Secularism and Liberal Democracy

Look.. don`t confuse issues...

You asked who else ascribes to Ayesha Jalal and H M Seervai view... I produced 11 different authors. There are atleast 10 more.. which are so hackneyed that I haven`t mentioned them... You could let this be the end of it but no... so let us now delve into this debate.


You ask..

What of his ``record theon`` (I produced 11 authors who would tell you that his record thereon 1939-1947, was still much more accomodating than the Congress leadership...

To quote A G Noorani writes:

``If Jinnah, the partitionist, had a latent sense of an India above the two states, Jawaharlal Nehru, the ardent Unionist, not only contributed to the collapse of the 1946 plan but adopted a policy that would congeal the partition: Congress leaders demonised him systematically. So did Indian academics and the press. Jinnah yet awaits a fair assessment, warts and all. That must include his own mistakes and grave lapses as well. The Congress spurned him in 1937-39. But he went overboard and did much harm by his miscalculations. Indians and Pakistanis must reflect on all aspects of his life, not selectively as they do.

By any test Mohammed Ali Jinnah was a truly great man. In personal integrity this tragic figure had no peers. His political record from 1906 to 1939 reveals a spirit of conciliation and statesmanship, which Congress leaders did not reciprocate. Indians must begin to acknowledge his greatness and the grave injustice the Congress leaders did to him. Pakistanis must begin to acknowledge the ones he did not only to himself but to the infant state he founded.``

Then you ask...

``Again, if the Congress leaders didn`t reciprocate, does that mean you tear the country apart? What kind of a man other than someone who is insane or possessed by a murderous rage does that?``

So ... a single individual can tear apart a country? The Congress leaders did not reciprocate ... means that they did not see that Jinnah was not the be all end all but the spokesperson/lawyer/representative of a significant chunk of the people. Isn`t modern democratic government based on compromise? Congress leaders refused to compromise... Jinnah tried till the last year ... even in May of 1947... to talk sense to them. No doubt this simplistic logic arises from an unwillingness to see the facts as they are...

As for Ambedkar.. please feel free to reproduce the ``uncharitable`` remarks he has ``reserved`` for Jinnah... We are talking about Pakistan or Partitiion of India mind you... Clearly you haven`t read the book... had you read it, you would know that he presents the case from both sides... and then leaves the conclusion...


``In the same vein that he praises Jinnah, he castigates him for doing injustice to himself and the state he founded. This paragraph alone is worth a million words and should tell you something about the man. Thanks for reproducing it here.``


So your point is? Did you not ask for examples of people who agreed with the Ayesha Jalal and H M Seervai`s view of history... namely that Jinnah tried to compromise and Congress leadership`s unaccomodated pigheadedness (with the exception of Azad, who literally authored the Cabinet Mission Plan)... led to partition?

H M Seervai references Azad`s ``India wins freedom`` a lot ... now we know Azad is extremely critical of Jinnah, being his opponent... but in a very revealing paragraph towards the end of his book... he also says that Patel and Nehru had become ardently pro-partition than Jinnah.


-YLH

#65 by Mantolives

[Please read the preface of Ambedkar`s book and read the book in its entirety. He said that he would argue the Muslim case and the Hindu case and then leave the conclusions to the reader... Why don`t you read the whole thing? Are you afraid? Did you know that Ambedkar`s book ``Pakistan or Partition of India`` was widely used by the Muslim League leadership in references?]

Hold your horses there! I have read the book (in its entirety as you say) which is why I could so confidently challenge you to quote Ambedkar on Jinnah`s ridiculous demands. Why don`t you cut and paste the uncharitable remarks Ambedkar reserves for Jinnah?

His political record from 1906 to 1939 reveals a spirit of conciliation and statesmanship, which Congress leaders did not reciprocate.

The fact that Noorani says his political record was stellar ``from 1906-39`` is telling. What about his record from thereon? Wasn`t it the exact opposite of the ``spirit of conciliation and statesmanship``?

Again, if the Congress leaders didn`t reciprocate, does that mean you tear the country apart? What kind of a man other than someone who is insane or possessed by a murderous rage does that? To cause death and misery to millions of people just because the Congress leaders didn`t reciprocate? Doesn`t get more ridiculous than that.

It is time you started understanding the real meaning behind the words than merely swallowing them without questioning them and then quoting them verbatim.

``Indians must begin to acknowledge his greatness and the grave injustice the Congress leaders did to him. Pakistanis must begin to acknowledge the ones he did not only to himself but to the infant state he founded.``

What about this statement? In the same vein that he praises Jinnah, he castigates him for doing injustice to himself and the state he founded. This paragraph alone is worth a million words and should tell you something about the man. Thanks for reproducing it here.

Harish-hyd,

How long are you going to keep jumping in without reading the context. According to Harimau, it was a Pakistani claim... I merely telling him that no it was an Indian who wrote this.

However thank you for according me this opportunity to drive the dagger home once more.

Please read the preface of Ambedkar`s book and read the book in its entirety. He said that he would argue the Muslim case and the Hindu case and then leave the conclusions to the reader... Why don`t you read the whole thing? Are you afraid? Did you know that Ambedkar`s book ``Pakistan or Partition of India`` was widely used by the Muslim League leadership in references?


As for hundreds of books...

Here are some other authors who take more or less the same view as H M Seervai:

1- Patrick French (Liberty or Death)

2- Asiananda (Jinnah: a corrective reading of Indian history)

3- Ajeet Javed ( Secular and Nationalist Jinnah)

4- Anil Seal

5- Irfan Habib

6- Mukul Kesavan

7- Rajmohan Gandhi (8 Muslim lives)

8- Stephen Cohen (Idea of Pakistan)

9- Beverly Nichols (Verdict on India)

10- M J Akbar

11- A G Noorani (Read his recent two part article on Jinnah) ...
0
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2213/stories/20050701004602300.htm

I quote his conclusion: ``By any test Mohammed Ali Jinnah was a truly great man. In personal integrity this tragic figure had no peers. His political record from 1906 to 1939 reveals a spirit of conciliation and statesmanship, which Congress leaders did not reciprocate. Indians must begin to acknowledge his greatness and the grave injustice the Congress leaders did to him. Pakistanis must begin to acknowledge the ones he did not only to himself but to the infant state he founded.``


None of the ladies and gentlemen mentioned above are Pakistanis... neither is H M Seervai.

So Ayesha Jalal is a Pakistani- but what about all the above?

-YLH

#63 by Mantolives

Yaar Yasser,

How long will you go on bandying about Seervai and Ayesha Jalal? Are these the only authors who have written on partition? It is obvious that being a Paki, Ayesha Jalal`s sympathy would lie with Jinnah. Is Seervai the non-Paki to have written on partition? There have been hundreds of books written on the subject? Can you point out any other author to have had a favorable opinion of Jinnah`s demands?

You love to quote Ambedkar when you want to validate your hatred for Gandhi (casteist and all), but why don`t you quote him on what his views were about Jinnah`s ridiculous demands?

Harimau also writes about Pakistanis...

``You are the guys who go around claiming that Jinnah didn`t want Partition but it was forced on him.``

Last I checked H M Seervai was Indian and his book (Partition of India: Legend and Reality) was written in India. The official Pakistani view as well as the majority one is that Jinnah wanted Pakistan .. Jinnah got Pakistan...

Yet another paki is b!tching and moaning how India is NOT secular... and the entire hinud brigrade here are falling over each other to convince him that it is..... come on fellas - get a life....

I mean - as if it really matters what a paki believes anything on india or secularism or whatever..... Or as if you can really convince a paki about secualrism anyway .... decades of k for kafir education - you can`t beat that...

#24, According to the Nov 2005 Gallup poll on religiosity, 66% of the inhabitants of the world describe themselves as religious- the breakdown has Asians as less religious than Europeans and Americans, which doesn`t fit too will with you reborn ``Social Darwinism``- neither does the increased militarism associated with the developed world. You describe religion as a ``useless`` appendage using an idiotic analogy of the tail, yet religion is the oldest institution of humankind and has been around for more than the ``few hundred years`` that you mention, also you forget that the institutional setup you consider ``evolved`` at one time or another differentiated from religion, i.e. it was born within religion and then became a secular system- Islam laid the roots of your European rennaissance, and protestantism, according to Max Weber led through various institutional mechanisms to the development of modern capitalism.

Social Darwinists present bigotry disguised as weak claims backed by superficial biological analogies and little else. Good day to you all.

Re: # 53
You are posting just for argument sake and you do not have any valid point as you dont know what would be different if the data is collected via organization or people.
Though including religion in census does not make a government secular or otherwise.
Sticking to this article and in particular this discussion thread, Indian consititution is not purely secular as it defines Hindus and there are separate laws for separate religion. Indian constitution will be truly secular in words and spirit if and only if its has same law for everyone irrespective of their religion.

Regarding Gay Marriage, I think marriage is a religious concept but after getting married one needs to register the ``contract`` with the government. Thus gay union can be legalized i.e. they can register the ``contract`` and its upon the couple to call it a union or a marriage or anything else they want to call it.

Ref HP #39

[If they can prove that it is a majority demand…they should be given not only self-governance but sovereignty… Imo, Kashmiris would just love it…. ]

Look up the sky and see if pigs are flying, because that is when Kashmiris would get sovereignty.

In fact, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka should be stripped of their sovereign status and brought under the boot heel of Bharat Mata.

IMO, the only thing Muslims love is something up their butts. No wonder Butt-Fakhr is a common name among them!

Khurram #9, {``Gays have been denied the right to practice their beliefs (i.e. enter into marriage) based on the religious beliefs of the majority. How is this secular?``}

Khurram,
Eating beef does not make you a cannibal, unless of course, you are a cow.

Romair #26, {``In Pakistan, an overwhelming majority thinks that Ahmadis are not Muslims. However, such a, ``democratic`` opinion would be against secularism. The same goes for gay marraige.``}

Mista Capitan,
At one time I accused you of not being able to discern between a swordfish and a lawnmower. You have just reaffirmed my belief. Imagine, equating the plight of Ahmedis to the issue of gay marriage.

pmishra #28, {``You are quite wrong. Here are the first four commandments (hebrew bible) ``}

Mishra Ji,
When will you get to the ``covet`` ones? :)

Re: # 53

hp:

``It means that data was collected outside of census…and not directly from the people…Tough concept isn’t it? ``

the question should be why is u.s. govt. even including it in the census then?

Re: # 53

hp:

``It means that data was collected outside of census…and not directly from the people…Tough concept isn’t it? ``

the question should be why is u.s. govt. even including it in the census then?

#51 by samosa
“Re: # 48
Please enlighten what difference would it make if a government collects data from religious organization or through people.”

It means that data was collected outside of census…and not directly from the people…Tough concept isn’t it?

Look I did not create two provinces so I would not know what Indian govt achieved...Ask Indian government, Indian PM in 1966....anybody..

HP#44:

There is no need to lose your composure. Please read my post again. It does not say anything about SGPC verdict or Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan. To repeat, this is what I said:

- There was no Maha Panjab movement. It was either keeping Panjab as it was, make it a Punjabi Suba or split it into two.

- The Arya Samajis rejected the whole concept of Punjabi as their language, not just the gurmukhi script. They regarded it as merely a dialect, a boli.

- The campaign was largely fought in Urdu medium.

If you want to contradict what I said in my post, say so, otherwise you can go through your routine of name-calling and assuming that there is nothing worth replying.

Now, let me come to your specific points:

[The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee elections in December 1954 returned a verdict totally in favour of Punjabi Suba.]

All I can say is that this is someone`s interpretation of the results of the SGPC elections. The SGPC elections are fought for management of gurudwaras, not on a political platform. It is true however that Gurcharan Singh Tohra, who was the SGPC boss for ever and ever as well as many SGPC members were Akali leaders. However, in the general elections in 1957, Akalis were roundly defeated.

[Punjabi Suba demand started in 1954…. When did arya Samaji Started?]

Arya Samaj started long before that. In fact, if my memory serves me right, the Punjabi Suba movement may also have started before 1954. To start with, it was not a communal demand. I personally attended a meeting in support of Punjabi Suba presided by Master Tara Singh in which the chief speaker was the famous actor, Prithvi Raj Kapur. At that time, the majority of people in Panjab were Hindus and, if they had accepted Punjabi as their language, they would have remained a majority in that state.

Just so as you do not read more into this statement than it says, let me add that the movement quickly assumed communal dimension after the Arya Samaj leadership jumped into the fray. Before that, even most sikhs did not care too much about the Punjabi Suba, though they were attached to the Punjabi language.

[Are you going to say that the following never happened…

``Hindi Hindu Hindustan`` was the famous slogan of Punjabi Hindus, matched by ``Dhoti Topi Jumna Paar`` by the Sikhs.]

I never denied these slogans, so why are you bringing them in? By the way, Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan was used before the Partition and not during the Pujabi Suba movement, the dhoti-topi slogan was only mentioned by Tara Singh in anger (he was used to such outpourings), which the Arya Samajis used to malign the movement; it was not a serious demand.