabinet member in the period that Jogindranath Mandal was the Law Minister. If he said it ofcourse he was wrong..
Surely you don`t think India has become a paradise on earth... my question thus is a valid one.
Dear Mujumdar...
My own research shows that Jinnah was often surrounded by masses - especially after the Pakistan movement but even before that... the picture below is one of the many such pictures that I felt showed how comfortable people were in approaching Jinnah with their problems... For Pakistanis it is a big thing... in a country where leaders ride in huge escorts... Jinnah drove in a single car with a single escort... and stopped at railway crossings and obeyed the laws setting an example.
As for Bourkwhite... the question was raised by Richard Grenier and later he concluded no.
#28 Posted by masanamuthu on April 28, 2006 9:08:09 am
Mantolives:
For all your noble intentions on a website, what I see is the ``hasba bill`` passed in NWFP(??) on one side and ``Mayawati`` a dalit lady emerging as a strong political leader in the largest state trying to get Brahmins vote for her..(reversal of scenarios over the last 60 years) on the other side..
Regarding Jogindernath mandal, I was just writing what ``Muhammad Ali``, prime minister of pakistan wrote in his book, ``Emergence of Pakistan``. He claims to have suspected Jogindernath mandal`s loyalty because he was a hindu and avoided sending confidential files to him.. I can understand why he(mandal) opted to move back to India..
For all your noble intentions on a website, what I see is the ``hasba bill`` passed in NWFP(??) on one side and ``Mayawati`` a dalit lady emerging as a strong political leader in the largest state trying to get Brahmins vote for her..(reversal of scenarios over the last 60 years) on the other side..
Regarding Jogindernath mandal, I was just writing what ``Muhammad Ali``, prime minister of pakistan wrote in his book, ``Emergence of Pakistan``. He claims to have suspected Jogindernath mandal`s loyalty because he was a hindu and avoided sending confidential files to him.. I can understand why he(mandal) opted to move back to India..
#27 Posted by MantoLives on April 28, 2006 8:54:52 am
Dear masanamuthu
Jogindranath Mandal was not ``chased`` out per se. He was the law minister for three years and when he felt that Pakistan was no longer committed to the ideals that Jinnah, who was dead by then, was committed to, he resigned and remained in Pakistan for several years after that.
After the assassination of Liaqat Ali Khan ... he lost hope and moved to Calcutta, where he died heartbroken. It is a great tragedy in Pakistan`s history and there are several... but I fail to see why failures of a mere 50 odd years and successes on the other side have made people like you so god damn arrogant... history has not ended... the world has not ended... so what are you on about?
Personally I fail to see why Indians, who have many similar problems in their country despite their Ambedkarian constitution and a working secular democracy, are so concerned with Pakistan? Is it some sort of a weird satisfaction that oh we are atleast better than Pakistan and Pakistanis?
-YLH
Jogindranath Mandal was not ``chased`` out per se. He was the law minister for three years and when he felt that Pakistan was no longer committed to the ideals that Jinnah, who was dead by then, was committed to, he resigned and remained in Pakistan for several years after that.
After the assassination of Liaqat Ali Khan ... he lost hope and moved to Calcutta, where he died heartbroken. It is a great tragedy in Pakistan`s history and there are several... but I fail to see why failures of a mere 50 odd years and successes on the other side have made people like you so god damn arrogant... history has not ended... the world has not ended... so what are you on about?
Personally I fail to see why Indians, who have many similar problems in their country despite their Ambedkarian constitution and a working secular democracy, are so concerned with Pakistan? Is it some sort of a weird satisfaction that oh we are atleast better than Pakistan and Pakistanis?
-YLH
#26 Posted by masanamuthu on April 28, 2006 8:42:24 am
Why so many high sounding words and technical jargons in this article?..
Pakistan was supposed to be the model `Islamic democracy`. From Jinnah to Musharaff everyone is saying the same stuff.. :-)
Someone in the other board commented that Jogindernath Mandal, the first law minster of Pakistan ran away (or rather chased out) from Pakistan with Jinnah`s constitution and gave it do his Dalit buddy Ambedkar.. And Ambedkar plagiarised it as Indian constitution.. That sounds like a nice explanation. :-))
Pakistan was supposed to be the model `Islamic democracy`. From Jinnah to Musharaff everyone is saying the same stuff.. :-)
Someone in the other board commented that Jogindernath Mandal, the first law minster of Pakistan ran away (or rather chased out) from Pakistan with Jinnah`s constitution and gave it do his Dalit buddy Ambedkar.. And Ambedkar plagiarised it as Indian constitution.. That sounds like a nice explanation. :-))
#25 Posted by MantoLives on April 28, 2006 8:29:34 am
Jang Mian...
Why do you assume that it is only about not amassing personal fortunes illegally? I accept that neither of the leaders of that time amassed any fortune illegally..
What was that other ``fake`` Ambedkar said- what was that? ``There isn`t a politician to whom the title incorruptible more fittingly applied``.. Was a similar statement made about Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Azad , Ali Brothers or anyone else?
Perhaps being financially corrupt was not even an option ... perhaps incorruptible referre to a greater incorruptibility than merely financial honesty which all of these men might have been?
H V Hodson writes in his book:
One thing is certain, it was not for any venal motive that he changed. Not even his political enemies ever accused Jinnah of corruption or self seeking. He could be bought by no one and for no price. Nor was he in the least degree a weathercock, swinging in the wind of popularity or changing his politics to suit the chances of the time. He was a steadfast idealist, as well as a man of scrupulous honour.`` (Page 39- The Great Divide)
Dr Ambedkar`s view :
It is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah.... Indeed Mr. Jinnah is the one person who had all the chances of success on his side if he had tried to form such a united non-communal party. He has the ability to organize. He had the reputation of a nationalist. Even many Hindus who were opposed to the Congress would have flocked to him if he had only sent out a call for a united party of like-minded Hindus and Muslims. What did Mr. Jinnah do ? In 1937 Mr. Jinnah made his entry into Muslim politics and strangely enough he regenerated the Muslim League which was dying and decaying and of which only a few years ago he would have been glad to witness the funeral. However regrettable the starting of such a communal political party may have been, there was in it one relieving feature. That was the leadership of Mr. Jinnah. Everybody felt that with the leadership of Mr. Jinnah the League could never become a merely communal party. The resolutions passed by the League during the first two years of its new career indicated that it would develop into a mixed political party of Hindus and Muslims.
(Pakistan or Partition of India)
Why do you assume that it is only about not amassing personal fortunes illegally? I accept that neither of the leaders of that time amassed any fortune illegally..
What was that other ``fake`` Ambedkar said- what was that? ``There isn`t a politician to whom the title incorruptible more fittingly applied``.. Was a similar statement made about Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Azad , Ali Brothers or anyone else?
Perhaps being financially corrupt was not even an option ... perhaps incorruptible referre to a greater incorruptibility than merely financial honesty which all of these men might have been?
H V Hodson writes in his book:
One thing is certain, it was not for any venal motive that he changed. Not even his political enemies ever accused Jinnah of corruption or self seeking. He could be bought by no one and for no price. Nor was he in the least degree a weathercock, swinging in the wind of popularity or changing his politics to suit the chances of the time. He was a steadfast idealist, as well as a man of scrupulous honour.`` (Page 39- The Great Divide)
Dr Ambedkar`s view :
It is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah.... Indeed Mr. Jinnah is the one person who had all the chances of success on his side if he had tried to form such a united non-communal party. He has the ability to organize. He had the reputation of a nationalist. Even many Hindus who were opposed to the Congress would have flocked to him if he had only sent out a call for a united party of like-minded Hindus and Muslims. What did Mr. Jinnah do ? In 1937 Mr. Jinnah made his entry into Muslim politics and strangely enough he regenerated the Muslim League which was dying and decaying and of which only a few years ago he would have been glad to witness the funeral. However regrettable the starting of such a communal political party may have been, there was in it one relieving feature. That was the leadership of Mr. Jinnah. Everybody felt that with the leadership of Mr. Jinnah the League could never become a merely communal party. The resolutions passed by the League during the first two years of its new career indicated that it would develop into a mixed political party of Hindus and Muslims.
(Pakistan or Partition of India)
#24 Posted by arjun_m on April 28, 2006 6:52:47 am
#17 by Mantolives on April 28, 2006 5:33am PT
Primary sources like the Jinnah papers are filled with how he intended to make the constitution and actually see democracy working.
How`s that working out for you?
Primary sources like the Jinnah papers are filled with how he intended to make the constitution and actually see democracy working.
How`s that working out for you?
#23 Posted by arjun_m on April 28, 2006 6:50:24 am
#5 by Mantolives on April 28, 2006 2:45am PT
Jinnah`s other reading habits included English Literature (especially Shakespeare`s plays which he had performed as a student)
sure sure...he read Shakespeare..in fact, he wrote better than Shakespeare..all that doesn`t amount to a hill of beans now does it? Pakiland is a military dictatorship/theocracy..Jinnah`s reading habits notwithstanding.
Jinnah`s other reading habits included English Literature (especially Shakespeare`s plays which he had performed as a student)
sure sure...he read Shakespeare..in fact, he wrote better than Shakespeare..all that doesn`t amount to a hill of beans now does it? Pakiland is a military dictatorship/theocracy..Jinnah`s reading habits notwithstanding.
#22 Posted by mohar11 on April 28, 2006 6:05:08 am
Re: # 19
[...upright Honest and Fair Lawyer..]
There is no such beast as a ``honest and fair`` lawyer.... by definition the lawyer has to be partisan on behalf of the client....
But we are talking politics here - jinnah was the leader of muslims, not a lawyer who can be hired and fired..... the leader has to have a clue - the unwashed masses obviously wouldn`t know what to do....
[...upright Honest and Fair Lawyer..]
There is no such beast as a ``honest and fair`` lawyer.... by definition the lawyer has to be partisan on behalf of the client....
But we are talking politics here - jinnah was the leader of muslims, not a lawyer who can be hired and fired..... the leader has to have a clue - the unwashed masses obviously wouldn`t know what to do....
#21 Posted by majumdar on April 28, 2006 6:04:28 am
Manto,
True MAJ (pbuh) may have done some mass politicking at some points of time but there were also long periods of time he was away from the thick of things. I am sure he was the undisputed leader of IMs in 1947 and the Muslim masses may have adored him but he was always aloof from the riff-raff.
By the way did Margaret Bourke White also indulge in some brahmacharya with MKG.
Regards
True MAJ (pbuh) may have done some mass politicking at some points of time but there were also long periods of time he was away from the thick of things. I am sure he was the undisputed leader of IMs in 1947 and the Muslim masses may have adored him but he was always aloof from the riff-raff.
By the way did Margaret Bourke White also indulge in some brahmacharya with MKG.
Regards
#20 Posted by jang on April 28, 2006 6:03:54 am
if only jinah lived for 130 years :(
all ``real`` freedom fighters were personally so corrupt..tilak gandhi nehru patel savarkar azad..corrupt, amassing personal wealth at every opportunity. corrupt one and all, and amongst them jinnah stood tall as the only person not personally corrupt.
some of our school mates were nasty..they would say stuff like that girl, she has a heart of gold.
all ``real`` freedom fighters were personally so corrupt..tilak gandhi nehru patel savarkar azad..corrupt, amassing personal wealth at every opportunity. corrupt one and all, and amongst them jinnah stood tall as the only person not personally corrupt.
some of our school mates were nasty..they would say stuff like that girl, she has a heart of gold.
#19 Posted by aquaris on April 28, 2006 5:53:52 am
Jinnah was an upright Honest and Fair Lawyer....
He got his clients [ Muslim Leaque and the indian muslim ``.....Ashrafia .....`` ] what they told him to Get.... Legally and fairly....
its another matter.... His Clients the DID not knew ... what to do next.....
and were actually banking of their Lawyer Jinnah to tell them... any future course of action.... Unfortunatley.... He Died early...
Leaving His clients Clueless.... !!
which they still are....!!......??
#18 Posted by mohar11 on April 28, 2006 5:42:27 am
#14 pm
Jinnah was like a kid who whined his heart out for a toy - but when he got it, he had no idea how to play with it.... He lived his entire life in the ivory tower - all he could offer his some high-sounding non-sense -``soil is fertile for democracy``, ``democracy is on our blood``, ``islam invented democracy``.... the guy had no clue....
Jinnah was like a kid who whined his heart out for a toy - but when he got it, he had no idea how to play with it.... He lived his entire life in the ivory tower - all he could offer his some high-sounding non-sense -``soil is fertile for democracy``, ``democracy is on our blood``, ``islam invented democracy``.... the guy had no clue....
#17 Posted by MantoLives on April 28, 2006 5:33:06 am
pmishra...
One account- and a very partisan one albeit replete with some grudging concessions- is hardly enough to judge something as complex as this. Margaret Bourkwhite is just one person ... more like a photographer and not a journalist... How about something more concrete.. like an academic or primary sources...
Primary sources like the Jinnah papers are filled with how he intended to make the constitution and actually see democracy working. So what is Bourkwhite speaking of? I`ve read the 100 odd speeches and 2000 odd letters that Jinnah wrote in those 14 months and I think they cover a broad spectrum of issues including what Pakistan is going to be (a parliamentary democracy) and how it is going to create an industrial base and what its economic system is going to be... all that is there. So frankly ... Bourkwhite is either attaching too much importance to herself or is merely giving her point of view.
Margaret Bourkwhite was partisan whether our Indian friends like to admit it or not. She had been associated with gandhi and her opinion of AIML was always negative. So her antipathy and criticism should be seen in that light.
This is precisely we should pay attention to when she makes the following statements
Jinnah was known to be personally incorruptible, a virtue which gave him a great strength with both poor and rich. The drive for personal wealth played no part in his politics... Analytical, brilliant, and no bigot... etc etc
This is a moment of truth in an article which simply a spin and a point of view. It is not history ... it is Bourkwhite`s impression colored by her association with the Hindu leaders... nothing else... therefore we must accept as facts only those things that she is forced to admit despite her obvious bias.
-YLH
One account- and a very partisan one albeit replete with some grudging concessions- is hardly enough to judge something as complex as this. Margaret Bourkwhite is just one person ... more like a photographer and not a journalist... How about something more concrete.. like an academic or primary sources...
Primary sources like the Jinnah papers are filled with how he intended to make the constitution and actually see democracy working. So what is Bourkwhite speaking of? I`ve read the 100 odd speeches and 2000 odd letters that Jinnah wrote in those 14 months and I think they cover a broad spectrum of issues including what Pakistan is going to be (a parliamentary democracy) and how it is going to create an industrial base and what its economic system is going to be... all that is there. So frankly ... Bourkwhite is either attaching too much importance to herself or is merely giving her point of view.
Margaret Bourkwhite was partisan whether our Indian friends like to admit it or not. She had been associated with gandhi and her opinion of AIML was always negative. So her antipathy and criticism should be seen in that light.
This is precisely we should pay attention to when she makes the following statements
Jinnah was known to be personally incorruptible, a virtue which gave him a great strength with both poor and rich. The drive for personal wealth played no part in his politics... Analytical, brilliant, and no bigot... etc etc
This is a moment of truth in an article which simply a spin and a point of view. It is not history ... it is Bourkwhite`s impression colored by her association with the Hindu leaders... nothing else... therefore we must accept as facts only those things that she is forced to admit despite her obvious bias.
-YLH
#16 Posted by mohar11 on April 28, 2006 5:28:03 am
Re: # 12
[...he wanted to use it as a bargaining tool only...]
That`s what YLH tells us..... I guess - congress saw an golden opportunity to get rid of the cr@p once and for all, and agreed to his formula of partition... jinnah didn`t see that coming - clever as he was, he was no match for hindu bania, it seems.... :)
Even if jinnah had lived longer - it would have been a miserable experience.... it`s one thing to deal with the good-natured and feet-on-ground hinuds, much as he despised them, but it`s another thing to deal with crazy mullahs and high-faluting feudals of pakistan..... they would have ate him for lunch..... good thing he died as soon as he could :)
he probably already knew it - he wanted to live his last days in Bombay.....
[...he wanted to use it as a bargaining tool only...]
That`s what YLH tells us..... I guess - congress saw an golden opportunity to get rid of the cr@p once and for all, and agreed to his formula of partition... jinnah didn`t see that coming - clever as he was, he was no match for hindu bania, it seems.... :)
Even if jinnah had lived longer - it would have been a miserable experience.... it`s one thing to deal with the good-natured and feet-on-ground hinuds, much as he despised them, but it`s another thing to deal with crazy mullahs and high-faluting feudals of pakistan..... they would have ate him for lunch..... good thing he died as soon as he could :)
he probably already knew it - he wanted to live his last days in Bombay.....
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Abee: Re: # 13 This reminds... Salt N Pepper
- Abee: Re: # 10 Thank you.... Salt N Pepper
- tahmed32: #320 I agree with... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- captainjohann: Mr.Geelani, You are sitting... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- MeiraJ08: #55, what happened Mr.... Fathers and Daughters
- _arjun29: #12 Posted by... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- dost_mittar: Congratulaltions, Geelani Saheb: Mehbooba has... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- pinku: #318 Posted by tahmed32... Historian Amaresh Misra on
