Advani in Karachi

Re: # 649

1) First and foremost the Law minister was a Hindu very conciously. This was major.

2) The Hindus were well represented on the constitutional commission.

3) The Hindu Minority had cabinet positions despite Muslim League`s majority.

4) A Hindu was engaged to write the National Anthem...


Now let us compare this to the original League demand in 1937-39:

Muslim League wanted coalition ministries with the Congress Party in Hindu Majority Areas where Muslim League had won the Muslim seats. One of the major issues that was raised was against ``Bande-Mataram`` being the National Anthem. The problem here is that we have been insisting on the form rather than the solution.

In short... the ``equipoise`` that was expressed in federal terms in 1940s... revolved actually around the points listed above.... and this solution was given atleast under Jinnah...

-YLH

Re: miscellaneous by Mantolives

Well, are you waiting for me to “declare victory” so that you can SHOW everybody how wrong I am about that and therefore, about everything else?

Hello? Hello?

RE: #648 by Mantolives

This is good.

Now we are making progress.

So there was no comparable ``equipoise`` that was offered to Muslims in undivided India by Nehru, Gandhi etc.

Okay, could you kindly list out as poits (1., 2., 3. etc.) the different features of the ``equipoise`` that Hindus got in Pakistan?


You may have mentioned this in your previous posts, but I would appreciate you listing them one more time, in tabular fashion.


I would appreciate this very much.

Thank you.

Re: # 647

There was no ``equipoise`` in India. It was unfettered majority rule. If the Congress had been willing to give an equipoise, there wouldn`t have been a partition. Please read Azad`s book ``India wins freedom``. Despite being hostile to the Muslim League, Azad points to two places where an equipoise would have worked ... 1937 and 1946... Very straight answer.

In 1937 the Muslim League`s demand was simple: coalition ministries in UP and Bombay. It was when the Congress rejected this very reasonable demand... that Muslim League had to look for a federal alternative (which the league could given contigious muslim majority areas). In Pakistan Jinnah gave the Law ministry to the Hindus... and put a Hindu (and I believe a Congress one to boot) on the constitutional committee. The equipoise had been established.

Sorry about the typo.

The question is:

WHY WAS THAT ``EQUIPOISE`` NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR MUSLIMS IN UNDIVIDED INDIA, ACCORDING TO JINNAH, IF IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR HINDUS IN NEWBORN PAKISTAN?

RE: #644 by Mantolives


Okay, I`ll take one more shot at getting a straight answer.


[...and he gave the equipoise to the Hindus by making sure they were well represented both on the constitutional committee and in the Law department whose head was a Hindu. ]

Muslims in India got that ``equipoise`` as well. And BETTER.

WHAY WAS THAT ``EQUIPOISE`` NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR MUSLIMS IN UNDIVIDED INDIA, ACCORDING TO JINNAH, IF IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR HINDUS IN NEWBORN PAKISTAN?


Can I get an answer to this straight question?

Re: # 640

The masses and the league leadership trusted Mr Jinnah... which is why when Jinnah accepted Cabinet Mission Plan ... the Muslims, with the exception of a few zealots, put their faith in the Cabinet Mission Plan completely and totally...

---

South Asian ... a great article...

Battle for Pakistan’s soul




By Irfan Husain

A FASCINATING debate on Jinnah’s political beliefs has opened up on both sides of the Indo-Pakistan border. Triggered by L.K. Advani’s praise for the Quaid’s secular credentials, this assessment has been attacked by BJP hardliners in India as well as mullahs in Pakistan.

There is an irony here: religious extremists in both countries are on the same side of this debate. The militantly Hindu RSS has stridently rejected Jinnah’s secular stance, while our religious parties have always maintained that Pakistan’s founder had fought for, and won, an Islamic state.

For any objective student of recent Indian history, Jinnah’s secularism is not a subject for debate. Anybody reading his famous and oft-quoted speech to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947, (“You are free; you are free to go to your temples... You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state...”) will conclude that this is as clear an enunciation of the secular ideal as found anywhere.

But despite the unambiguous message contained in this speech, there are many in Pakistan today who insist that Jinnah had always intended to create an Islamic state. The sophisticated among them quote from selected speeches made to justify a separate state for the Muslims, while the less educated simply ask: “If the Quaid did not want an Islamic state, why did he demand the partition of India?”

Indeed, this is a difficult argument to rebut. If he had wanted a secular Pakistan, what was wrong with Muslims and Hindus living together in a secular and united India? Nearly sixty years after the event, it is easy to forget that Jinnah had often spoken of ‘a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent’, and never an Islamic state. But this subtle difference is not easy to sell to the religious right.

The fact that Jinnah’s vision is still being debated on both sides of the border indicates that the question of the nature of the Pakistani state has not yet been settled. And while the religious parties have made significant gains since Zia’s dark period, pushing the national agenda far to the right, secular forces are still fighting a rearguard action.

In a recent talk show on a private TV channel, the subject under discussion was whether Jinnah was secular or not. During the show, Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy raised an interesting point.

He said our mullahs were against secularism in Pakistan, but wanted secularism in India and the West. This is very true. In ideologically organized states, minorities would have few religious freedoms, just as they don’t in Pakistan. So while fundamentalist Muslims insist on asserting their religious identity in the West, they deny this right to the minorities in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

But why should Hindu extremists in India be so concerned about Jinnah’s secularism? Clearly, in their world view, partition only makes sense if the demand for Pakistan came from Islamic ideologues. The RSS has consistently branded Pakistan a fundamentalist state responsible for much of India’s woes. So if its founder is upheld to be a secularist by its BJP partner, L.K. Advani, this requires a major U-turn in Hindu nationalist thinking.

For their own reasons, the RSS’s Muslim counterparts in Pakistan require Jinnah to be one of theirs if they are to sell the concept of a pure and unalloyed Islamic state. After all, if they concede that Jinnah never wanted or visualized a theocracy, their demand to transform Pakistan into ‘a laboratory of Islam’ is severely compromised. So not only has Jinnah to be posthumously transformed into a pious, orthodox Muslim, he must also be projected as the founder of an Islamic state.

The reality of Jinnah was very different from the image religious elements have tried to create. Stanley Wolpert’s readable and well-researched biography paints a picture of a very human Jinnah whose faith was anything but orthodox. Indeed, Wolpert’s passing reference to Jinnah’s dietary preferences caused the book to be banned in Pakistan during Zia’s rule.

The fact that Jinnah remained on the fringes of Indian politics during the Khilafat movement in the 1920s clearly indicates that he did not wish to mix religion with politics. Nevertheless, being a shrewd politician, he actively sought the support of Deobandis and Barelvis alike in his quest for Muslim unity. In the 1937 elections, the Muslim League cultivated the pirs of Punjab and Sindh to use their influence with their millions of mureeds.

In this duality lies much of the confusion about Jinnah’s secularism. Before different audiences, he used different languages. Now, over five decades after his death, people with differing political agendas are able to find different texts to support their views. Like theologians poring over ancient religious texts to underpin their beliefs, modern-day fundamentalists and secularists clutch at Jinnah’s words to support their vision of Pakistan. But as in ancient scriptures, there is much ambiguity in Jinnah’s writings and speeches. Both sides can find texts to justify their respective views.

Perhaps one clear clue to the reality of Jinnah’s political views lies in the fact that before Pakistan became a reality, Muslim parties were almost unanimously opposed to partition.

Some of them adopted this stance because they genuinely thought (and they were not far wrong) that the creation of a Muslim state in the Muslim-majority areas would mean abandoning Muslims in Hindu-majority provinces. But most ulema opposed Jinnah because they saw him as a westernized, secular politician whose faith was not as rigid as theirs. Indeed, when asked whether he was a Shia or a Sunni, Jinnah is supposed to have replied: “I am neither Shia nor Sunni. I am a simple Musalman.” For zealots, a state created by such a person could only be secular.

It is unlikely that logic or scholarship will decide this debate. Both clearly indicate that Jinnah was one of the most secular politicians of his generation. Nevertheless, we are left with the undisputed fact that Pakistan was carved up in the name of religion, and it is now difficult to argue that the new state was never intended to be the hotbed of fanaticism it has become, whatever its founder’s real intentions.

Many younger readers might find this entire subject academic and irrelevant. But in reality, this ongoing debate is nothing short of a battle for the soul of Pakistan. Indeed, its outcome will determine what kind of country future generations will grow up in.

Re: # 643

Rest assure I have been very straight with you on this subject. You don`t have any arguments. Please feel to rebut my arguments... no need for personal attacks as is your wont. You are deliberately confusing the issue... about Gandhi and Nehru ... they are irrelevant to this discussion... I have already quoted Gandhi`s own works on the subject.

Your claim, based on little knowledge, was that Jinnah did not provide the same safeguards to the Hindus that he fought for the Muslims in India. I showed you that Jinnah`s equipoise solution for India was what he wanted for Pakistan as well... and he gave the equipoise to the Hindus by making sure they were well represented both on the constitutional committee and in the Law department whose head was a Hindu. Then you wanted the exact shape and form of the ML`s demands on an all-India level... I showed you that Pakistan was already a federal state but that federalism meant didly squat for equipoise in Pakistan. Then you wondered about new demarcations ... which I showed would make no sense given that the Congress had already gotten contiguous non-Muslim regions of Punjab and Bengal separated and made part of the Indian Union.

Now... you are talking of logic... when nothing in your posts is logical. You are talking of ``judges`` when you would be laughed out of any court in Pakistan, India or the UK.... Please don`t try and go beyond yourself.

Sincerely

YLH

Re: Miscellaneous by Mantolives

I give up.

You are pretty slippery, I`ll give you that.

Every time I corner you to try to get you to answer pointed questions, you come back with an essay-type post filled with vague generalizations.

Sometimes it`s some rambling about Gandhi being a racist, sometimes it`s something bad about Nehru. Sometimes it`s a quote from ``M C Rajah, the leader of the scheduled castes`` declaring that Jinnah has been sent by God himself (kind of like a Messiah). At other times, its equally obtuse logic gleaned from quotes attributed to various other characters.


But always dancing around the actual points.


If and when you become a lawyer, your clients would be best served if you are arguing in front of a jury (preferably a Pakistani/Muslim one) who would be easily confounded by your vague and convoluted ramblings.

A judge, who is used to thinking logically, and to the point, would not be fooled so easily.

In any case, good luck to your future clients. They are going to need it. Unless you practice in the US where there is a jury system.

Sorry I meant ``in the Dawn on this subject``.

I think Irfan Hussain`s article in the Dawn on very nicely sums up this issue. I suspect Adwani has done this region a great favour and intentionally too!

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm

Re # 639

So if masses did not not believe in equipoise and all those bookish terms and
concpets, what was told to them that they were convinced to vote for Pakistan, I am
talking to about Muslim masses who voted for Pakistan.
Or all Mr. Jinnah said to Muslim League leaders and masses, trust me, I know what
I am doing.

Re: # 637

Shishapa... Jinnah was forced to keep his cards close to his chest... no doubt the masses didn`t believe in the equipoise.... but they trusted Jinnah`s judgement.


Ajeya,

Once again: The Pakistan demand was based on existing federating units. The federating units were partitioned on the demand of the Congress.

Jinnah expressed very clearly what his idea of Pakistan was ... a) democratic b) federal
c)equality of all creeds, faiths, castes and gender.

Now... let me put this very clearly ... Jinnah died in 13 months. Whether he would have demarcated new provinces or not... is another issue. However demarcation of new provinces was impossible since there were NO Hindu contigious units... they were given to India after Congress forcibly partitioned Punjab and Bengal.

Jinnah did the best he could under the GOIA 1935 which was the constitution as long as he was in power.... he did make sure that the Hindus had an equipoise in the constitution making to help evolve a common Pakistani nationality... the kind he was hoping to build in a United India. To do this he specifically made a Hindu the law minister of the country... and chose a Hindu to write the National Anthem of Pakistan (Recall that Muslims` objection in United India was to the anti-Muslim content of Bande Mataram)...

Now you can go on twisting and turning ... but the fact is that you don`t have an argument.. atleast not one that would hold up in court... to do that you would have to prove that 13 months were an adequate time to frame a new constitution... keeping in mind that India didn`t form a new constitution till 1950.

-YLH

PS: I am travelling for the next two days... I hope you won`t announce victory prematurely.

Re: #637 by shishapa

Exactly.

:-)

The great Jinnah JUST KNEW that the Hindu majority would NEEEEEEVER treat the Muslim minority well, NOOOOWHERE CLOSE to how WELL the Muslim majority has treated the Hindu minority in Pakiland and Bangladesh (erstwhile Pakiland). And of course for the hundreds of years during Muslim rule when Muslims had the upper hand.

He just KNEW it. A GRRRRRRREAT MAN, IF I MAY SAY SO. A TRUE VISIONARY.

He KNEW this from the very NATURE of the EVIL Hindus with their EVIL caste system.

As compared to the peaceful and COMPLEEEEEETELY INNOCENT Muslims (just ask the Zoroastrians of erstwhile Persia).


Question is, was he thinking INSIDE the box, or OUTSIDE the box?


:-)

This is amazing. So all this technical jargon, nuances, and intricate legal language such as equipoise was understood perfectly by not only Mr. Jinnah but all the Muslim League leaders and the masses and folks who voted for Pakistan and then they got down to the
business of building a nation by applying those concepts right away.
And those foolish Congress leaders and all the Indians who were against the concept of Pakistan never understood these concepts or chose to ignore them on purpose and got down to the business of imposing the will of majority on the hapless minorities just as
was predicted by...

#634 by Mantolives


[First of all I want to ask you not to rephrase my ``sentences`` because given your limited comprehension skills you distort their meanings. Please simply cut and paste my arguments and respond to them. ]


Quoting you “out of context”, eh?


How about this quote from your Post# 628:

[Provincial autonomy (Along existing lines) in United India would have provided Muslims with an equipoise. The equipoise in Pakistan would require out of the box thinking.]

ARE YOU, or ARE YOU NOT saying here that Jinnah DID NOT WANT TO DO “OUT OF THE BOX” THINKING.

LET’S HAVE THE ANSWER.

IF YOU SAY:

JINNAH DID NOT WANT TO DO “OUT OF THE BOX” THINKING.

MY QUESTION TO YOU WILL BE:

What do you mean by “out of the box thinking”? And why did he not want to do it?

Did he suddenly develop a headache?
Was he tired of thinking?
Did he lose his mind?
Did he suddenly develop hemorrhoids?



[Now you say:

1) Splitting India was ``thinking inside the box``

Answer:

a) You assume that Muslim League wanted to split India. H M Seervai`s book ``Partition of India : Legend and Reality`` shows a different story. ]


Well, they actually did. If Jinnah wanted, India would be undivided today.

(although I am glad that he did. Otherwise today India would be the nerve-center for worldwide terrorism, instead of Pakistan.)



[b) Even if we accept your assumption that League wanted to split India, it was based on a very constitutional method of federating units opting out wholely. Out of the box solution was when the Congress insisted on partitioning federating units. ]

This is pretty lame. Not wanting to think “out of the box” is a pretty useless excuse for depriving the Hindu minority of what he himself thought was SO valuable for the Muslim minority in undivided India.




[2) But splitting India was ok for new demarkations

Answer: Splitting India was not a new ``demarcation``. It was existing federating Units opting out as shown above. The new demarcation was done at Congress` behest. ]

Splitting India and creating a new country called Pakistan was not a new demarcation?

Talk to the cartographers of the world. And see what they have to say.

This is a pretty idiotic statement.



[``3) Jinnah would have, but the partition of Bengal and Punjab were done SOOOO AWWWWFULLY by the BAAAAAD Congress that he couldn`t do it. (No doubt you are going to explain this one now. Let`s see what you come up with). ``

It is a fact that the partition of Bengal and Punjab stripped Pakistan of Huge chunks of Non-Muslim minorities. It is possible that the Pakistan Constituent Assembly would have created a new province or a new federal equipoise ... as is obvious from the offer made to the Sikhs of an autonomous state within the Pakistani Union.]


“It is possible that the Pakistan Constituent Assembly would have created a new province or a new federal equipoise”

Then why the @$*! didn’t they do it?

What the *%*# stopped them?

Re: # 634

PS My arguments are not based on ``Paki propaganda`` which claims that Pakistan was made for the Muslims and only Muslims live in Pakistan.

My arguments are based on the H M Seervai view of history. They are also based on a little book I read at college called ``Pakistan or Partition of India`` by Dr B R Ambedkar. Also my arguments are based on 5 volumes of the ``Jinnah Papers`` that I have in my personal library.

Re: # 632

Mr Ajeya,

First of all I want to ask you not to rephrase my ``sentences`` because given your limited comprehension skills you distort their meanings. Please simply cut and paste my arguments and respond to them.

Now you say:

1) Splitting India was ``thinking inside the box``

Answer:

a) You assume that Muslim League wanted to split India. H M Seervai`s book ``Partition of India : Legend and Reality`` shows a different story.

b) Even if we accept your assumption that League wanted to split India, it was based on a very constitutional method of federating units opting out wholely. Out of the box solution was when the Congress insisted on partitioning federating units.


2) But splitting India was ok for new demarkations

Answer: Splitting India was not a new ``demarcation``. It was existing federating Units opting out as shown above. The new demarcation was done at Congress` behest.



``3) Jinnah would have, but the partition of Bengal and Punjab were done SOOOO AWWWWFULLY by the BAAAAAD Congress that he couldn`t do it. (No doubt you are going to explain this one now. Let`s see what you come up with). ``

It is a fact that the partition of Bengal and Punjab stripped Pakistan of Huge chunks of Non-Muslim minorities. It is possible that the Pakistan Constituent Assembly would have created a new province or a new federal equipoise ... as is obvious from the offer made to the Sikhs of an autonomous state within the Pakistani Union.


-YLH

Carry on we are watching.

Re: misc. by Mantolives

Actually, although it seems that we are not making progress, we ARE making progress.

You have been forced to think of REASONS why Jinnah did what he did.

And you came up with the following absolute EXCUSES for an argument:


1) Jinnah didn`t want to ``think out of the box``. (Splitting India was ``thinking inside the box``)

2) Jinnah didn`t want ``new demarcations``. (But splitting India was ok for new demarkations)

3) Jinnah would have, but the partition of Bengal and Punjab were done SOOOO AWWWWFULLY by the BAAAAAD Congress that he couldn`t do it. (No doubt you are going to explain this one now. Let`s see what you come up with).




So we are making progress.

Everyone who`s watching can make out who`s trying to rationalize here.

Re: #630 by Mantolives


[a) You started off by asking me why Jinnah didn`t give the constitutional safeguards to them which he had asked for in United India. I showed you conclusively that an equipoise was given to them in spirit. ]

This is garbage logic.

Why?

Because of the following:

If the equipoise was good enough for Hindus in Pakistan, it should have been good enough for Jinnah and the Muslims in undidvided India, because this same “equipoise” had been promised to the muslims of undivided India.

So if this “equipoise” is same as the “Constitutional safeguards” that Jinnah wanted, why did he not accept it in undivided India?


[b) You then demanded to know why a federal Pakistan was not instituted. I showed you that Pakistan was a federal state and it has always been one. ]

Again more misleading and falsification.

In a federation, the constituent parts have autonomy.

THERE WAS NO POLITICAL AUTONOMY GIVEN TO THE HINDU MAJORITY AREAS.

SO KINDLY DON’T INSIST THAT THIS WAS A FEDERATION AS FAR AS HINDUS IN PAKISTAN WERE CONCERNED.



[c) You then asked why Hindus were not given a federal equipoise. I showed you that Hindus were given an equipoise in the constitution making. Federal equipoise was impossible because there were no Hindu Majority areas in Pakistan which could be given autonomy because of the unnatural Partition of Punjab and Bengal brought about by the Congress Party. ]

What complete nonsense.

Just your saying doesn’t make it so.

“HINDU MAJORITY AREAS COULD NOT BE GIVEN AUTONOMY BECAUSE OF THE UNNATURAL PARTITION OF PUNJAB AND BENGAL BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE CONGRESS PARTY”



This is the most fascinating statement you have made so far.

Could you KINDLY tell me why?


[d) You persist in repeating the same question which makes no sense and has been answered effectively. ]

You would like everyone to think that my questions are stupid, won’t you?

But it’s possible that they are not.


[PS: Please don`t waste my time and yours.]

Admittedly, arguing with you IS a total waste of time.

Because a fanatic never changes.

But sometimes I derive some satisfaction putting people like you straight, and showing the Pakistani propaganda for the garbage it really is.

Dear Ajeya,

1) Partition of Punjab and Bengal was brought about by the Congress Party not the league. Federating Units asking to opt out of a federation (and mind you Punjab, Sindh and Bengal were independent sovereign states at the time of their acquisition) is NOT out of the box thinking. So when you say ``partition`` ... it is out of the box solution brought about by Nehru and Patel. The Pakistan demand as embodied by the Lahore Resolution was the federating constitutional units opting out of the federation. So ``secession`` is not necessarily ``out of the box``.

2) By partitioning Bengal and Punjab, the Hindu majority areas of Note were made part of the Indian Union. The few hindu majority areas inside Pakistan were scattered and not huge blobs. Nothing could guarantee.

3) You obviously haven`t a clue about how federating units and federations work. The definition you gave fully and completely fits the federal structure of Pakistan as it existed under the GOIA1935, which you had untill recently declared ``irrelevant``.

4) Calling my arguments assinine won`t make them so. India didn`t make new provinces untill much later. As things existed, there were so many other administrative problems faced by Pakistan. Jinnah died only 13 months. In those 13 months he did try his best to give the Hindus an equipoise in constitution making.


Now let me tell you what you are argument essentially is...

a) You started off by asking me why Jinnah didn`t give the constitutional safeguards to them which he had asked for in United India. I showed you conclusively that an equipoise was given to them in spirit.

b) You then demanded to know why a federal Pakistan was not instituted. I showed you that Pakistan was a federal state and it has always been one.

c) You then asked why Hindus were not given a federal equipoise. I showed you that Hindus were given an equipoise in the constitution making. Federal equipoise was impossible because there were no Hindu Majority areas in Pakistan which could be given autonomy because of the unnatural Partition of Punjab and Bengal brought about by the Congress Party.

d) You persist in repeating the same question which makes no sense and has been answered effectively.

-YLH

PS: Please don`t waste my time and yours.

Re: #628 by Mantolives


[Knowledge can`t be quantified.]

Did I say it can be? Oops! I’m sorry.


[Rather poor attempt on your part to prove that you actually did pass those standardised tests.]


Actually there is no pass-fail in exams like the IIT-JEE.



[Another thing... please understand that writing a few co ]

You did not finish this sentence.



[``1) MENTION SOMEWHERE ABOUT THIS FEDERAL SYSTEM?``

Yes. Muslim League`s Lahore Resolution speaks of a federal system very clearly and that document forms the basis of Pakistan. Furthermore the GOIA 1935 which was Pakistan`s interim constitution is a federal document. ]


This is how a Federation is defined:

“A form of government in which powers and functions are divided between a central government and a number of political subdivisions that have a significant degree of political autonomy.”

This FEDERAL system did not let Hindu pockets become small, politically autonomous provinces that are part of a Federal Pakistan, did it?

A simple YES or NO would do here. Thanks.



[``2) MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT ITS DETAILS (INCLUDING HAVING HINDU MAJORITY AREAS AS INDEPENDENT PARTS OF A FEDERATION IN PAKISTAN) ``

Like I pointed out to you... the case for Pakistan was always based on existing federating units and not ``new demarcations``. The communal demarcation of provinces was carried out on Congress` insistence to partition Punjab and Bengal to strip Pakistan of economic viability. In a federation there are no independent parts btw and that was not what Jinnah wanted. The constitutional safeguard he asked for was the equipoise and he gave the Hindus that equipoise practically by putting them on the constitution committee and making a law minister a Hindu. ]


You see, you are insisting that I am either dense, or pretending not to understand. But as you will see, neither of those is the case, and I will stay on the message, until you are forced to confront it.

Here’s what you are saying (if I am understanding you correctly):

1) Jinnah did not want any “new demarcations” by forming new small provinces of Hindu majority.

Here’s what I say to that:

This is a VERY weak excuse, because dividing India was a pretty big “new demarcation”, if you take India as a whole. And he also, according to you, wanted a separate province for a Sikh majority area.

Question 1: So how does this argument of yours hold water?

2) The “equipoise” that he gave the Hindus was just as good as having the Federal system.

Here’s what I say to that:

Question 2: Nonsense. Because Muslims were given the same “equipoise” in India AND MORE (ask me why MORE, and I’ll explain). But this was not considered as good by Jinnah as the Federal system that he wanted.Then why is his “equipoise” that he gave to Hindus as good as the Federal system? Please explain this to me.



[``3) TRY TO IMPLEMENT IT IN THE NEWBORN PAKISTAN. ``

The equipoise was implemented in newborn Pakistan and I have shown above how.

Your problem is that you don`t understand the real demand. Provincial autonomy (Along existing lines) in United India would have provided Muslims with an equipoise.]



I understand full well.

Your WHOLE argument rests on this very untenable proposition: That Jinnah did not want to create NEW PROVINCES, but wanted to maintain EXISTING PROVINCES.

Question 3: Could you give me the reasons as to WHY HE DID NOT WANT TO CREATE NEW PROVINCES?

Question 4: And isn’t he the same person that proposed a new province for the Sikhs? A province that never existed before?



[The equipoise in Pakistan would require out of the box thinking.]


Question 5: You mean, to create new provinces would require “out of the box” thinking.

But partitioning a subcontinent is “in the box thinking”?



[So far you have failed to comprehend a fairly simple concept. It is nuanced but it is not rocket science.]

But the good thing about me is that I try. I don’t give up. :-)



[To ask for fresh Hindu majority area demarcations in Pakistan, you would have to prove that Jinnah had any point asked for fresh demarcations in any provinces of United India. The only time that happened previously was in 1905 with the partition of Bengal and Jinnah had as a congressman from what I understand opposed the move as British divide and rule. The Sind example doesnt count because Sind historically was under the talpur rule. ]

You are again trying to prove that Jinnah was against drawing “NEW PROVINCES” because it would require “OUT OF THE BOX THINKING”.

Question 5: IS THIS THE ONLY REASON HE WAS OPPOSED TO CREATING NEW PROVINCES? OR ARE THERE OTHER REASONS?



[So you see you are now arguing just for the sake of arguing.]


No, I’m arguing because you are trying to pull the wool over everyones’ eyes by making asinine arguments.

YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT RESTS ON THE FOLLOWING PREMISE:

THERE ARE ONLY TWO REASONS (THAT YOU HAVE STATED SO FAR) WHY JINNAH DID NOT WANT TO CREATE NEW HINDU PROVINCES:

1) BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO THINK “OUT OF THE BOX”.

2) HE GAVE HINDUS ENOUGH “EQUIPOISE” IN PAKISTAN.


I have asked you Question 1) and Question 2) regarding these.

Kindly answer the questions

Re: # 627

Knowledge can`t be quantified. Rather poor attempt on your part to prove that you actually did pass those standardised tests.

Another thing... please understand that writing a few co

Now coming to your other comments:

``1) MENTION SOMEWHERE ABOUT THIS FEDERAL SYSTEM?``

Yes. Muslim League`s Lahore Resolution speaks of a federal system very clearly and that document forms the basis of Pakistan. Furthermore the GOIA 1935 which was Pakistan`s interim constitution is a federal document.


``2) MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT ITS DETAILS (INCLUDING HAVING HINDU MAJORITY AREAS AS INDEPENDENT PARTS OF A FEDERATION IN PAKISTAN) ``

Like I pointed out to you... the case for Pakistan was always based on existing federating units and not ``new demarcations``. The communal demarcation of provinces was carried out on Congress` insistence to partition Punjab and Bengal to strip Pakistan of economic viability. In a federation there are no independent parts btw and that was not what Jinnah wanted. The constitutional safeguard he asked for was the equipoise and he gave the Hindus that equipoise practically by putting them on the constitution committee and making a law minister a Hindu.


``3) TRY TO IMPLEMENT IT IN THE NEWBORN PAKISTAN. ``

The equipoise was implemented in newborn Pakistan and I have shown above how.

Your problem is that you don`t understand the real demand. Provincial autonomy (Along existing lines) in United India would have provided Muslims with an equipoise. The equipoise in Pakistan would require out of the box thinking. So far you have failed to comprehend a fairly simple concept. It is nuanced but it is not rocket science.

To ask for fresh Hindu majority area demarcations in Pakistan, you would have to prove that Jinnah had any point asked for fresh demarcations in any provinces of United India. The only time that happened previously was in 1905 with the partition of Bengal and Jinnah had as a congressman from what I understand opposed the move as British divide and rule. The Sind example doesnt count because Sind historically was under the talpur rule.

So you see you are now arguing just for the sake of arguing.

-YLH

PS: Please don`t assume that multiple posting will make your argument in any way more forceful.

And by the way,

``Little knowledge is dangerous`` is wrong.

It should be:

``A little knowledge is dangerous``.


Of course, I am not questioning your knowledge.

:-)

I meant to say:

I WOULD APPRECIATE RESPONSES TO 1), 2) AND 3) ABOVE.

Re: #624 by Mantolives

[Little knowledge is dangerous ]

Because my knowledge is limited, I am asking you these questions.

To avert any danger.


[You write: ``Don’t try to confuse the issue. There WAS no Pakistan in 1935. So don’t bring the Government Of India Act into the picture.``

Government of India Act 1935 was adapted for Pakistani territories and Indian territories was the interim constitution of both Dominions of Pakistan and India. It was this constitution that Jinnah had in place. ]

WHICH IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.



After a lot of struggle, we got an answer to my FIRST question.

My question was:

A) Did he propose this federal system or not?

Your Answer :

[Yes he did. He had a federal system in mind.]

Since you say that HE DID, we do not need the question B) as mentioned in my previous post.


SO HERE ARE MY NEW QUESTIONS TO YOUR ANSWER:

DID HE JUST HAVE IT IN MIND, OR DID HE:

1) MENTION SOMEWHERE ABOUT THIS FEDERAL SYSTEM?

2) MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT ITS DETAILS (INCLUDING HAVING HINDU MAJORITY AREAS AS INDEPENDENT PARTS OF A FEDERATION IN PAKISTAN)

3) TRY TO IMPLEMENT IT IN THE NEWBORN PAKISTAN.




I WOULD APPRECIATE RESPONSES TO A), B) AND C) ABOVE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR INDULGENCE.

Re: # 623

Ajeya..

Little knowledge is dangerous

You write: ``Don’t try to confuse the issue. There WAS no Pakistan in 1935. So don’t bring the Government Of India Act into the picture.``

Government of India Act 1935 was adapted for Pakistani territories and Indian territories was the interim constitution of both Dominions of Pakistan and India. It was this constitution that Jinnah had in place.


You write: ``you may be right. Maybe I just don’t get it. ``

Or you are not even trying


You write:`` BUT COULD YOU JUST ANSWER TO THE POINTS I RAISED ABOVE? ``

I have done so on several occasions.


You ask ``Did he propose this federal system or not?``

My Answer : Yes he did. He had a federal system in mind. He also proposed an equipoise for the Hindus till a common Pakistani nationality would come into existence.

Re: #621 by Mantolives

[You are not again applying the faculties of mind. ]

I have to make do with what excuse of a mind I have.



[Pakistan was a federation under the GOI Act 1935.]

Don’t try to confuse the issue. There WAS no Pakistan in 1935. So don’t bring the Government Of India Act into the picture.

We are talking about what Jinnah PROPOSED at the birth of Pakistan.



[A new constitution had not yet been prepared. Jinnah had very clear ideas about that new constitution and he expressed them.
None of them were followed sadly. ]


So, could you KINDLY elucidate these “clear ideas” that Jinnah had and show me how in this Federation of Pakistan the Hindu Majority areas (or pockets if you will) were treated as independent parts of a larger federation?

I am trying to get you to answer the following questions:

A) Did he propose this federal system or not?

B) If he did not, WHY NOT?

If your answer to B) is:

1) The pockets of Hindu majority had sub-pockets of Muslims in them.

and/or

2) “Jinnah never demanded new demarcations”

Then I will repeat my earlier post, which you have ignored AGAIN.


KINDLY ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS WITHOUT BEATING AROUND THE BUSH AND ASKING ME TO EMPLOY MY MENTAL FACULTIES.



[It is quite simple... but you don`t seem to get it... ]


You may be right. Maybe I just don’t get it.

BUT COULD YOU JUST ANSWER TO THE POINTS I RAISED ABOVE?

Instead of a rambling essay-type answer that would confuse my limited faculties, could I persuade you to KINDLY answer in the following fashion?

A) Did he propose this federal system or not?

Your Answer :

B) If he did not, WHY NOT?

Your Answer :


I would be greatly obliged if you would indulge my no doubt unreasonable request.

Re: # 621

When I said ``Hindu Muslim Provinces`` I meant ``Hindu Muslim Problem``

Re: # 619

Dear Ajeya,

You are not again applying the faculties of mind.

Pakistan was a federation under the GOI Act 1935. A new constitution had not yet been prepared. Jinnah had very clear ideas about that new constitution and he expressed them.
None of them were followed sadly.

Jinnah`s solution to the Hindu Muslim provinces was the gerrymandering or regrouping of existing Provincial units within India to achieve the ``equipoise``. It was Mountbatten, Nehru and Patel who wrecked the plan by demanding division of Punjab and Bengal to which Jinnah was very staunchly opposed. His offer to the Sikhs of an autonomous state within Pakistan was to avert bloodshed in Punjab.

An Equipoise in very legal terms is to achieve a power-sharing by different communities. By appointing a Hindu Law Minister who represented a strong East Pakistan Party and by having leading Hindus from the newly named ``Pakistan wing of the Indian National Congress`` on the constitution committee, Jinnah aimed to achieve the same equipoise in Pakistan. This is precisely what the league had wanted in 1937 and then in 1946 for Muslims in India.

It is quite simple... but you don`t seem to get it...

-YLH

Re: 616 by Mantolives

[No there is no burden of proof on me. You have merely twisted the argument. I have given you an answer which I consider perfectly logical.]


Oh I completely forgot about this one.

By the way, this is NOT a gem.

Because, gems are rare.

But EVERYONE who considers himself/herself a true muslim has this attitude.

We are right because Allah made Mohammed his Prophet because Mohammed said so.

Gentlemen and ladies, compare this with:

There is no burden of proof on me because my argument is perfectly logical because I consider it so.

See?

Same mind-numbing logic.

Re: 616 by Mantolives

[You sir have lost your mind.]

Actually you may be right. Is that why I am unable to think straight these days? And I feel dizzy sometimes too…



[Please decide what you are discussing. ]


Umm…. So I should decide first, okay….ummm…let’s see…

Let’s make things difficult for you so you CANNOT BEAT AROUND THE BUSH ANYMORE.

HERE ARE THE POINTS FOR THIS POST:

According to you, Jinnah did not make a federation in Pakistan because of the following reasons (let me know if I am not following you logic because of my limited faculties):

1) The pockets of Hindu majority had sub-pockets of Muslims in them.

ANY majority area, big or small ALWAYS has sub-areas inside of them that have minority elements.

SO BLOODY WHAT? WHY SHOULD THAT PREVENT THAT POCKET FROM BEING AN INDEPENDENT PART OF A FEDERATION?


2) “Jinnah never demanded new demarcations”

Oh REALLY? Isn’t this the same guy that “had offered Sikhs an autonomous state within India”?

WHAT THE *&$! DO YOU MEAN BY THIS STATEMENT?


Oh, by the way….

I HAVE DECIDED. THE ABOVE TWO POINTS ARE WHAT I AM DISCUSSING.

Thanks for forcing me to think logically.

:-)

Actually Shishapa,

The day of deliverance included several non-muslim anti-Congress Parties as well including Dr Ambedkar, the guy you owe your secular democracy too...

This is precisely why a Secular Nationalist Pothan Joseph agreed to edit Dawn, Muslim League`s mouthpiece.


M C Rajah, the leader of the scheduled castes and made this comment in 1941:

``All religions hold that God sends suitable people into the world to work out his plans from time to time and at critical junctures. I regard Mr Jinnah as the man who has been called upon to correct the wrong ways in which the people of India have been led by the leadership of Mr Gandhi. Congress took a wrong turn when it adopted wholesale the non cooperation programme of Mr Gandhi and assumed an attitude of open hostility towards Britain and tried to infusew the minds of people a spirit of defiance of law and civil disobedience more of less thinly veiled under a formula of truth and non violence. Moreover by Mahatmafying Mr Gandhi it appealed to the idolatorous sperstition of the Hindus, thus converting the religious adherence of the Hindu section of the population to the Mahatma into political support of his non cooperation movement.While this strategy was of some avail in hustling the British Government to yield more and more it divided the people into Hindu and non hind! u sectionsIn these circumstances a man was needed to stand up to congress and tell its leaders that their organization however powerful numerically and financially doesnot represent the whole of India. I admire Mr Jinnah and feel grateful to him because in advocating the cause of the Muslims he is championing the cause of all the classes that are in danger of bein crushed under the steam roller of the caste Hindu majority, acting under the inspiration and orders of Mr Gandhi `` (25th December 1940, 9 months After the Pakistan Resolution, Seen here are Scheduled castes of India)

Why did he want ``equipoise`` for Muslims in United India?
How come only Mr. Jinnah and Muslim League were asking
equillibrium between 25-30% and rest of the Indians?
Should Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Zoarastrians, Animists, Jains have
also been asking for ``equipoise``?
Whatever happened to `one-man one-vote` and `one-woman one-vote`.
And just asking for equillibrium for Muslims was secular demand?
It is so confusing.

Re: # 615

You sir have lost your mind. Please decide what you are discussing.

No there is no burden of proof on me. You have merely twisted the argument. I have given you an answer which I consider perfectly logical. You are free to disagree with it.

I am going to repeat it for you: Jinnah wanted an equipoise. He wanted existing federating units to be gerrymandered in a way so that at the centre an equipoise was created. The equipoise itself was to be achieved by several different safeguards i.e 1) Group legislatures 2) supra-group federation executive + - legislature. If you bother to read the Cabinet Mission Plan and/or the sources I have quoted enough.


Then I found this gem:


There were MANY MANY pockets of Hindu majority areas in Pakistan – in Sindh, Punjab, and Baluchistan.

``Even though the Provinces themselves were Muslim majority, there were pockets of Hindu majority areas in each of these provinces.``

No doubt there were as there were Muslim pockets in Hindu Majority areas as well. Jinnah never demanded new demarcations. He was proceeding on the basis of federating units. Nor was his equipoise the final solution to India`s problem. By making sure that Hindus were represented on the constitutional committee and had the law ministry, he was trying to make sure that the equipoise was achieved in Pakistan as well.

Re: #614 by Mantolives


[If you recall you said that you will answer my point about Hinduism and other religions being based on the same kind of mythology. You didn`t.]

You are nothing if not adamant. How many times did I tell you that I was willing to talk about Hinduism and other religions AFTER we had finished debating about Mohammed?

But you just keep repeating this same thing again and again.

You think you are a good debater. But you are not. Just the fact that you brought this point up shows that.



[Besides not being the religious type, I don`t argue about religion with bigots be they Muslim, Hindu or Chritian ]

I could call you an a$$hole too, but am I doing that? So try to avoid ad-hominems. This is the last time I am telling you this.



[Please inform me what these ``constitutional safeguards`` were. The only CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD Jinnah wanted was the ``EQUIPOISE``. You can go and check any sources. Please feel free to list these other ``safeguards`` you talk about and then inform me why you think they were not given. ]

YOU are the one who started talking about ``constitutional safeguards`` in the PLURAL.

So that’s it? Huh? Jinnah’s big prescription and brainwave? EQUIPOISE?

What does that constitute, IN JINNAH’S WORDS, pray?



[I have already. The federal scheme was merely one way of getting an equipoise. Were there any Hindu Majority Provinces or areas in the ``moth eaten`` Pakistan as it was given to us?]

There were MANY MANY pockets of Hindu majority areas in Pakistan – in Sindh, Punjab, and Baluchistan.

These were small pockets of majority, but they were pockets of majority all right.

Of course, now that many of them are “ethnically cleansed”, now they might not be any more.


[Please recall that in his negotiations Jinnah had offered Sikhs an autonomous state within India. ]

Why should I recall that? Which point does that prove? How is this relevant to the current discussion?




[In United India Muslims formed contigious majority regions in NWFP, Punjab, Sindh and Bengal. ]

Let me repeat :

There were MANY MANY pockets of Hindu majority areas in Pakistan – in Sindh, Punjab, and Baluchistan.

Even though the Provinces themselves were Muslim majority, there were pockets of Hindu majority areas in each of these provinces.

Did Jinnah offer a federation of small states for these areas?




[Certainly. Please read the appendix of Jinnah Papers. On the Threshold of Pakistan 1 July-25 July 1947. First Series Volume III. and constituent assembly debates Jinnah Papers. Volume IV. ]

No No No No No.

YOU read it.

And tell us.

The burden of proof is on YOU.




[ your inability to follow a very simple line of argument forces me to conclude otherwise.]

And which “simple line” of argument would that be?

a) The “contiguous” argument?

b) The “equipoise” argument (which has recently replaced the brilliant brainwave also known as ``constitutional safeguards``)?

c) Me being a “bigot” argument? or,

d) Me not discussing about Hindu mythology argument?


I am at a loss.

Kindly illuminate.

``Well you DID tiptoe away from the discussion on Mohammed. ``

If you recall you said that you will answer my point about Hinduism and other religions being based on the same kind of mythology. You didn`t. Besides not being the religious type, I don`t argue about religion with bigots be they Muslim, Hindu or Chritian



``We are NOT talking about his “equipoise”. We are talking about his much vaunted “constitutional safeguards” and his “federal system” prescription for India. ``

Please inform me what these ``constitutional safeguards`` were. The only CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD Jinnah wanted was the ``EQUIPOISE``. You can go and check any sources. Please feel free to list these other ``safeguards`` you talk about and then inform me why you think they were not given.

I am not aware of any other constitutional safeguards.


``[However your ``Federal`` issue is irrelevant and shows your lack of knowledge.]

WHY IS IT IRRELEVANT? Because YOU say so? Show me how. ``

I have already. The federal scheme was merely one way of getting an equipoise. Were there any Hindu Majority Provinces or areas in the ``moth eaten`` Pakistan as it was given to us? Please recall that in his negotiations Jinnah had offered Sikhs an autonomous state within India.

We shall see about who has the lack of knowledge.


``MUSLIMS in India did not form contiguous zones either. They were spread out all over the country in varying densities. ``

In United India Muslims formed contigious majority regions in NWFP, Punjab, Sindh and Bengal.


``And could you KINDLY quote from Jinnah’s papers that you refer to (since YOU are the knowledgeable one) WHERE he proposed a Federal system for Pakistan along the lines of his wonderful prescription for India. PLEASE?``

Certainly. Please read the appendix of Jinnah Papers. On the Threshold of Pakistan 1 July-25 July 1947. First Series Volume III. and constituent assembly debates Jinnah Papers. Volume IV.


``I may sound like an idiot to you, but my English comprehension is better than most, as proven by numerous standardized tests.``

Well standardized tests or not... your inability to follow a very simple line of argument forces me to conclude otherwise.

Re: #611 by Mantolives


[Please don`t prove yourself to be an idiot by declaring victory so soon. I have never ratted... people like you have come and gone several times in the last few years.]

Well you DID tiptoe away from the discussion on Mohammed.

And as far as THIS discussion goes, we shall see who’s an idiot in the end.

And by the way, “ratted” means betraying someone’s confidence.

And if you meant “rattled”, then the sentence should be “I have never BEEN rattled”.

In any case.


[Like I pointed out that Jinnah was gave Hindus the same rights he wanted Muslims to have in India. He did create an equipoise in the Cabinet and an equipose on the Constitutional committee as well as affirmative action in the allocation of government jobs for Hindus. ]


We are NOT talking about his “equipoise”.

We are talking about his much vaunted “constitutional safeguards” and his “federal system” prescription for India.


[However your ``Federal`` issue is irrelevant and shows your lack of knowledge.]

WHY IS IT IRRELEVANT?

Because YOU say so?

Show me how.

We shall see about who has the lack of knowledge.


[Jinnah had wanted a federal India based on provinces. In Pakistan, as created on 14th August 1947, Hindus did not form contiguous geographical zones. The equipoise could not be provincial, even though Jinnah had envisaged it is clear from the Jinnah papers a federal Pakistan. ]


This is a load of BALONEY, to put it very politely.

MUSLIMS in India did not form contiguous zones either. They were spread out all over the country in varying densities.

And could you KINDLY quote from Jinnah’s papers that you refer to (since YOU are the knowledgeable one) WHERE he proposed a Federal system for Pakistan along the lines of his wonderful prescription for India.

PLEASE?




[So your whole idea is invalid and wrong.]

We shall see about that, shall we?



[And if you don`t follow this train of thought then I am afraid you are not reading what I am writing properly. ]


I may sound like an idiot to you, but my English comprehension is better than most, as proven by numerous standardized tests.

And now on to a more balanced rendering of history

The lost chances of history

COLIN GONSALVES


Posted online: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 0000 hours IST



Author of Constitutional law of India and former attorney general, the late H.M. Seervai, has provided an interesting account of Jinnah’s role in Partition. According to him, the picture painted of Jinnah as being the one who brought about Partition on account of ambition, vanity and intransigence is contrary to historical evidence. He describes Nehru as appearing imperious and shows Gandhi as being indifferent to Muslim demands. He suggests it was Gandhi who introduced religion into politics with disastrous consequences.

M.A. Jinnah joined the Congress in 1906. He was hailed as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity after the 1916 Lucknow Pact, when the Muslim League (ML) and the Congress agreed to jointly fight the British. When, in 1914, Annie Besant started the Home Rule League, the president of its Bombay branch was Jinnah. In 1920, Gandhi became League president but Besant resigned over politics becoming ‘intertwined with religion’. Gandhi had begun to subtly introduce religion into politics as his ascetic image had begun to appeal to Hindu religious sentiment. This approach to arouse political consciousness was understandable, but it came at a price. His support for the Khilafat movement saw Jinnah cautioning him against it.



In 1925, the All Party Conference appointed a committee headed by Nehru to frame the Constitution. The Nehru Report rejected separate electorates. The ML had wanted this and had also demanded residuary powers be given to the provinces. Jinnah pleaded these amendments be accepted to avoid “civil war”. They were rejected. “This is a parting of ways,” Jinnah told a friend.

Then, when the British announced the Communal Award providing for separate electorates and reservation for both Muslims and depressed classes, Gandhi announced a fast unto death. It was withdrawn after B.R. Ambedkar intervened and the Poona Pact was arrived at under which there were reservations for depressed classes but with joint electorates. In the polls to provincial legislatures under the Government of India Act, 1935, out of 485 Muslim seats the ML won only 108. Congress ministries were formed in eight provinces. Then Congress made the disastrous move of not forming a coalition with Muslims. In the United Province, it contested 9 out of 66 Muslim seats and lost all. The backlash had begun.

In his autobiography, India Wins Freedom, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad wrote “if the League’s offer of cooperation was accepted the Muslim League would have merged with the Congress.” But Azad’s recommendation was rejected by Nehru who said that no Muslim should be admitted into the Cabinet unless he joins the Congress. He wanted the Cabinet to be homogeneous. In March 1937, Nehru remarked “there are only two forces in India today, British imperialism and Indian nationalism.” Jinnah was quick to retort, “No, there is a third party, the Mussalman.” History was to bear him out. Yet, even as late as 1937, according to Shiva Rao, Jinnah was not considering a separate state.

Congress then began a search for a solution. The Desai-Liaquat Ali Pact and the Sapru Committee suggested the formation of coalition ministries at the Centre. This was turned down. In 1945, Azad suggested to Gandhi that the Constitution be federal, units be given the right to secede, that there be joint electorates with reservation of seats and parity between Muslims and Hindus in the legislature and Central Executive “until communal suspicion disappears”. Gandhi differed. Bhulabhai Desai and Tej Bahadur Sapru, prominent lawyers, also pleaded in vain. As a result, in the 1945 Central Legislature Assembly elections, the ML won every Muslim seat and Congress Muslims lost every seat. It overlooked the fact that though 200 million Hindus were not equal to 90 million Muslims in terms of numbers, while framing a constitution some sort of meaningful parity has to be worked out. Gandhi made no practical attempt to find a solution. Even after the ML call for direct action the Calcutta killings and the boycott of the Constituent Assembly in 1946, Gandhi did not budge.

The rest is history. Lord Wavell who, according to Seervai, tried repeatedly to get the Congress to accommodate the ML for a unified India, was sacked. The Congress began planning for Partition. Gandhi, who had previously said that Partition would come to India over his dead body, advised that circumstances had arisen which made Partition unavoidable. Jinnah left India with an appeal to both Hindus and Muslims to bury the past. The next day Patel said at Delhi “The poison has been removed from the body of India. We are now one and indivisible.”


The writer is a Supreme Court advocate

Re: # 610

Ajeya,

Please don`t prove yourself to be an idiot by declaring victory so soon. I have never ratted... people like you have come and gone several times in the last few years. I was busy in a crucial meeting yesterday... and I am surprised that you declared victory so quickly.

Like I pointed out that Jinnah was gave Hindus the same rights he wanted Muslims to have in India. He did create an equipoise in the Cabinet and an equipose on the Constitutional committee as well as affirmative action in the allocation of government jobs for Hindus.

However your ``Federal`` issue is irrelevant and shows your lack of knowledge. Jinnah had wanted a federal India based on provinces. In Pakistan, as created on 14th August 1947, Hindus did not form contiguous geographical zones. The equipoise could not be provincial, even though Jinnah had envisaged it is clear from the Jinnah papers a federal Pakistan.

Jinnah wanted an Equipoise for Muslims in India. He gave an equipoise to the Hindus during his government ... both in the Cabinet and on the constitutional committee.

So your whole idea is invalid and wrong. And if you don`t follow this train of thought then I am afraid you are not reading what I am writing properly.

Shishapa,

Do you suffer from some reading disability?

Please inform me what constitutional safeguards he had asked for India... and how did he not give the same to the Hindus in Pakistan? What both of you are doing are exposing your ignorance.

Deafening silence from that constitutional scholar, also known as Yasser.

Kind of the same ending as on the discussion on Mohammed.

Which would be okay, except for the fact that he`ll soon pop up on a different forum and start spouting the same nonsense as if none of this ever happened.

I saw on his bio that he is an aspiring lawyer.

I feel sorry for his potential clients. So many innocents would go to jail for life!

Very sad.

Jinnah converted from an Ismaili Khoja to an Ithna Ashari (the dominant Shia ideology), which, given his uncompromising character, was not something he would’ve done without strong belief

[Jinnah knew that to achieve his political aims he had to shun Nehru`s secularism and use religion as a rallying point ..... the legacy that Jinnah left is a legacy of exclusion. The plurality of the vision that Gandhi and Nehru nurtured was missing in Pakistan]

http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20050627/cover5.shtml&SET=T

India Today
June 27, 2005

Antithesis Of Nehru
By Mushirul Hasan

[Prof Mushirul Hasan, an eminent historian, is a former VC of Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi]

Whether Mohammad Ali Jinnah was secular or not cannot be an unqualified statement. Jinnah can quite easily be described as a secular politician who at times was pushed into taking non-secular positions in the public eye. But more often he used political spaces to further what he regarded as communitarian concerns. When he did that, he very dexterously used religion, because Islam has historically provided a rallying point for the mobilisation of the Muslim community. M.A. Ansari, Congress president, had this perceptive comment to make on June 26, 1927: ``(Jinnah) is a nationalist at heart, turned into a communalist by the exigencies of the time, but I have little faith in anyone who can change his conviction so readily to suit the circumstance.`` Perhaps, L.K. Advani needs to reflect on his statement about Jinnah.

It is important to remember that from 1937-38 on, there is very little secularism in Jinnah`s political pursuits. If you read his speeches and his correspondence, and if you follow the process of the dismantling of adversaries in the erstwhile provinces of British India, you see how the secular garb lay in shreds. His language is belligerent, strident and often conflict-ridden. The very vocabulary of the two expressions that Jinnah is most associated with, ``The Day of Deliverance`` in 1939 after the resignation of the Congress ministries and the call for ``Direct Action`` in August 1947, suggests a shift towards the principle of exclusion. Contrary to the image he cultivated in the early years of his public life, Jinnah had now realised that in order to achieve his aims he had to use not the secular banner of Nehru but a religious one. This, he no doubt used very effectively.

By definition, the state Jinnah founded could not acquire a secular character because it was built on the principle of religious nationalism. This has been established and is no longer talked about in the confines of this debate. This is why Pakistan has had a tortuous process of constitution-making and Zia-ul-Haq was able to foist a constitution which is so obviously in complete disregard of Jinnah`s speech in the Constituent Assembly. A secular Pakistan was not ever going to be feasible and though Pakistan today is a secular society, its polity is by and large not secular.

George Fernandes` contention in the wake of the controversy over Advani`s visit that Nehru was himself pseudo-secular is a shoddy attempt to re-evaluate the history of Partition. Some of Nehru`s positions vis-à-vis Jinnah and the Muslim League were overstated. In some ways, Nehru`s standing on the communal question leaves much to be desired. The problem was a lot more complex than is presented in his writings and in his speeches. Having said that, Nehru was the quintessential secularist and was very concerned about the intrusion of religion into politics. I don`t think that even Fernandes can deny the fact that Nehru was extremely consistent in upholding this very principle. So ideologically, I think the positions of Nehru and Jinnah are almost completely at variance with each other because Nehru championed the composite evolution of a composite society; Jinnah contested composite traditions and talked of a civilisational conflict. Nehru, despite the partition of the country and the bloodshed, emerges as the most consistent protagonist of a secular India. At the same time Pakistan was refurbishing its Islamic image. After 1947, Nehru tirelessly fought communal tendencies. Whereas the legacy that Jinnah left is a legacy of exclusion. The plurality of the vision that Gandhi and Nehru nurtured was missing in Pakistan. So ideologically, I see no compatibility between these two individuals. To understand the role of Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah, we need to write not the history but the histories of Partition.

Mr. Jinnah and Muslim League wanted constitutional safeguards for minority muslims in United India from the majority Hindus but was not willing to give constitutional safeguards to minorities in muslim majority Pakistan because he envisaged that they would be ethnically cleansed anyway.
So in his demand of Pakistan and after Pakistan was created, he never uttered a word about it.
Is it not a hypocirsy?

Re #604 by Mantolives

[I agree that the existing dogma in Islam does hinder progress to a secular democratic state, without agreeing ofcourse with your hatred against the religion.]


And there is no ``existing dogma``. The Quran`s dogmas are supposed to be immutable, for ALL times and people.

Re #604 by Mantolives

[I agree that the existing dogma in Islam does hinder progress to a secular democratic state, without agreeing ofcourse with your hatred against the religion.]


Yes, I have hatred for Fascism, Nazism and Communism as well. And for pedophiles.

But coming back to the topic of Jinnah`s ``constitutional safeguards``. So did he propose that Pakistan be built on a Federal style, with power sharing between Hindus and Muslims, since as a ``realist`` he realized that Hindus and Muslims were not one people as of that point of time?

Dear Ajeya...

I agree that the existing dogma in Islam does hinder progress to a secular democratic state, without agreeing ofcourse with your hatred against the religion.

If you read up on Jinnah`s life... the ``gerrymandering`` for an ``equipoise`` was it. There were no other constitutional safeguards. He was against separate electorates in principle and was for its early disappearance and he said as much in his famous 14 points as well.

The difference between Nehru`s vision and Jinnah`s vision was very simple and nuanced...

Nehru`s ideal was more centralised, more nation state oriented. Jinnah`s vision was more federal.. atleast in the short run. Nehru the idealist believed that Indians were one people and all the differences were artificial. Jinnah the realist wanted Indians to be one people but saw the ground reality : that Indians were divided along several lines... hence he wanted them to evolve into one nation.

It was the clash between the idealist and realist that had drastic consequences.

Now as far as Pakistan is concerned... during Jinnah`s own government, which was under GOIA1935, he did do the maximum he could do accomodate that vision... but here too he wanted Pakistanis to ultimately become one nation... In due course of time Hindus shall cease to be Hindus and Muslims shall cease to be Muslims, not in a religious sense for that is the personal faith of an individual, but in a political sense. He believed that minority whether Muslim or Hindu should be made part of whichever state by affirmative action of sorts.

I am sure the constitution that we would have developed under him would have been suitably federal and would have the same assurances he wanted in India. He died ofcourse within 13 months of Pakistan`s creation.

Re: #602 by Mantolives


[``1) Could you list the ``Constitutional safeguards`` that Jinnah wanted?``

Since Mr Jinnah believed that separate electorates were TEMPORARY and should be abandoned for the joint electorate, his final ``constitutional safeguard`` scheme was no in explicitly communal terms. What he wanted and he said so in clear words was an ``equipoise`` through ``gerrymandering`` on the basis of ``joint electorate``. Now what this meant, if you have taken a bit of constitutional law, was a loose confederation of two federations, both secular with joint electorates, with equal seats in the central Indian legislature. Mind you this didn`t mean that Jinnah stood for a weak central government. That is a travesty of the truth and oversimplication of the argument. What he believed was that the two federations would then evolve towards a more cohesive unit and over time, as ``Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims`` the confederation could evolve constitutionally into a stronger centralised confederation. ]

I appreciate the effort you put into explaining this.

Could you still, if the source is available to you, cut-and-paste the exact “constitutional safeguards” in your next response?


[2) Are there ``Constitutional safeguards`` for Hindus in Pakistan? Or power sharing?