A Muslim Pope?
Ras Siddiqui December 23, 2005
#863 Posted by MantoLives on January 16, 2006 4:09:51 am
REVIEWS: Gandhi’s still alive in Gujarat
Reviewed by Aisha Fayyazi Sarwari
In Gandhi’s hometown, Gujarat, three years after the religious violence, the Muslim community is still squandering for justice and freedom from fear of Hindu retaliation. The pogrom that left 110,000 Muslims homeless and killed over 2,000, according to the Human Rights Watch still have their violators roaming free. Recently the BBC reported that mass graves were dug out to hide evidence of the depravity. Women and children, physiologists say, are unable to get over the trauma and violence they witnessed.
Despite this, Dalits and other untouchables in Gujarat are “far worse than the Muslims.”
About eight decades ago, it was this alliance of common interest between the Muslims and the untouchables that frightened Gandhi, fictitiously known as the Mahatma, into a series of political manoeuvres to protect not only his adherence to orthodox Hinduism, but also the Congress party’s capitalist interests. If Kamran Shahid, author of Gandhi and the Partition of India: A New Perspective, is to be believed, the alliance of the lower caste Hindus and Muslims (who were themselves converts from lower-caste Hindus, escaping the drudgery and humiliation of class), formed a majority of Indian vote bank.
The British planned to leave the colonies and intended to implant the traditions of democracy and fraternity in Indian politics before they did. Recklessly abandoning his spiritual face to the world, Gandhi articulated his worst fears in reaction to safeguards granted to Muslims and untouchables granted by the British Communal Award of 1931, “the Untouchable hooligans would make alliance with the Muslim hooligans and kill upper-caste Hindus.”
As a failed lawyer in South Africa, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi had fought tooth and nail against perceived discrimination against Indians, but not as popularly believed in the interest of equality. It was for the more privileged treatment of Indians in South Africa as compared to black Africans. He fought to separate and segregate the Indians from the subhuman “savage kafirs” who were not “equal to the Indians”. It is because of this fact, outlined in his volumes of Collected Works and his own personal diaries that prompted countless South Africans to protest his statue in Johannesburg in 2002.
When he returned to India, he did so to restore the traditionalism and social conservatism of status quo. He rejected British plans to distribute power evenly amongst all parties and interests, because it would severely undermine the Congress and its leading upper-caste Hindu interests. He formulated a plan to ensure no power sharing deal with the Muslims and he broke the threat of a lower-caste Hindu and Muslim alliance by reinventing a religiously inspired revolution against the British. He claimed to blur the lines of caste by verbally restoring dignity to the lower caste Hindus or Harijans as he called them, and calling them to unite with all Indians to fight for their independence through satyagraha, however, he never forgot to spell out that their place belonged as servants to the upper caste Brahmins.
On numerous occasions he articulated that the peasant must serve his master at all costs, even if he “suffers in his person” and this usually meant exploitative labour rates. He prohibited inter-dining and intermarriage across castes.
Much to the distaste of the long-term champion of lower-caste Hindu rights, Dr Ambedkar, who is also the principal author of the Indian constitution, Gandhi continued to manipulate the lower caste into overriding any realpolitik plans to broker rights for themselves in the new independent India. Gandhi, instead, marched them to salt fields, made facades of ashrams for them, made their women spin yarn to champion self-rule, coerced the British into imprisoning him and gained mass sympathies in the process.
Winston Churchill refused to give into Gandhi’s hunger strikes, and would rather that Gandhi starve to death but his associates feared that because he has asserted himself as India’s spiritual leader, his death would turn him into a martyr. True to Dr Ambedkar’s prediction, Gandhi’s much flaunted spiritual emancipation of the lower-caste Hindus did not secure them a better future and, even today, they stand as the most marginalized lot of India, a notch below the Muslims.
Having shattered any possibility of a collective vote bank of Muslims and lower-caste Hindus, Gandhi shifted his focus to manufacturing an illusion of poverty. He successfully bought the Congress party a golden choice to back away from any power-sharing deal with the Muslims rejecting the prescience of the Lucknow Pact which secular politicians like Jinnah and Gokhale worked hard to secure the co-existence of Hindu and Muslim communities.
When Gandhi split the movement by his cleverly crafted plan of rallying a majority into religious fervour for independence, politicians like Mohammad Ali Jinnah, at first sidelined and shunned, realized that the only way they will not find themselves in the same trap shared by lower-caste Hindus is by demanding a separate state. Used as a bargaining chip, historians such as Ayesha Jalal say that Jinnah till the end tried to give Indian Muslims the best constitutional protection they could get, but at the end, for Gandhi, it had to be all or nothing.
Under no circumstances was the Congress party negotiating, nor did they see any need to, because the British were hastily retreating and the Congress was turning out to be the one with the bigger pie and the more visible forces.
Seeing that the blame would fall on him for being unable to keep the country united, Gandhi made alliances with Islamic religious leadership, distracting Indian Muslims from interest based politics into religious euphoria. This only widened the rift between the Hindus and Muslims. Ironically, his own orientation remained completely Hindu centric — “I am a Hindu and therefore a true Indian”, he declared.
Jinnah was willing to go as far as accepting the Cabinet Mission plan in 1946, favouring united India rather than Partition. Pakistan came to be because Gandhi and the Congress party found it unpalatable for Muslims to have full autonomy in the majority provinces.
The “new perspective” that Kamran Shahid has articulated in his book is not new, it is one that the Muslim League articulated and that H.M. Seervai, Asiananda and Patrick French wrote in their books. In fact, recently two fascinating books dealing with contradictions of the “great soul” who once was held by Einstein as the greatest man to walk the earth were published. These are Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (2001) and the Ungandhian Gandhi (2004).
Certainly established as fact, this perspective the academic circles have now accepted, but where it is new, however, is in the psyche of non-serious activists and upstarts who would rather believe in the myth of Gandhi than read what he wrote and did. Will this myth persevere with time or will a more honest understanding of Gandhi emerge that will give a balanced perspective on the man held by millions as the very icon of non-violence and pluralism that Gandhi’s own actions negated?
Gandhi and the Partition of India: A New Perspective
By Kamran Shahid
Ferozsons, 60
Shahrah-i-Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore.
Tel: (042) 630 1196-8
UAN 111-62-62-62
ISBN 969-0-02011-0
124pp. Rs250
Reviewed by Aisha Fayyazi Sarwari
In Gandhi’s hometown, Gujarat, three years after the religious violence, the Muslim community is still squandering for justice and freedom from fear of Hindu retaliation. The pogrom that left 110,000 Muslims homeless and killed over 2,000, according to the Human Rights Watch still have their violators roaming free. Recently the BBC reported that mass graves were dug out to hide evidence of the depravity. Women and children, physiologists say, are unable to get over the trauma and violence they witnessed.
Despite this, Dalits and other untouchables in Gujarat are “far worse than the Muslims.”
About eight decades ago, it was this alliance of common interest between the Muslims and the untouchables that frightened Gandhi, fictitiously known as the Mahatma, into a series of political manoeuvres to protect not only his adherence to orthodox Hinduism, but also the Congress party’s capitalist interests. If Kamran Shahid, author of Gandhi and the Partition of India: A New Perspective, is to be believed, the alliance of the lower caste Hindus and Muslims (who were themselves converts from lower-caste Hindus, escaping the drudgery and humiliation of class), formed a majority of Indian vote bank.
The British planned to leave the colonies and intended to implant the traditions of democracy and fraternity in Indian politics before they did. Recklessly abandoning his spiritual face to the world, Gandhi articulated his worst fears in reaction to safeguards granted to Muslims and untouchables granted by the British Communal Award of 1931, “the Untouchable hooligans would make alliance with the Muslim hooligans and kill upper-caste Hindus.”
As a failed lawyer in South Africa, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi had fought tooth and nail against perceived discrimination against Indians, but not as popularly believed in the interest of equality. It was for the more privileged treatment of Indians in South Africa as compared to black Africans. He fought to separate and segregate the Indians from the subhuman “savage kafirs” who were not “equal to the Indians”. It is because of this fact, outlined in his volumes of Collected Works and his own personal diaries that prompted countless South Africans to protest his statue in Johannesburg in 2002.
When he returned to India, he did so to restore the traditionalism and social conservatism of status quo. He rejected British plans to distribute power evenly amongst all parties and interests, because it would severely undermine the Congress and its leading upper-caste Hindu interests. He formulated a plan to ensure no power sharing deal with the Muslims and he broke the threat of a lower-caste Hindu and Muslim alliance by reinventing a religiously inspired revolution against the British. He claimed to blur the lines of caste by verbally restoring dignity to the lower caste Hindus or Harijans as he called them, and calling them to unite with all Indians to fight for their independence through satyagraha, however, he never forgot to spell out that their place belonged as servants to the upper caste Brahmins.
On numerous occasions he articulated that the peasant must serve his master at all costs, even if he “suffers in his person” and this usually meant exploitative labour rates. He prohibited inter-dining and intermarriage across castes.
Much to the distaste of the long-term champion of lower-caste Hindu rights, Dr Ambedkar, who is also the principal author of the Indian constitution, Gandhi continued to manipulate the lower caste into overriding any realpolitik plans to broker rights for themselves in the new independent India. Gandhi, instead, marched them to salt fields, made facades of ashrams for them, made their women spin yarn to champion self-rule, coerced the British into imprisoning him and gained mass sympathies in the process.
Winston Churchill refused to give into Gandhi’s hunger strikes, and would rather that Gandhi starve to death but his associates feared that because he has asserted himself as India’s spiritual leader, his death would turn him into a martyr. True to Dr Ambedkar’s prediction, Gandhi’s much flaunted spiritual emancipation of the lower-caste Hindus did not secure them a better future and, even today, they stand as the most marginalized lot of India, a notch below the Muslims.
Having shattered any possibility of a collective vote bank of Muslims and lower-caste Hindus, Gandhi shifted his focus to manufacturing an illusion of poverty. He successfully bought the Congress party a golden choice to back away from any power-sharing deal with the Muslims rejecting the prescience of the Lucknow Pact which secular politicians like Jinnah and Gokhale worked hard to secure the co-existence of Hindu and Muslim communities.
When Gandhi split the movement by his cleverly crafted plan of rallying a majority into religious fervour for independence, politicians like Mohammad Ali Jinnah, at first sidelined and shunned, realized that the only way they will not find themselves in the same trap shared by lower-caste Hindus is by demanding a separate state. Used as a bargaining chip, historians such as Ayesha Jalal say that Jinnah till the end tried to give Indian Muslims the best constitutional protection they could get, but at the end, for Gandhi, it had to be all or nothing.
Under no circumstances was the Congress party negotiating, nor did they see any need to, because the British were hastily retreating and the Congress was turning out to be the one with the bigger pie and the more visible forces.
Seeing that the blame would fall on him for being unable to keep the country united, Gandhi made alliances with Islamic religious leadership, distracting Indian Muslims from interest based politics into religious euphoria. This only widened the rift between the Hindus and Muslims. Ironically, his own orientation remained completely Hindu centric — “I am a Hindu and therefore a true Indian”, he declared.
Jinnah was willing to go as far as accepting the Cabinet Mission plan in 1946, favouring united India rather than Partition. Pakistan came to be because Gandhi and the Congress party found it unpalatable for Muslims to have full autonomy in the majority provinces.
The “new perspective” that Kamran Shahid has articulated in his book is not new, it is one that the Muslim League articulated and that H.M. Seervai, Asiananda and Patrick French wrote in their books. In fact, recently two fascinating books dealing with contradictions of the “great soul” who once was held by Einstein as the greatest man to walk the earth were published. These are Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (2001) and the Ungandhian Gandhi (2004).
Certainly established as fact, this perspective the academic circles have now accepted, but where it is new, however, is in the psyche of non-serious activists and upstarts who would rather believe in the myth of Gandhi than read what he wrote and did. Will this myth persevere with time or will a more honest understanding of Gandhi emerge that will give a balanced perspective on the man held by millions as the very icon of non-violence and pluralism that Gandhi’s own actions negated?
Gandhi and the Partition of India: A New Perspective
By Kamran Shahid
Ferozsons, 60
Shahrah-i-Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore.
Tel: (042) 630 1196-8
UAN 111-62-62-62
ISBN 969-0-02011-0
124pp. Rs250
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#862 Posted by MantoLives on January 10, 2006 3:56:33 am
Dr Ambedkar on Jinnah:
At the same time, 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.
Here is the only detail profile of Jinnah that Ambedkar has left behind:
How complete the revolution is can be seen by reference to the past pronouncements of some of those who insist on the two-nation theory and believe that Pakistan is the only solution of the Hindu-Muslim problem. Among these Mr. Jinnah, of course, must be accepted as the foremost. The revolution in his views on the Hindu-Muslim question is striking, if not staggering. To realize the nature, character and vastness of this revolution it is necessary to know his pronouncements in the past relating to the subject so that they may be compared with those he is making now.
A study of his past pronouncement may well begin with the year 1906 when the leaders of the Muslim community waited upon Lord Minto and demanded separate electorates for the Muslim community. It is to be noted that Mr. Jinnah was not a member of the deputation. Whether he was not invited to join the deputation or whether he was invited to join and declined is not known. But the fact remains that he did not lend his support to the Muslim claim to separate representation when it was put forth in 1906.
In 1918 Mr. Jinnah resigned his membership of the Imperial Legislative Council as a protest against the Rowlatt Bill. 98[f.54] In tendering his resignation Mr. Jinnah said :
`` I feel that under the prevailing conditions, I can be of no use to my people in the Council, nor consistently with one`s self-respect is cooperation possible with a Government that shows such utter disregard for the opinion of the representatives of the people at the Council Chamber and the feelings and the sentiments of the people outside. `` In 1919 Mr. Jinnah gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee appointed by Parliament on the Government of India Reform Bill, then on the anvil. The following views were expressed by him in answer to questions put by members of the Committee on the Hindu-Muslim question.
EXAMINED BY MAJOR ORMSBY-GORE.
Q. 3806.—You appear on behalf of the Moslem League— that is, on behalf of the only widely extended Mohammedan organisation in India ?—Yes.
Q. 3807.—I was very much struck by the fact that neither in your answers to the questions nor in your opening speech this morning did you make any reference to the special interest of the Mohammedans in India: is that because you did not wish to say anything ?—No, but because I take it the Southborough Committee have accepted that, and I left it to the members of the Committee to put any questions they wanted to. I took a very prominent part in the settlement of Lucknow. I was representing the Musalmans on that occasion.
Q. 3809.—On behalf of the All-India Moslem League, you ask this Committee to reject the proposal of the Government of India ?—I am authorised to say that—to ask you to reject the proposal of the Government of India with regard to Bengal [i.e., to give the Bengal Muslims more representation than was given them by the Lucknow Pact].
Q. 3810.—You said you spoke from the point of view of India. You speak really as an Indian Nationalist ?—1 do.
Q. 3811.—Holding that view, do you contemplate the early disappearance of separate communal representation of the Mohammedan community ?—I think so.
Q. 3812.—That is to say, at the earliest possible moment you wish to do away in political life with any distinction between Mohammedans and Hindus ?—Yes. Nothing will please me more than when that day comes.
Q. 3813—You do not think it is true to say that the Mohammedans of India have many special political interests not merely in India but outside India, which they are always particularly anxious to press as a distinct Mohammedan community? —There are two things. In India the Mohammedans have very few things really which you can call matters of special interest for them—I mean secular things.
Q. 3814.—I am only referring to them, of course ?—And therefore that is why I really hope and expect that the day is not very far distant when these separate electorates will disappear.
Q. 3815.—It is true, at the same time, that the Mohammedans in India take a special interest in the foreign policy of the Government of India ?—They do ; a very,—No, because what you propose to do is to frame very keen interest and the large majority of them hold very strong sentiments and very strong views.
Q. 3816.—Is that one of the reasons why you, speaking on behalf of the Mohammedan community, are so anxious to get the Government of India more responsible to an electorate ?—No.
Q. 3817.—Do you think it is possible, consistently with remaining in the British Empire, for India to have one foreign policy and for His Majesty, as advised by his Ministers in London, to have another ?—Let me make it clear. It is not a question of foreign policy at all. What the Moselms of India feel is that it is a very difficult position for them. Spiritually, the Sultan or the Khalif is their head.
Q. 3818.—Of one community ?—Of the Sunni sect, but that is the largest; it is in an overwhelming majority all over India. The Khalif is the only rightful custodian of the Holy Places according to our view, and nobody else has a right. What the Moslems feel very keenly is this, that the Holy Places should not be severed from the Ottoman Empire— that they should remain with the Ottoman Empire under the Sultan.
Q. 3819.—I do not want to get away from the Reform Bill on to foreign policy.—1 say it has nothing to do with foreign policy. Your point is whether in India the Muslims will adopt a certain attitude with regard to foreign policy in matters concerning Moslems all over the world.
Q. 3820.—My point is, are they seeking for some control over the Central Government in order to impress their views on foreign policy on the Government of India ?—No.
EXAMINED BY MR. BENNETT
Q. 3853.—...........Would it not be an advantage in the case of an occurrence of that kind [i.e., a communal riot] if the maintenance of law and order were left with the executive side of the Government ?—1 do not think so, if you ask me, but I do not want to go into unpleasant matters, as you say.
Q. 3854.—It is with no desire to bring up old troubles that I ask the question ; I would like to forget them ?—If you ask me, very often these riots are based on some misunderstanding, and it is because the police have taken one side or the other, and that has enraged one side or the other. I know very well that in the Indian States you hardly ever hear of any Hindu-Mohammedan riots, and I do not mind telling the Committee, without mentioning the name, that I happened to ask one of the ruling Princes, `` How do you account for this ? `` and he told me, `` As soon as there is some trouble we have invariably traced it to the police, through the police taking one side or the other, and the only remedy we have found is that as soon as we come to know we move that police officer from that place, and there is an end of it. ``
Q. 3855.—That is useful piece of information, but the fact remains that these riots have been inter-racial, Hindu on the one side and Mohammedan on the other. Would it be an advantage at a time like that the Minister, the representative of one community or the other, should be in charge of the maintenance of law and order ?—Certainly.
Q. 3856.—It would ?—If I thought otherwise I should be casting a reflection on myself. If I was the Minister, I would make bold to say that nothing would weigh with me except justice, and what is right. Q. 3857.—I can understand that you would do more than justice to the other side; but even then, there is what might be called the subjective side. It is not only that there is impartiality, but there is the view which may be entertained by the public, who may harbour some feeling of suspicion ?—With regard to one section or the other, you mean they would feel that an injustice was done to them, or that justice would not be done ?
Q. 3858.—Yes; that is quite apart from the objective part of it ?—My answer is this: That these difficulties are fast disappearing. Even recently, in the whole district of Thana, Bombay, every officer was an Indian officer from top to bottom, and I do not think there was a single Mohammedan—they were all Hindus—and I never heard any complaint Recently that has been so. I quite agree with you that ten years ago there was that feeling what you are now suggesting to me, but it is fast disappearing.
EXAMINED BY LORD ISLINGTON
Q. 3892.—. ...... You said just now about the communal representation, I think in answer to Major Ormsby-Gore, that you hope in a very few years you would be able to extinguish communal representation, which was at present proposed to be established and is established in order that Mahommedans may have their representation with Hindus. You said you desired to see that. How soon do you think that happy state of affairs is likely to be realized ?—1 can only give you certain facts : I cannot say anything more than that: I can give you this which will give you some idea: that in 1913, at the All-India Moslem League sessions at Agra, we put this matter to the lest whether separate electorates should be insisted upon or not by the Mussalmans, and we got a division, and that division is based upon Provinces ; only a certain number of votes represent each Province, and the division came to 40 in favour of doing away with the separate electorate, and 80 odd—1 do not remember the exact number—were for keeping the separate electorate. That was in 1913. Since then I have had many opportunities of discussing this matter with various Mussulman leaders ; and they are changing their angle of vision with regard to this matter. I cannot give you the period, but I think it cannot last very long. Perhaps the next inquiry may hear something about it.
Q. 3893.—You think at the next inquiry the Mahommedans will ask to be absorbed into the whole ?—Yes, I think the next inquiry will probably hear something about it.
Although Mr. Jinnah appeared as a witness on behalf of the Muslim League, he did not allow his membership of the League to come in the way of his loyalty to other political organizations in the country. Besides being a member of the Muslim League, Mr. Jinnah was a member of the Home Rule League and also of the Congress. As he said in his evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee, he was a member of all three bodies although he openly disagreed with the Congress, with the Muslim League and that there were some views which the Home Rule League held which he did not share. That he was an independent but a nationalist ,is shown by his relationship with the Khilafatist Musalmans. In 1920 the Musalmans organized the Khilafat Conference. It became so powerful an organization that the Muslim League went under and lived in a state of suspended animation till 1924. During these years no Muslim leader could speak to the Muslim masses from a Muslim platform unless he was a member of the Khilafat Conference. That was the only platform for Muslims to meet Muslims. Even then Mr. Jinnah refused to join the Khilafat Conference. This was no doubt due to the fact that then he was only a statutory Musalman with none of the religious fire of the orthodox which he now says is burning within him. But the real reason why he did not join the Khilafat was because he was opposed to the Indian Musalmans engaging themselves in extra-territorial affairs relating to Muslims outside India.
After the Congress accepted non-co-operation, civil disobedience and boycott of Councils, Mr. Jinnah left the Congress. He became its critic but never accused it of being a Hindu body. He protested when such a statement was attributed to him by his opponents. There is a letter by Mr. Jinnah to the Editor of the Times of India written about the time which puts in a strange contrast the present opinion of Mr. Jinnah about the Congress and his opinion in the past. The letter 99[f.55] reads as follows :—.
`` To the Editor of `` The Times of India ``
Sir,—1 wish again to correct the statement which is attributed to me and to which you have given currency more than once and now again repeated by your correspondent ` Banker `in the second column of your issue of the 1st October that I denounced the Congress as ` a Hindu Institution `. I publicly corrected this misleading report of my speech in your columns soon after it appeared ;.but it did not find a place in the columns of your paper and so may I now request you to publish this and oblige. ``
After the Khilafat storm had blown over and the Muslims had shown a desire to return to the internal politics of India, the Muslim League was resuscitated. The session of the League held in Bombay on 30th December 1924 under the presidentship of Mr. Raza Ali was a lively one. Both Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Mahomed Ali took part in it. 100[f.56]
In this session of the League, a resolution was moved which affirmed the desirability of representatives of the various Muslim associations of India representing different shades of political thought meeting in a conference at an early date at Delhi or at some other central place with a view to develop `` a united and sound practical activity `` to supply the needs of the Muslim community. Mr. Jinnah in explaining the resolution said 101[f.57] :—
`` The object was to organize the Muslim community, not with a view to quarrel with the Hindu community, but with a view to unite and cooperate with it for their motherland. He was sure once they had organized themselves they would join hands with the Hindu Maha Sabha and declare to the world that Hindus and Mahomedans are brothers. ``
The League also passed another resolution in the same session for appointing a committee of 33 prominent Musalmans to formulate the political demands of the Muslim community. The resolution was moved by Mr. Jinnah. In moving the resolution, Mr. Jinnah 102[f.58] :—
``Repudiated the charge that he was standing on the platform of the League as a communalist. He assured them that he was, as ever, a nationalist. Personally he had no hesitation. He wanted the best and the fittest men to represent them in the Legislatures of the land (Hear, Hear and Applause). But unfortunately his Muslim compatriots were not prepared to go as far as he. He could not be blind to the situation. The fact was that there was a large number of Muslims who wanted representation separately in Legislatures and in the country`s Services. They were talking of communal unity, but where was unity ? It had to be achieved by arriving at some suitable settlement. He knew he said amidst deafening cheers, that his fellow-religionists were ready and prepared to fight for Swaraj, but wanted some safeguards. Whatever his view, and they knew that as a practical politician he had to take stock of the situation, the real block to unity was not the communities themselves, but a few mischief makers on both sides. ``
And he did not thus hesitate to arraign mischief makers in the sternest possible language that could only emanate from an earnest nationalist. In his capacity as the President of the session of the League held in Lahore on 24th May 1924 he said 103 [f59] :—
`` If we wish to be free people, let us unite, but if we wish to continue slaves of Bureaucracy, let us fight among ourselves and gratify petty vanity over petty matters. Englishmen being our arbiters. ``
In the two All-Parties Conferences, one held in 1925 and the other in 1928, Mr. Jinnah was prepared to settle the Hindu-Muslim question on the basis of joint electorates. In 1927 he openly said 104[f.60] from the League platform :—
`` I am not wedded to separate electorates, although I must say that the overwhelming majority of the Musalmans firmly and honestly believe that it is the only method by which they can be sure. ``
In 1928, Mr. Jinnah joined the Congress in the boycott of the Simon Commission. He did so even though the Hindus and Muslims had failed to come to a settlement and he did so at the cost of splitting the League into two.
Even when the ship of the Round Table Conference was about to break on the communal rock, Mr. Jinnah resented being named as a communalist who was responsible for the result and said that he preferred an agreed solution of the communal problem to the arbitration of the British Government. Addressing the U. P. Muslim Conference held at Allahabad on 8th August 105[f.61] 1931 Mr. Jinnah said :—
`` The first thing that I wish to tell you is that it is now absolutely essential and vital that Muslims should stand united. For Heaven`s sake close all your ranks and files and slop this internecine war. I urged this most vehemently and I pleaded to the best of my ability before Dr. Ansari, Mr. T. A. K. Sherwani, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Dr. Syed Mahmud. I hope that before I leave the shores of India I shall hear the good news that whatever may be our differences ; whatever may be our convictions between ourselves, this is not the moment to quarrel between ourselves.
`` Another thing I want to tell you is this. There is a certain section of the press, there is a certain section of the Hindus, who constantly misrepresent me in various ways. I was only reading the speech of Mr. Gandhi this morning and Mr. Gandhi said that he loves Hindus and Muslims alike. I again say standing here on this platform that although I may not put forward that claim but I do put forward this honestly and sincerely that I want fair play between the two communities. ``
Continuing further Mr. Jinnah said: ``As to the most important question, which to my mind is the question of Hindu-Muslim settlement—all I can say to you is that I honestly believe that the Hindus should concede to the Muslims a majority in the Punjab and Bengal and if that is conceded, I think a settlement can be arrived at in a very short time.
``The next question that arises is one of separate vs. joint electorates. As most of you know, if a majority is conceded in the Punjab and Bengal, I would personally prefer a settlement on the basis of joint electorate. (Applause.) But I also know that there is a large body of Muslims—and I believe a majority of Muslims—who are holding on to separate electorate. My position is that I would rather have a settlement even on the footing of separate electorate, hoping and trusting that when we work our new constitution and when both Hindus and Muslims get rid of distrust, suspicion and fears and when they gel their freedom we would rise to the occasion and probably separate electorate will go sooner than most of us think.
`` Therefore I am for a settlement and peace among the Muslims first; I am for a settlement and peace between the Hindus and Mahommedans. This is not a lime for argument, not a time for propaganda work and not a time for embittering feelings between the two communities, because the enemy is at the door of both of us and I say without hesitation that if the Hindu-Muslim question is not settled, I have no doubt that the British will have to arbitrate and that he who arbitrates will keep to himself the substance of power and authority. Therefore, I hope they will not vilify me. After all, Mr. Gandhi himself says that he is willing to give the Muslims whatever they want, and my only sin is that I say to the Hindus give to the Muslims only 14 points, which is much less than the ` blank cheque ` which Mr. Gandhi is willing to give. I do not want a blank cheque, why not concede the 14 points ? When Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru says: `Give us a blank cheque ` when Mr. Patel says : ` Give us a blank cheque and we will sign it with a Swadeshi pen on a Swadeshi paper ` they are not communalists and I am a communalist ! I say to Hindus not to misrepresent everybody. I hope and trust that we shall be yet in a position to settle the question which will bring peace and happiness to the millions in our country.
`` One thing more I want to tell you and I have done. During the lime of the Round Table Conference,—it is now an open book and anybody who cares to read it can learn for himself—I observed the one and the only principle and it was that when I left the shores of Bombay I said to the people that I would hold the interests of India sacred, and believe me—if you care to read the proceedings of the Conference, I am not bragging because I have done my duly—that I have loyally and faithfully fulfilled my promise to the fullest extent and I venture to say that if the Congress or Mr. Gandhi can get anything more than I fought for, I would congratulate them.
`` Concluding Mr. Jinnah said that they must come to a settlement, they must become friends eventually and he, therefore, appealed to the Muslims to show moderation, wisdom and conciliation, if possible, in the deliberation that might take place and the resolution that might be passed at the Conference. ``
As an additional illustration of the transformation in Muslim ideology, I propose to record the opinions once held by Mr. Barkat Ali who is now a follower of Mr. Jinnah and a staunch supporter of Pakistan.
When the Muslim League split-into two over the question of cooperation with the Simon Commission, one section led by Sir Mahommad Shafi favouring co-operation and another section led by Mr. Jinnah supporting the Congress plan of boycott, Mr. Barkat Ali belonged to the Jinnah section of the League. The two wings of the League held their annual sessions in 1928 at two different places. The Shafi wing met in Lahore and the Jinnah wing met in Calcutta. Mr. Barkat Ali, who was the Secretary of the Punjab Muslim League, attended the Calcutta session of the Jinnah wing of the League and moved the resolution relating to the communal settlement. The basis of the settlement was joint electorates. In moving the resolution Mr. Barkat Ali said 106 [f62] :—
`` For the first time in the history of the League there was a change in its angle of vision. We are offering by this change a sincere hand of fellowship to those of our Hindu countrymen who have objected to the principle of separate electorates. ``
In 1928 there was formed a Nationalist Party under the leadership of Dr. Ansari. 107[f.63] The Nationalist Muslim Party was a step in advance of the Jinnah wing of the Muslim League and was prepared to accept the Nehru Report, as it was, without any amendments—not even those which Mr. Jinnah was insisting upon. Mr. Barkat Ali, who in 1927 was with the Jinnah wing of the League, left the same as not being nationalistic enough and joined the Nationalist Muslim Party of Dr. Ansari. How great a nationalist Mr. Barkat Ali then was can be seen by his trenchant and vehement attack on Sir Muhammad lqbal for his having put forth in his presidential address to the annual session of the All-India Muslim League held at Allahabad in 1930 a scheme 108[f.64] for the division of India which is now taken up by Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali and which goes by the name of Pakistan. In 1931 there was held in Lahore the Punjab Nationalist Muslim Conference and Mr. Barkat Ali was the Chairman of the Reception Committee. The views he then expressed on Pakistan are worth recalling 109[f.65] Reiterating and reaffirming the conviction and the political faith of his party, Malik Barkat Ali, Chairman of the Reception Committee of the Conference, said :
`` We believe, first and foremost in the full freedom and honour of India. India, the country of our birth and the place with which all our most valued and dearly cherished associations are knit, must claim its first place in our affection and in our desires. We refuse to be parties to that sinister type of propaganda which would try to appeal to ignorant sentiment by professing to be Muslim first and Indian afterwards. To us a slogan of this kind is not only bare, meaningless cant, but downright mischievous. We cannot conceive of Islam in its best and last interests as in any way inimical to or in conflict with the best and permanent interests of India. India and Islam in India are identical, and whatever is to the detriment of India must, from the nature of it, be detrimental to Islam whether economically, politically, socially or even morally. Those politicians, therefore, are a class of false prophets and at bottom the foes of Islam, who talk of any inherent conflict between Islam and the welfare of India. Further, howsoever much our sympathy with our Muslim brethren outside India, i.e., the Turks and the Egyptians or the Arabs,—and it is a sentiment which is at once noble and healthy,—we can never allow that sympathy to work to the detriment of the essential interests of India. Our sympathy, in fact, with those countries can only be valuable to them, if India as the source, nursery and fountain of that sympathy, is really great. And if ever the lime comes, God forbid, when any Muslim Power from across the Frontier chooses to enslave India and snatch away the liberties of its people, no amount of pan-lslamic feeling, whatever it may mean, can stand in the way of Muslim India fighting shoulder to shoulder with non-Muslim India in defence of its liberties.
`` Let there be, therefore, no misgivings of any kind in that respect in any non-Muslim quarters. I am conscious that a certain class of narrow-minded Hindu politicians is constantly harping on the bogey of an Islamic danger to India from beyond the N.-W. Frontier passes but I desire to repeat that such statements and such fears are fundamentally wrong and unfounded. Muslim India shall as much defend India`s liberties as non-Muslim India, even if the invader happens to be a follower of Islam.
`` Next, we not only believe in a free India but we also believe in a united India—not the India of the Muslim, not the India of the Hindu or of the Sikh, not the India of this community or of that community but the India of all. And as this is our abiding faith, we refuse to be parties to any division of the India of the future into a Hindu or a Muslim India. However much the conception of a Hindu and a Muslim India may appeal and send into frenzied ecstasies abnormally orthodox mentalities of their party, we offer our full throated opposition to it, not only because it is singularly unpractical and utterly obnoxious but because it not only sounds the death-knell of all that is noble and lasting in modern political activity in India, but is also contrary to and opposed to India`s chief historical tradition.
`` India was one in the days of Asoka and Chandragupta and India remained one even when the sceptre and rod of Imperial sway passed from Hindu into Moghul or Muslim hands. And India shall remain one when we shall have attained the object of our desires and reached those uplands of freedom, where all the light illuminating us shall not be reflected glory but shall be light proceeding direct as it were from our very faces.
`` The conception of a divided India, which Sir Muhammad lqbal put forward recently in the course of his presidential utterance from the platform of the League at a time when that body had virtually become extinct and ceased to represent free Islam—I am glad to be able to say that Sir Muhammad lqbal has since recanted it—must not therefore delude anybody into thinking that it is Islam`s conception of the India to be. Even if Dr. Sir Muhammad lqbal had not recanted it as something which could not be put forward by any sane person, I should have emphatically and unhesitatingly repudiated it as something foreign to the genius and the spirit of the rising generation of Islam, and I really deem it a proud duty to affirm today that not only must there be no division of India in to communal provinces but that both Islam and Hinduism must run coterminously with the boundaries of India and must not be cribbed, cabined and confined within any shorter bounds. To the same category as Dr. lqbal`s conception of a Muslim India and a Hindu India, belongs the sinister proposals of some Sikh communalists to partition and divide the Punjab.
`` With a creed so expansive, namely a free and united India with its people all enjoying in equal measure and without any kinds of distinctions and disabilities the protection of laws made by the chosen representatives of the people on the widest possible basis of a true democracy, namely, adult franchise, and through the medium of joint electorates—and an administration charged with the duty of an impartial execution of the laws, fully accountable for its actions, not to a distant or remote Parliament of foreigners but to the chosen representatives of the land,—you would not expect me to enter into the details and lay before you, all the colours of my picture. And I should have really liked to conclude my general observations on the aims and objects of the Nationalist Muslim Party here, were it not that the much discussed question of joint or separate electorates, has today assumed proportions where no public man can possibly ignore it.
`` Whatever may have been the value or utility of separate electorates at a time when an artificially manipulated high-propertied franchise had the effect of converting a majority of the people in the population of a province into a minority in the electoral roll, and when communal passions and feelings ran particularly high, universal distrust poisoning the whole atmosphere like a general and all-pervading miasma,—we feel that in the circumstances of today and in the India of the future, separate electorates should have no place whatever. ``
Such were the views Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali held on nationalism, on separate electorates and on Pakistan. How diametrically opposed are the views now held by them on these very problems ?
So far I have laboured to point out things, the utter failure of the attempts made to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity and the emergence of a new ideology in the minds of the Muslim leaders. There is also a third thing which I must discuss in the present context for reasons arising both from its relevance as well as from its bearing on the point under consideration, namely whether the Muslim ideology has behind it a justification which political philosophers can accept.
Many Hindus seem to hold that Pakistan has no justification. If we confine ourselves to the theory of Pakistan there can be no doubt that this is a greatly mistaken view. The philosophical justification for Pakistan rests upon the distinction between a community and a nation. In the first, place, it is recognized comparatively recently. Political philosophers for a long time were concerned, mainly, with the controversy summed up in the two questions, how far should the right of a mere majority to rule the minority be accepted as a rational basis for government and how far the legitimacy of a government be said to depend upon the consent of the governed. Even those who insisted, that the legitimacy of a government depended upon the consent of the governed, remained content with a victory for their proposition and did not cane to probe further into the matter. They did not feel the necessity for making any distinctions within the category of the `` governed ``. They evidently thought that it was a matter of no moment whether those who were included in the category of the governed formed a community or a nation. Force of circumstances has, however, compelled political philosophers to accept this distinction. In the second place, it is not a mere distinction without a difference. It is a distinction which is substantial and the difference is consequentially fundamental. That this distinction between a community and a nation is fundamental, is clear from the difference in the political rights which political philosophers are prepared to permit to a community and those they are prepared to allow to a nation against the Government established by law. To a community they are prepared to allow only the right of insurrection. But to a nation they are willing to concede the right of disruption. The distinction between the two is as obvious as it is fundamental.. A right of insurrection is restricted only to insisting on a change in the mode and manner of government. The right of disruption is greater than the right of insurrection arid extends to the secession of a group of the members of a State with a secession of the portion of the State`s territory in its occupation. One wonders what must be the basis of this difference. Writers on political philosophy, who have discussed this subject, have given their reasons for the justification of a Community`s right to insurrection 110[f.66] and of a nation`s right to demand disruption. 111[f.67] The difference comes to this : a community has a right to safeguards, a nation has a right to demand separation. The difference is at once clear and crucial. But they have not given any reasons why the right of one is limited to insurrection and why that of the other extends to disruption. They have not even raised such a question. Nor are the reasons apparent on the face of them. But it is both interesting and instructive to know why this difference is made. To my mind the reason for this difference pertains to questions of ultimate destiny. A state either consists of a series of communities or it consists of a series of nations. In a state, which is composed of a series of communities, one community may be arrayed against another community and the two may be opposed to each other. But in the matter of their ultimate destiny they feel they are one. But in a state, which is composed of a series of nations, when one nation rises against the other, the conflict is one as to differences of ultimate destiny. This is the distinction between communities and nations and it is this distinction which explains the difference in their political rights. There is nothing new or original in this explanation. It is merely another way of staring why the community has one kind of right and the nation another of quite a different kind. A community has a right of insurrection because it is satisfied with it. All that it wants is a change in the mode and form of government. Its quarrel is not over any difference of ultimate destiny. A nation has to be accorded the right of disruption because it will not be satisfied with mere change in the form of government. Its quarrel is over the question of ultimate destiny. If it will not be satisfied unless the unnatural bond that binds them is dissolved, then prudence and even ethics demands that the bond shall be dissolved and they shall be freed each to pursue its own destiny.
V
While it is necessary to admit that the efforts at Hindu-Muslim unity have failed and that the Muslim ideology has undergone a complete revolution, it is equally necessary to know the precise causes which have produced these effects. The Hindus say that the British policy of divide and rule is the real cause of this failure and of this ideological revolution. There is nothing surprising in this. The Hindus having cultivated the Irish mentality to have no other politics except that of being always against the Government, are ready to blame the Government for everything including bad weather. But time has come to discard the facile explanation so dear to the Hindus. For it fails to take into account two very important circumstances. In the first place, it overlooks the fact that the policy of divide and rule, allowing that the British do resort to it, cannot succeed unless there are elements which make division possible, and further if the policy succeeds for such a long time, it means that the elements which divide are more or less permanent and irreconcilable and are not transitory or superficial. Secondly, it forgets that Mr. Jinnah, who represents this ideological transformation, can never be suspected of being a tool in the hands of the British even by the worst of his enemies. He may be too self-opinionated, an egotist without the mask and has perhaps a degree of arrogance which is not compensated by any extraordinary intellect or equipment. It may be on that account he is unable to reconcile himself to a second place and work with others in that capacity for a public cause. He may not be over-flowing with ideas although he is not, as his critics make him out to be, an empty-headed dandy living upon the ideas of others. It may be that his fame is built up more upon art and less on substance. At the same time, 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.
At the same time, 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.
Here is the only detail profile of Jinnah that Ambedkar has left behind:
How complete the revolution is can be seen by reference to the past pronouncements of some of those who insist on the two-nation theory and believe that Pakistan is the only solution of the Hindu-Muslim problem. Among these Mr. Jinnah, of course, must be accepted as the foremost. The revolution in his views on the Hindu-Muslim question is striking, if not staggering. To realize the nature, character and vastness of this revolution it is necessary to know his pronouncements in the past relating to the subject so that they may be compared with those he is making now.
A study of his past pronouncement may well begin with the year 1906 when the leaders of the Muslim community waited upon Lord Minto and demanded separate electorates for the Muslim community. It is to be noted that Mr. Jinnah was not a member of the deputation. Whether he was not invited to join the deputation or whether he was invited to join and declined is not known. But the fact remains that he did not lend his support to the Muslim claim to separate representation when it was put forth in 1906.
In 1918 Mr. Jinnah resigned his membership of the Imperial Legislative Council as a protest against the Rowlatt Bill. 98[f.54] In tendering his resignation Mr. Jinnah said :
`` I feel that under the prevailing conditions, I can be of no use to my people in the Council, nor consistently with one`s self-respect is cooperation possible with a Government that shows such utter disregard for the opinion of the representatives of the people at the Council Chamber and the feelings and the sentiments of the people outside. `` In 1919 Mr. Jinnah gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee appointed by Parliament on the Government of India Reform Bill, then on the anvil. The following views were expressed by him in answer to questions put by members of the Committee on the Hindu-Muslim question.
EXAMINED BY MAJOR ORMSBY-GORE.
Q. 3806.—You appear on behalf of the Moslem League— that is, on behalf of the only widely extended Mohammedan organisation in India ?—Yes.
Q. 3807.—I was very much struck by the fact that neither in your answers to the questions nor in your opening speech this morning did you make any reference to the special interest of the Mohammedans in India: is that because you did not wish to say anything ?—No, but because I take it the Southborough Committee have accepted that, and I left it to the members of the Committee to put any questions they wanted to. I took a very prominent part in the settlement of Lucknow. I was representing the Musalmans on that occasion.
Q. 3809.—On behalf of the All-India Moslem League, you ask this Committee to reject the proposal of the Government of India ?—I am authorised to say that—to ask you to reject the proposal of the Government of India with regard to Bengal [i.e., to give the Bengal Muslims more representation than was given them by the Lucknow Pact].
Q. 3810.—You said you spoke from the point of view of India. You speak really as an Indian Nationalist ?—1 do.
Q. 3811.—Holding that view, do you contemplate the early disappearance of separate communal representation of the Mohammedan community ?—I think so.
Q. 3812.—That is to say, at the earliest possible moment you wish to do away in political life with any distinction between Mohammedans and Hindus ?—Yes. Nothing will please me more than when that day comes.
Q. 3813—You do not think it is true to say that the Mohammedans of India have many special political interests not merely in India but outside India, which they are always particularly anxious to press as a distinct Mohammedan community? —There are two things. In India the Mohammedans have very few things really which you can call matters of special interest for them—I mean secular things.
Q. 3814.—I am only referring to them, of course ?—And therefore that is why I really hope and expect that the day is not very far distant when these separate electorates will disappear.
Q. 3815.—It is true, at the same time, that the Mohammedans in India take a special interest in the foreign policy of the Government of India ?—They do ; a very,—No, because what you propose to do is to frame very keen interest and the large majority of them hold very strong sentiments and very strong views.
Q. 3816.—Is that one of the reasons why you, speaking on behalf of the Mohammedan community, are so anxious to get the Government of India more responsible to an electorate ?—No.
Q. 3817.—Do you think it is possible, consistently with remaining in the British Empire, for India to have one foreign policy and for His Majesty, as advised by his Ministers in London, to have another ?—Let me make it clear. It is not a question of foreign policy at all. What the Moselms of India feel is that it is a very difficult position for them. Spiritually, the Sultan or the Khalif is their head.
Q. 3818.—Of one community ?—Of the Sunni sect, but that is the largest; it is in an overwhelming majority all over India. The Khalif is the only rightful custodian of the Holy Places according to our view, and nobody else has a right. What the Moslems feel very keenly is this, that the Holy Places should not be severed from the Ottoman Empire— that they should remain with the Ottoman Empire under the Sultan.
Q. 3819.—I do not want to get away from the Reform Bill on to foreign policy.—1 say it has nothing to do with foreign policy. Your point is whether in India the Muslims will adopt a certain attitude with regard to foreign policy in matters concerning Moslems all over the world.
Q. 3820.—My point is, are they seeking for some control over the Central Government in order to impress their views on foreign policy on the Government of India ?—No.
EXAMINED BY MR. BENNETT
Q. 3853.—...........Would it not be an advantage in the case of an occurrence of that kind [i.e., a communal riot] if the maintenance of law and order were left with the executive side of the Government ?—1 do not think so, if you ask me, but I do not want to go into unpleasant matters, as you say.
Q. 3854.—It is with no desire to bring up old troubles that I ask the question ; I would like to forget them ?—If you ask me, very often these riots are based on some misunderstanding, and it is because the police have taken one side or the other, and that has enraged one side or the other. I know very well that in the Indian States you hardly ever hear of any Hindu-Mohammedan riots, and I do not mind telling the Committee, without mentioning the name, that I happened to ask one of the ruling Princes, `` How do you account for this ? `` and he told me, `` As soon as there is some trouble we have invariably traced it to the police, through the police taking one side or the other, and the only remedy we have found is that as soon as we come to know we move that police officer from that place, and there is an end of it. ``
Q. 3855.—That is useful piece of information, but the fact remains that these riots have been inter-racial, Hindu on the one side and Mohammedan on the other. Would it be an advantage at a time like that the Minister, the representative of one community or the other, should be in charge of the maintenance of law and order ?—Certainly.
Q. 3856.—It would ?—If I thought otherwise I should be casting a reflection on myself. If I was the Minister, I would make bold to say that nothing would weigh with me except justice, and what is right. Q. 3857.—I can understand that you would do more than justice to the other side; but even then, there is what might be called the subjective side. It is not only that there is impartiality, but there is the view which may be entertained by the public, who may harbour some feeling of suspicion ?—With regard to one section or the other, you mean they would feel that an injustice was done to them, or that justice would not be done ?
Q. 3858.—Yes; that is quite apart from the objective part of it ?—My answer is this: That these difficulties are fast disappearing. Even recently, in the whole district of Thana, Bombay, every officer was an Indian officer from top to bottom, and I do not think there was a single Mohammedan—they were all Hindus—and I never heard any complaint Recently that has been so. I quite agree with you that ten years ago there was that feeling what you are now suggesting to me, but it is fast disappearing.
EXAMINED BY LORD ISLINGTON
Q. 3892.—. ...... You said just now about the communal representation, I think in answer to Major Ormsby-Gore, that you hope in a very few years you would be able to extinguish communal representation, which was at present proposed to be established and is established in order that Mahommedans may have their representation with Hindus. You said you desired to see that. How soon do you think that happy state of affairs is likely to be realized ?—1 can only give you certain facts : I cannot say anything more than that: I can give you this which will give you some idea: that in 1913, at the All-India Moslem League sessions at Agra, we put this matter to the lest whether separate electorates should be insisted upon or not by the Mussalmans, and we got a division, and that division is based upon Provinces ; only a certain number of votes represent each Province, and the division came to 40 in favour of doing away with the separate electorate, and 80 odd—1 do not remember the exact number—were for keeping the separate electorate. That was in 1913. Since then I have had many opportunities of discussing this matter with various Mussulman leaders ; and they are changing their angle of vision with regard to this matter. I cannot give you the period, but I think it cannot last very long. Perhaps the next inquiry may hear something about it.
Q. 3893.—You think at the next inquiry the Mahommedans will ask to be absorbed into the whole ?—Yes, I think the next inquiry will probably hear something about it.
Although Mr. Jinnah appeared as a witness on behalf of the Muslim League, he did not allow his membership of the League to come in the way of his loyalty to other political organizations in the country. Besides being a member of the Muslim League, Mr. Jinnah was a member of the Home Rule League and also of the Congress. As he said in his evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee, he was a member of all three bodies although he openly disagreed with the Congress, with the Muslim League and that there were some views which the Home Rule League held which he did not share. That he was an independent but a nationalist ,is shown by his relationship with the Khilafatist Musalmans. In 1920 the Musalmans organized the Khilafat Conference. It became so powerful an organization that the Muslim League went under and lived in a state of suspended animation till 1924. During these years no Muslim leader could speak to the Muslim masses from a Muslim platform unless he was a member of the Khilafat Conference. That was the only platform for Muslims to meet Muslims. Even then Mr. Jinnah refused to join the Khilafat Conference. This was no doubt due to the fact that then he was only a statutory Musalman with none of the religious fire of the orthodox which he now says is burning within him. But the real reason why he did not join the Khilafat was because he was opposed to the Indian Musalmans engaging themselves in extra-territorial affairs relating to Muslims outside India.
After the Congress accepted non-co-operation, civil disobedience and boycott of Councils, Mr. Jinnah left the Congress. He became its critic but never accused it of being a Hindu body. He protested when such a statement was attributed to him by his opponents. There is a letter by Mr. Jinnah to the Editor of the Times of India written about the time which puts in a strange contrast the present opinion of Mr. Jinnah about the Congress and his opinion in the past. The letter 99[f.55] reads as follows :—.
`` To the Editor of `` The Times of India ``
Sir,—1 wish again to correct the statement which is attributed to me and to which you have given currency more than once and now again repeated by your correspondent ` Banker `in the second column of your issue of the 1st October that I denounced the Congress as ` a Hindu Institution `. I publicly corrected this misleading report of my speech in your columns soon after it appeared ;.but it did not find a place in the columns of your paper and so may I now request you to publish this and oblige. ``
After the Khilafat storm had blown over and the Muslims had shown a desire to return to the internal politics of India, the Muslim League was resuscitated. The session of the League held in Bombay on 30th December 1924 under the presidentship of Mr. Raza Ali was a lively one. Both Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Mahomed Ali took part in it. 100[f.56]
In this session of the League, a resolution was moved which affirmed the desirability of representatives of the various Muslim associations of India representing different shades of political thought meeting in a conference at an early date at Delhi or at some other central place with a view to develop `` a united and sound practical activity `` to supply the needs of the Muslim community. Mr. Jinnah in explaining the resolution said 101[f.57] :—
`` The object was to organize the Muslim community, not with a view to quarrel with the Hindu community, but with a view to unite and cooperate with it for their motherland. He was sure once they had organized themselves they would join hands with the Hindu Maha Sabha and declare to the world that Hindus and Mahomedans are brothers. ``
The League also passed another resolution in the same session for appointing a committee of 33 prominent Musalmans to formulate the political demands of the Muslim community. The resolution was moved by Mr. Jinnah. In moving the resolution, Mr. Jinnah 102[f.58] :—
``Repudiated the charge that he was standing on the platform of the League as a communalist. He assured them that he was, as ever, a nationalist. Personally he had no hesitation. He wanted the best and the fittest men to represent them in the Legislatures of the land (Hear, Hear and Applause). But unfortunately his Muslim compatriots were not prepared to go as far as he. He could not be blind to the situation. The fact was that there was a large number of Muslims who wanted representation separately in Legislatures and in the country`s Services. They were talking of communal unity, but where was unity ? It had to be achieved by arriving at some suitable settlement. He knew he said amidst deafening cheers, that his fellow-religionists were ready and prepared to fight for Swaraj, but wanted some safeguards. Whatever his view, and they knew that as a practical politician he had to take stock of the situation, the real block to unity was not the communities themselves, but a few mischief makers on both sides. ``
And he did not thus hesitate to arraign mischief makers in the sternest possible language that could only emanate from an earnest nationalist. In his capacity as the President of the session of the League held in Lahore on 24th May 1924 he said 103 [f59] :—
`` If we wish to be free people, let us unite, but if we wish to continue slaves of Bureaucracy, let us fight among ourselves and gratify petty vanity over petty matters. Englishmen being our arbiters. ``
In the two All-Parties Conferences, one held in 1925 and the other in 1928, Mr. Jinnah was prepared to settle the Hindu-Muslim question on the basis of joint electorates. In 1927 he openly said 104[f.60] from the League platform :—
`` I am not wedded to separate electorates, although I must say that the overwhelming majority of the Musalmans firmly and honestly believe that it is the only method by which they can be sure. ``
In 1928, Mr. Jinnah joined the Congress in the boycott of the Simon Commission. He did so even though the Hindus and Muslims had failed to come to a settlement and he did so at the cost of splitting the League into two.
Even when the ship of the Round Table Conference was about to break on the communal rock, Mr. Jinnah resented being named as a communalist who was responsible for the result and said that he preferred an agreed solution of the communal problem to the arbitration of the British Government. Addressing the U. P. Muslim Conference held at Allahabad on 8th August 105[f.61] 1931 Mr. Jinnah said :—
`` The first thing that I wish to tell you is that it is now absolutely essential and vital that Muslims should stand united. For Heaven`s sake close all your ranks and files and slop this internecine war. I urged this most vehemently and I pleaded to the best of my ability before Dr. Ansari, Mr. T. A. K. Sherwani, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Dr. Syed Mahmud. I hope that before I leave the shores of India I shall hear the good news that whatever may be our differences ; whatever may be our convictions between ourselves, this is not the moment to quarrel between ourselves.
`` Another thing I want to tell you is this. There is a certain section of the press, there is a certain section of the Hindus, who constantly misrepresent me in various ways. I was only reading the speech of Mr. Gandhi this morning and Mr. Gandhi said that he loves Hindus and Muslims alike. I again say standing here on this platform that although I may not put forward that claim but I do put forward this honestly and sincerely that I want fair play between the two communities. ``
Continuing further Mr. Jinnah said: ``As to the most important question, which to my mind is the question of Hindu-Muslim settlement—all I can say to you is that I honestly believe that the Hindus should concede to the Muslims a majority in the Punjab and Bengal and if that is conceded, I think a settlement can be arrived at in a very short time.
``The next question that arises is one of separate vs. joint electorates. As most of you know, if a majority is conceded in the Punjab and Bengal, I would personally prefer a settlement on the basis of joint electorate. (Applause.) But I also know that there is a large body of Muslims—and I believe a majority of Muslims—who are holding on to separate electorate. My position is that I would rather have a settlement even on the footing of separate electorate, hoping and trusting that when we work our new constitution and when both Hindus and Muslims get rid of distrust, suspicion and fears and when they gel their freedom we would rise to the occasion and probably separate electorate will go sooner than most of us think.
`` Therefore I am for a settlement and peace among the Muslims first; I am for a settlement and peace between the Hindus and Mahommedans. This is not a lime for argument, not a time for propaganda work and not a time for embittering feelings between the two communities, because the enemy is at the door of both of us and I say without hesitation that if the Hindu-Muslim question is not settled, I have no doubt that the British will have to arbitrate and that he who arbitrates will keep to himself the substance of power and authority. Therefore, I hope they will not vilify me. After all, Mr. Gandhi himself says that he is willing to give the Muslims whatever they want, and my only sin is that I say to the Hindus give to the Muslims only 14 points, which is much less than the ` blank cheque ` which Mr. Gandhi is willing to give. I do not want a blank cheque, why not concede the 14 points ? When Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru says: `Give us a blank cheque ` when Mr. Patel says : ` Give us a blank cheque and we will sign it with a Swadeshi pen on a Swadeshi paper ` they are not communalists and I am a communalist ! I say to Hindus not to misrepresent everybody. I hope and trust that we shall be yet in a position to settle the question which will bring peace and happiness to the millions in our country.
`` One thing more I want to tell you and I have done. During the lime of the Round Table Conference,—it is now an open book and anybody who cares to read it can learn for himself—I observed the one and the only principle and it was that when I left the shores of Bombay I said to the people that I would hold the interests of India sacred, and believe me—if you care to read the proceedings of the Conference, I am not bragging because I have done my duly—that I have loyally and faithfully fulfilled my promise to the fullest extent and I venture to say that if the Congress or Mr. Gandhi can get anything more than I fought for, I would congratulate them.
`` Concluding Mr. Jinnah said that they must come to a settlement, they must become friends eventually and he, therefore, appealed to the Muslims to show moderation, wisdom and conciliation, if possible, in the deliberation that might take place and the resolution that might be passed at the Conference. ``
As an additional illustration of the transformation in Muslim ideology, I propose to record the opinions once held by Mr. Barkat Ali who is now a follower of Mr. Jinnah and a staunch supporter of Pakistan.
When the Muslim League split-into two over the question of cooperation with the Simon Commission, one section led by Sir Mahommad Shafi favouring co-operation and another section led by Mr. Jinnah supporting the Congress plan of boycott, Mr. Barkat Ali belonged to the Jinnah section of the League. The two wings of the League held their annual sessions in 1928 at two different places. The Shafi wing met in Lahore and the Jinnah wing met in Calcutta. Mr. Barkat Ali, who was the Secretary of the Punjab Muslim League, attended the Calcutta session of the Jinnah wing of the League and moved the resolution relating to the communal settlement. The basis of the settlement was joint electorates. In moving the resolution Mr. Barkat Ali said 106 [f62] :—
`` For the first time in the history of the League there was a change in its angle of vision. We are offering by this change a sincere hand of fellowship to those of our Hindu countrymen who have objected to the principle of separate electorates. ``
In 1928 there was formed a Nationalist Party under the leadership of Dr. Ansari. 107[f.63] The Nationalist Muslim Party was a step in advance of the Jinnah wing of the Muslim League and was prepared to accept the Nehru Report, as it was, without any amendments—not even those which Mr. Jinnah was insisting upon. Mr. Barkat Ali, who in 1927 was with the Jinnah wing of the League, left the same as not being nationalistic enough and joined the Nationalist Muslim Party of Dr. Ansari. How great a nationalist Mr. Barkat Ali then was can be seen by his trenchant and vehement attack on Sir Muhammad lqbal for his having put forth in his presidential address to the annual session of the All-India Muslim League held at Allahabad in 1930 a scheme 108[f.64] for the division of India which is now taken up by Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali and which goes by the name of Pakistan. In 1931 there was held in Lahore the Punjab Nationalist Muslim Conference and Mr. Barkat Ali was the Chairman of the Reception Committee. The views he then expressed on Pakistan are worth recalling 109[f.65] Reiterating and reaffirming the conviction and the political faith of his party, Malik Barkat Ali, Chairman of the Reception Committee of the Conference, said :
`` We believe, first and foremost in the full freedom and honour of India. India, the country of our birth and the place with which all our most valued and dearly cherished associations are knit, must claim its first place in our affection and in our desires. We refuse to be parties to that sinister type of propaganda which would try to appeal to ignorant sentiment by professing to be Muslim first and Indian afterwards. To us a slogan of this kind is not only bare, meaningless cant, but downright mischievous. We cannot conceive of Islam in its best and last interests as in any way inimical to or in conflict with the best and permanent interests of India. India and Islam in India are identical, and whatever is to the detriment of India must, from the nature of it, be detrimental to Islam whether economically, politically, socially or even morally. Those politicians, therefore, are a class of false prophets and at bottom the foes of Islam, who talk of any inherent conflict between Islam and the welfare of India. Further, howsoever much our sympathy with our Muslim brethren outside India, i.e., the Turks and the Egyptians or the Arabs,—and it is a sentiment which is at once noble and healthy,—we can never allow that sympathy to work to the detriment of the essential interests of India. Our sympathy, in fact, with those countries can only be valuable to them, if India as the source, nursery and fountain of that sympathy, is really great. And if ever the lime comes, God forbid, when any Muslim Power from across the Frontier chooses to enslave India and snatch away the liberties of its people, no amount of pan-lslamic feeling, whatever it may mean, can stand in the way of Muslim India fighting shoulder to shoulder with non-Muslim India in defence of its liberties.
`` Let there be, therefore, no misgivings of any kind in that respect in any non-Muslim quarters. I am conscious that a certain class of narrow-minded Hindu politicians is constantly harping on the bogey of an Islamic danger to India from beyond the N.-W. Frontier passes but I desire to repeat that such statements and such fears are fundamentally wrong and unfounded. Muslim India shall as much defend India`s liberties as non-Muslim India, even if the invader happens to be a follower of Islam.
`` Next, we not only believe in a free India but we also believe in a united India—not the India of the Muslim, not the India of the Hindu or of the Sikh, not the India of this community or of that community but the India of all. And as this is our abiding faith, we refuse to be parties to any division of the India of the future into a Hindu or a Muslim India. However much the conception of a Hindu and a Muslim India may appeal and send into frenzied ecstasies abnormally orthodox mentalities of their party, we offer our full throated opposition to it, not only because it is singularly unpractical and utterly obnoxious but because it not only sounds the death-knell of all that is noble and lasting in modern political activity in India, but is also contrary to and opposed to India`s chief historical tradition.
`` India was one in the days of Asoka and Chandragupta and India remained one even when the sceptre and rod of Imperial sway passed from Hindu into Moghul or Muslim hands. And India shall remain one when we shall have attained the object of our desires and reached those uplands of freedom, where all the light illuminating us shall not be reflected glory but shall be light proceeding direct as it were from our very faces.
`` The conception of a divided India, which Sir Muhammad lqbal put forward recently in the course of his presidential utterance from the platform of the League at a time when that body had virtually become extinct and ceased to represent free Islam—I am glad to be able to say that Sir Muhammad lqbal has since recanted it—must not therefore delude anybody into thinking that it is Islam`s conception of the India to be. Even if Dr. Sir Muhammad lqbal had not recanted it as something which could not be put forward by any sane person, I should have emphatically and unhesitatingly repudiated it as something foreign to the genius and the spirit of the rising generation of Islam, and I really deem it a proud duty to affirm today that not only must there be no division of India in to communal provinces but that both Islam and Hinduism must run coterminously with the boundaries of India and must not be cribbed, cabined and confined within any shorter bounds. To the same category as Dr. lqbal`s conception of a Muslim India and a Hindu India, belongs the sinister proposals of some Sikh communalists to partition and divide the Punjab.
`` With a creed so expansive, namely a free and united India with its people all enjoying in equal measure and without any kinds of distinctions and disabilities the protection of laws made by the chosen representatives of the people on the widest possible basis of a true democracy, namely, adult franchise, and through the medium of joint electorates—and an administration charged with the duty of an impartial execution of the laws, fully accountable for its actions, not to a distant or remote Parliament of foreigners but to the chosen representatives of the land,—you would not expect me to enter into the details and lay before you, all the colours of my picture. And I should have really liked to conclude my general observations on the aims and objects of the Nationalist Muslim Party here, were it not that the much discussed question of joint or separate electorates, has today assumed proportions where no public man can possibly ignore it.
`` Whatever may have been the value or utility of separate electorates at a time when an artificially manipulated high-propertied franchise had the effect of converting a majority of the people in the population of a province into a minority in the electoral roll, and when communal passions and feelings ran particularly high, universal distrust poisoning the whole atmosphere like a general and all-pervading miasma,—we feel that in the circumstances of today and in the India of the future, separate electorates should have no place whatever. ``
Such were the views Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali held on nationalism, on separate electorates and on Pakistan. How diametrically opposed are the views now held by them on these very problems ?
So far I have laboured to point out things, the utter failure of the attempts made to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity and the emergence of a new ideology in the minds of the Muslim leaders. There is also a third thing which I must discuss in the present context for reasons arising both from its relevance as well as from its bearing on the point under consideration, namely whether the Muslim ideology has behind it a justification which political philosophers can accept.
Many Hindus seem to hold that Pakistan has no justification. If we confine ourselves to the theory of Pakistan there can be no doubt that this is a greatly mistaken view. The philosophical justification for Pakistan rests upon the distinction between a community and a nation. In the first, place, it is recognized comparatively recently. Political philosophers for a long time were concerned, mainly, with the controversy summed up in the two questions, how far should the right of a mere majority to rule the minority be accepted as a rational basis for government and how far the legitimacy of a government be said to depend upon the consent of the governed. Even those who insisted, that the legitimacy of a government depended upon the consent of the governed, remained content with a victory for their proposition and did not cane to probe further into the matter. They did not feel the necessity for making any distinctions within the category of the `` governed ``. They evidently thought that it was a matter of no moment whether those who were included in the category of the governed formed a community or a nation. Force of circumstances has, however, compelled political philosophers to accept this distinction. In the second place, it is not a mere distinction without a difference. It is a distinction which is substantial and the difference is consequentially fundamental. That this distinction between a community and a nation is fundamental, is clear from the difference in the political rights which political philosophers are prepared to permit to a community and those they are prepared to allow to a nation against the Government established by law. To a community they are prepared to allow only the right of insurrection. But to a nation they are willing to concede the right of disruption. The distinction between the two is as obvious as it is fundamental.. A right of insurrection is restricted only to insisting on a change in the mode and manner of government. The right of disruption is greater than the right of insurrection arid extends to the secession of a group of the members of a State with a secession of the portion of the State`s territory in its occupation. One wonders what must be the basis of this difference. Writers on political philosophy, who have discussed this subject, have given their reasons for the justification of a Community`s right to insurrection 110[f.66] and of a nation`s right to demand disruption. 111[f.67] The difference comes to this : a community has a right to safeguards, a nation has a right to demand separation. The difference is at once clear and crucial. But they have not given any reasons why the right of one is limited to insurrection and why that of the other extends to disruption. They have not even raised such a question. Nor are the reasons apparent on the face of them. But it is both interesting and instructive to know why this difference is made. To my mind the reason for this difference pertains to questions of ultimate destiny. A state either consists of a series of communities or it consists of a series of nations. In a state, which is composed of a series of communities, one community may be arrayed against another community and the two may be opposed to each other. But in the matter of their ultimate destiny they feel they are one. But in a state, which is composed of a series of nations, when one nation rises against the other, the conflict is one as to differences of ultimate destiny. This is the distinction between communities and nations and it is this distinction which explains the difference in their political rights. There is nothing new or original in this explanation. It is merely another way of staring why the community has one kind of right and the nation another of quite a different kind. A community has a right of insurrection because it is satisfied with it. All that it wants is a change in the mode and form of government. Its quarrel is not over any difference of ultimate destiny. A nation has to be accorded the right of disruption because it will not be satisfied with mere change in the form of government. Its quarrel is over the question of ultimate destiny. If it will not be satisfied unless the unnatural bond that binds them is dissolved, then prudence and even ethics demands that the bond shall be dissolved and they shall be freed each to pursue its own destiny.
V
While it is necessary to admit that the efforts at Hindu-Muslim unity have failed and that the Muslim ideology has undergone a complete revolution, it is equally necessary to know the precise causes which have produced these effects. The Hindus say that the British policy of divide and rule is the real cause of this failure and of this ideological revolution. There is nothing surprising in this. The Hindus having cultivated the Irish mentality to have no other politics except that of being always against the Government, are ready to blame the Government for everything including bad weather. But time has come to discard the facile explanation so dear to the Hindus. For it fails to take into account two very important circumstances. In the first place, it overlooks the fact that the policy of divide and rule, allowing that the British do resort to it, cannot succeed unless there are elements which make division possible, and further if the policy succeeds for such a long time, it means that the elements which divide are more or less permanent and irreconcilable and are not transitory or superficial. Secondly, it forgets that Mr. Jinnah, who represents this ideological transformation, can never be suspected of being a tool in the hands of the British even by the worst of his enemies. He may be too self-opinionated, an egotist without the mask and has perhaps a degree of arrogance which is not compensated by any extraordinary intellect or equipment. It may be on that account he is unable to reconcile himself to a second place and work with others in that capacity for a public cause. He may not be over-flowing with ideas although he is not, as his critics make him out to be, an empty-headed dandy living upon the ideas of others. It may be that his fame is built up more upon art and less on substance. At the same time, 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.
#861 Posted by MantoLives on January 7, 2006 12:40:10 am
Jinnah did not mutter any such thing. These are Indian fantasies. Nothing else.
#860 Posted by teshah on January 6, 2006 7:44:21 pm
#461
Bhram1
As you asked dear:
`Dhagga` and `Mataruaas` are common derogatoy terms used for Punjabies and UP wala Urdu-speaking Mahajars, respectively. `Dhagga` means cattle. This is used for Punjabies by Mataruaas who consider them to be foolish like cattle and Matarua means a talkative concieted person as Urdu speaking refugees ere called by the natives.
Bhram1
As you asked dear:
`Dhagga` and `Mataruaas` are common derogatoy terms used for Punjabies and UP wala Urdu-speaking Mahajars, respectively. `Dhagga` means cattle. This is used for Punjabies by Mataruaas who consider them to be foolish like cattle and Matarua means a talkative concieted person as Urdu speaking refugees ere called by the natives.
#859 Posted by rsridhar on January 6, 2006 3:49:55 pm
re:#848 by sadna
(Pakistan has become the foremost manufacturer of oppressed people in the world, it even arms and trains them.)
And, when it suits the nation, kills them.
For Manto`s eyes only:
It was a big mistake, muttered Jinnah just before his death
Warning: graphic pictures.
Go to the bottom of the article for comments by readers.
One Baluchi comment caught my eyes:
(I think that India should intervene and stop this brutal and shameless act against humanity. On the wiser side, why does not India take advantage of this situation. India should use the same cards that Pakistan uses against it. We should support the FREEDOM struggle of the Baloch brothers. Wake up India, send your army, your spies, create your own jihadis against Pakistan and send them in Pakistan. Use ba$tard Pakistan`s weopon against itself.)
Baluchistan is proving to be Pak`s Vietnam.
Sridhar
(Pakistan has become the foremost manufacturer of oppressed people in the world, it even arms and trains them.)
And, when it suits the nation, kills them.
For Manto`s eyes only:
It was a big mistake, muttered Jinnah just before his death
Warning: graphic pictures.
Go to the bottom of the article for comments by readers.
One Baluchi comment caught my eyes:
(I think that India should intervene and stop this brutal and shameless act against humanity. On the wiser side, why does not India take advantage of this situation. India should use the same cards that Pakistan uses against it. We should support the FREEDOM struggle of the Baloch brothers. Wake up India, send your army, your spies, create your own jihadis against Pakistan and send them in Pakistan. Use ba$tard Pakistan`s weopon against itself.)
Baluchistan is proving to be Pak`s Vietnam.
Sridhar
#858 Posted by MantoLives on January 5, 2006 8:22:19 pm
Shishapa...
I meant minorities...
We are talking of the British Empire and the various minorities within it. Muslims were left behind primarily because they had initially resisted accepting the British as the new rulers untill that great man Sir Syed Ahmed Khan came around and told them to modernise and organise themselves.
The Hindu community was far more advanced, educated and modern given that Raja Ram Mohun Roy, the great Hindu modernist, came some 80 years ahead of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the great Muslim modernist. This is precisely why Hindus and Muslims did not evolve a common bourgeoisie ... and even those members of the Bourgeoisie who for most of their lives considered themselves ``Indian`` first (like Jinnah, Khaliquzzaman etc)... ultimately came around to being Muslim nationalists for atleast the period of Pakistan movement...
-YLH
#857 Posted by rsridhar on January 5, 2006 3:23:56 pm
re: Ranjit`s post 826
Thanks for your post.
(It is a test of our collective character on whether we can maintain our family values and culture when we get affluent. When you dont have anything, self-control is easy because you have no choice. You dont have the moolah to spend on wine, women and song. So you are forced to lead a simple life. The real test of self-control comes when you have money, when you have choices. That is when the real fibre of a civilization kicks in. That will depend on how each one of us raises our kids and leads our lives. If we disintegrate socially because we make money, that will just show the hollowness of our claims of Indian culture and family values.(
Well said.
BTW, Gandhi did not say don`t make money. He said don`t let the glitter of money and technology blind you to the other side of the story viz social ills that come creeping in when a society gets richer. I agree that this is when a nation`s character comes to the fore. With globalization, India`s age old caste equatons are crumbling, a good thing in my view. One has to wait and see what is the effect of globalisation and economic prosperity on the society`s moral fabric. After all, it is the middle class which truly preserves a nation`s culture.
Regarding the ``carrot and stick policy``, i am not sure it will work for India. It works for a superpower like US. I think it was Teddy Roosevelt, the former US President who enunciated the policy of ``talk soft but carry a big stick`` but the policy has not been without problems as even smaller nations (often shown the stick) may comply but resent the approach.
India is a soft state. Nobody, least of all Paki rulers, take Indian politicians seriously. Pak harbors the terrorist Dawood Ibrahim who masterminded the killings in Bombay many years ago. Pak continues train and send terrorists inside Kashmir. Of late, these terrorists have started targetting bigger metropolis outside Kashmir (recent Delhi bombing, perhaps the terrorist attack in Bangalore).
So, do not depend on this policy to save India. It will not work. Indian politicians will sell their mothers to save their skins. I have no respect for them. Neither should you.
Sridhar
Thanks for your post.
(It is a test of our collective character on whether we can maintain our family values and culture when we get affluent. When you dont have anything, self-control is easy because you have no choice. You dont have the moolah to spend on wine, women and song. So you are forced to lead a simple life. The real test of self-control comes when you have money, when you have choices. That is when the real fibre of a civilization kicks in. That will depend on how each one of us raises our kids and leads our lives. If we disintegrate socially because we make money, that will just show the hollowness of our claims of Indian culture and family values.(
Well said.
BTW, Gandhi did not say don`t make money. He said don`t let the glitter of money and technology blind you to the other side of the story viz social ills that come creeping in when a society gets richer. I agree that this is when a nation`s character comes to the fore. With globalization, India`s age old caste equatons are crumbling, a good thing in my view. One has to wait and see what is the effect of globalisation and economic prosperity on the society`s moral fabric. After all, it is the middle class which truly preserves a nation`s culture.
Regarding the ``carrot and stick policy``, i am not sure it will work for India. It works for a superpower like US. I think it was Teddy Roosevelt, the former US President who enunciated the policy of ``talk soft but carry a big stick`` but the policy has not been without problems as even smaller nations (often shown the stick) may comply but resent the approach.
India is a soft state. Nobody, least of all Paki rulers, take Indian politicians seriously. Pak harbors the terrorist Dawood Ibrahim who masterminded the killings in Bombay many years ago. Pak continues train and send terrorists inside Kashmir. Of late, these terrorists have started targetting bigger metropolis outside Kashmir (recent Delhi bombing, perhaps the terrorist attack in Bangalore).
So, do not depend on this policy to save India. It will not work. Indian politicians will sell their mothers to save their skins. I have no respect for them. Neither should you.
Sridhar
#856 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on January 5, 2006 9:22:15 am
#836, Bolta Aina,
LOL. Believe it or not, I have heard that that is exactly where Bhutto was going to take Pakistan in the 70s. :) SAHU Zindabad.
LOL. Believe it or not, I have heard that that is exactly where Bhutto was going to take Pakistan in the 70s. :) SAHU Zindabad.
#855 Posted by shishapa on January 5, 2006 9:21:30 am
If you mean minorities are always weak, that is not the case perhaps!
When Muslim kings ruled over various kingdoms in various parts of India,
Muslims were minority but do not think they were weak.
#854 Posted by shishapa on January 5, 2006 9:13:54 am
Re # 853
Mantoji,
``from a position of weakness``
I am curious to know, in what way Muslims were weak? Why do you keep saying
Muslims were weak? And who was strong and why?
#853 Posted by MantoLives on January 5, 2006 8:10:44 am
Dear Shishapa...
You can call it blackmail... but logically when a minority uses bargaining counters they are bargaining counters- as it is from a position of weakness... When the unquestionable leader of the majority says to an oppressed lower caste group to stop asking for affirmative action or else I`ll fast unto death... that is blackmail.
Minoritarianism is all about squeezing maximum benefits and that is an acceptable factual situation.. but majoritarianism doing the same amounts to fascism. It is like saying that discriminatory policies favoring white people are the same as affirmative action for the black people.
You can call it blackmail... but logically when a minority uses bargaining counters they are bargaining counters- as it is from a position of weakness... When the unquestionable leader of the majority says to an oppressed lower caste group to stop asking for affirmative action or else I`ll fast unto death... that is blackmail.
Minoritarianism is all about squeezing maximum benefits and that is an acceptable factual situation.. but majoritarianism doing the same amounts to fascism. It is like saying that discriminatory policies favoring white people are the same as affirmative action for the black people.
#852 Posted by shishapa on January 5, 2006 7:59:35 am
Re 850
``Muslims of minority areas thought very smugly that they could use the threat of Muslim majority areas seceding as a bargaining counter``
I see, so when Muslims of minority areas, Muslim League, Mr. Jinnah use threat of seceding
is a bargaining counter and not a blackmail but what Gadhiji does is blackmail.
Nice play of words.
#851 Posted by MantoLives on January 5, 2006 7:32:00 am
And also just so that we are clear on a few things, despite his weak position as the leader of an extremely oppressed section of society, Dr Ambedkar made no bones about his utter and complete contempt for Hinduism, Hindu cultural life and Hindu leadership. Indeed the constitutional debates show the extent to which he opposed Gandhiism as a force of Hindu revival.
#850 Posted by MantoLives on January 5, 2006 7:12:47 am
No- sadna... the simplistic occam`s razor you apply is just amazing. But history exists in complex realities... Muslims of minority areas thought very smugly that they could use the threat of Muslim majority areas seceding as a bargaining counter...
The reason why Ambedkar did not resort to such a situation was because Dalits did not form such a group and his every attempt was vetoed by emotional blackmail such as ``fast unto death`` by Gandhi... apparently the great Mahatma found it easier to oppress the scheduled caste than the Muslims.
The reason why Ambedkar did not resort to such a situation was because Dalits did not form such a group and his every attempt was vetoed by emotional blackmail such as ``fast unto death`` by Gandhi... apparently the great Mahatma found it easier to oppress the scheduled caste than the Muslims.
#849 Posted by MantoLives on January 5, 2006 7:08:50 am
... But I do certainly feel that it would have been better if Jinnah had been in the position to accept Ambedkar advice and led a non-communal counter-Congress movement that Ambedkar thought only Jinnah was capable of leading...
How far would Jinnah and such a counter-Congress movement been minus the Muslim nationalism - I don`t know ... maybe - maybe not... but its not like Jinnah did not seriously toy with the idea... he even considered very seriously to convert All India Muslim League into All India Minorities League ...
#848 Posted by sadna on January 5, 2006 7:08:12 am
Yup. Muslims were being oppressed by Hindus in the areas where Muslims were the majority.
And still are, apparently and not just by Hindus by rest of the world too. Pakistan has become the foremost manufacturer of oppressed people in the world, it even arms and trains them.
And still are, apparently and not just by Hindus by rest of the world too. Pakistan has become the foremost manufacturer of oppressed people in the world, it even arms and trains them.
