The Naked Fakir

Ref sadna #134

[....He said repeatedly that Hindus were unfit for democracy unlike the egalitarian Muslims for whom democracy was a natural impulse.]

Did Jinnahbhai actually say this?!!

Yasser, dear boy, can you verify this?

And Yasser, dear boy, can you tell us poor benighted Hindus how many naturally, instinctively democratic Islamic countries there are in the world? The CIA Worldbook needs updating!

three dates and two slogans

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi - January 30, 1948

Mohammed Ali Jinnah - Sept 11, 1948

Mahatma Gandi ki Ja’aye

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

October 04, 2005

I know this about myself - I have often held (if not articulated) racist views about blacks.

At least on one occasion, I clearly discriminated against a black person, and in favor of a white person. I keep feeling guilty about it, but discriminate I did.


An interesting debate -

Is Huck Finn a Racist Book?

http://salwen.com/mtrace.html

Re: # 40

Yasser:

Please give me the reference or buy it for me and send it to me for my library. I like to collect my books. I will certainly pay for anything that you can buy and send me on Jinnah, race and Africa and Africans, because I could not find anything myself.

Thank you.
Anil

#144:

``where he knew he had a better chance of marauding hindus on rampage against hapless muslims``

should read:

``where he knew he had a better chance of STOPPING marauding hindus on rampage against hapless muslims``

mohar11 #143
It is a lot of stuff - starting from page 16 to page 3 if you are interested. The basic intention of the first set was to understand the constitutional settlement sought by all(including the British) sides during Cabinet Mission proceedings, a settlement which was to define the fundamentals of the state(s) and was to outlast and outlive all personalities involved.

Later ilogs are about understanding political stances before that period, again not necessarily about the personalities. I believe Jinnah`s tactics were calculated to achieve a desired result which was a sovereign Pakistan, which was indeed achieved. He was quite straightfoward about his position that it was the only way to safeguard Muslims. IMO, it is best for people to read and reach these or any other conclusions on their own if they choose.

I posted here because I couldn`t stand the blatant lies about Gandhi re Bhagat Singh.

friend#141, 142 & hindvi:

Thanks, friend, for those references. I found the Seminar references particularly useful as that magazine`s secular credentials are impeccable to a fault (i.e., of the virulently anti-saffron variety).

After reading these articles, I stick to what I said in my original post. It is quite clear that while Gandhi learnt of the large-scale slaughter of hindu men and their widows being forced to convert and marry their husbands` killers at Noakhali, he went back to Delhi without ameliorating the situation and then chose to go to Calcutta instead where he knew he had a better chance of marauding hindus on rampage against hapless muslims.

The team he sent to Noakhali had all hindus volunteers and a muslim govt. official. All they could do was to offer solace to the victims and had no impact whatsoever on Muslims.

Re: # 140 sadna
//....Check out my ilogs where I quote Jinnah`s exact words...//

Why don`t you reproduce them here - let everybody see and enjoy the pearls of wisdom from the man :)

DM#various
And in case you doubt other sources, here is an excerpt from Begum Suhrawardy herself

http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/suhrawardy/joining_gandhi.html

And following is from dawn
http://www.dawn.com/2004/02/23/op.htm

Hope all these references satisfy your appetite.

DM#various
When has politics been free of religion? Is it free of religion in USA where church and pastor of current supreme court nominee is being discussed quite actively? Is it free of religion in UK, or even in Canada?

Of concern is when a politician has an exclusivist agenda based on religion. Gandhi emphasis was to include all. It was in stark contrast to that of Syed Ahmed Khan, Jinnah or Tilak.


You also asked questions about Noakhali
Here are some links for you
http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/510/510%20ashoka%20gupta-noakhali.htm
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0597/0194.html
http://www.rediff.com/freedom/gandhi.htm

Also read excerpts from Wolperts book at http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/wolpert-gandhi.html

Even Wolpert acknowledges who were the instigators of Noakhali (``the supreme leader``) who called for this direct action day. Do note contrast of the actions of these great leaders with what Gandhi did.

Do let me know if you need more info on Noakhali.

HP the wife beater#138
``Assume for a second that Jinnah actually did all those things and said all those nasty things``

Check out my ilogs where I quote Jinnah`s exact words from
1. Her Majesty`s Government published documents - `The Transfer of Power`,
2. `Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution`, Maurie Gwyer and Appadorai, Oxford University Press,
3. Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Quaid e Azam`, Collected and Edited by Khurshid Ahmad Yusufi, Bazm-i-Iqbal, Lahore.
4. Ayesha Jalal, Sarvepalli Gopal and Stanley Wolpert , Durga Das

#132 by Romair on October 4, 2005 2:06pm PT


South Indians being the most intelligent group. But, lets just say, not quite in the Tom Cruise category, to say the least.......Rajnikant is


Umm...Rajnikant is, well, not south Indian....

#137 by Hello-mera-naam-RSS-sadna ( loog mujahe main na maanoo bhi kahtay hain! And-I lie- too)

I did not cannonball you. I merely stated the facts and now you are putting a crude spin on what I wrote.

Read this again “ASSUME” and admit that you have no argument left and as usual you are back to twisting posts. After all Yasser’s disappointment in your ability to argue is genuine!

``There was only a very fine line separating communalism and racism``

Another hackneyed theory...the same “main-na-maanoo” approach...

HP the wife-beater #136
Good, you admit Jinnah was a communalist. There was only a very fine line separating communalism and racism once the first was adopted as ideology, as East Pakistanis found out.

#134 by Hello-mera-naam-RSS-sadna ( loog mujahe main na maanoo bhi kahtay hain!)

You see here is the problem. In your fits you begin to mix up so many issues that eventually you lose handle on rationality!
Anybody who would read your post would assume that you were knocking your head on walls while writing that. My advice to you; always sit back, think and then write because haste makes waste. I know you wouldn’t disagree with that:)

I don’t even know how to respond to some completely incoherent arguments that span over decades of politics in the undivided India.
With all due respect, even if we ASSUME and please remember my emphasis on assume, for a second that Jinnah actually did all those things and said all those nasty things; they would all fall under communalism and NOT racism.

Now I am beginning to wonder if you even know the difference between racism and communalism.
Based on your arguments some in the RSS would claim that he was probably a communalist but nobody would dare call him a racist.

Do you see the differences between Gandhi’s comments about Blacks in Africa and Jinnah’s rhetoric in India? I mean wouldn’t yours would be the biggest stretch ever in the history of Chowk? Nobody would call this a seventh inning stretch anyway:)

“He said Muslims deserved a separate state because Hindus refused to dine with him and washed their hands after shaking hands with him”

Didn’t they?

#134
PS : I am not sure of what class Gandhi travelled.