Muslim League’s Politics (1937-1947)

it is so very true
Sir syed ahmed khan was a muslim MODERNIST who established AMU so that muslims get reserved seats to study.is it that they were not competitive enough for other institutions which were not under HINDU influence in the british raj.I wonder then what a traditional muslim would be like?

Urstruly,

Sir Syed called Hindus and Muslims two eyes of India... and that one eye should be equal to another or otherwise the bride would look ugly...

This is a very famous statement.

#110, ahmadzai:
I am sorry at first I lost your posting and then I had to go away for a few days so I could not get back to you.
Your posting #139 in Shalom or Salaam by Versey raises two points which are really quite disparate. There is economic exploitattion of the working class in every ethnic or religious group. Marx made a start of this study and there are many relevant points in his analysis. Some of them will forever remain valid. He, as well as his successors like Lenin and Stalin, got sidetracked due to a variety of reasons. Some indeed of their own making and involving personal benefitting at the cost of the wider and commendable aim of controlling the economic exploitation of the working class. These are vast subjects and can not be handled under the current forum. Though, just for the kicks, I believe that that Socialism would have worked much better had the Marxists permitted personal wealth but disallowed transfer of wealth to the descendents. That would have preserved the initiative to work but checked the inheritance of undeserved wealth. SO MUCH FOR THAT.

Second point of the minority population is more pertinent to the topic at hand. It is well known that there was a tremendously asymmetric emigration from Pakistan of Hindus than the emigration of Muslims from India. The crucial differences lay, firstly, in Mr. Nehru who was even willing to fire Sardar Patel when he suggested disenfranchising muslims, secondly, in the rule-of-law and constitutional movement in India where it had REAL roots unlike in Pakistan where it was a subterfuge - despite Jinnah etc., and most importantantly the pluralism and tolerance of Hindus and Hindu Religion (deliberate separation).

THE VERY SINE QUA NON OF A VIABLE PAKISTAN IS REDUCTION OF IMPORTANCE OF MASJID IN ISLAM AS WELL AS MUSLIM COUNTRIES. TILL THAT IS ACHIEVED MUSLIMS WILL SUPPLY CANON FODDER FOR INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS.

Your statements about the mullahs not seeking votes of the muslim masses are related to the fact that it takes work to develop mass feelings, it is much easier to terrorize muslims as well a hindus by selectively murdering a few dozen innocents hindus, shias and ahmedias every six months.

I hope this meets some of your expectations.

#85, urstruly; #86, Inquirer:
A response urstruly is imperative.

#183 by dionysus
``Historically the North West subcontinent was considered to consist of several distinct nations: Hind, Sind, Punjab & Kashmir. Hind was ONLY the Hindi speaking areas. ``
``
Dionysys is right about this at least. In fact one can go further than that as the entire Indus Valley region including Punjab was part of Sind, while the bulk of the Eastern Gangetic plain was called Hind.

How about autonomy for Indian states as well? Pakistan can decide what it wants, sannu kee? Also, Chandigarh needs to go Punjab.

re:#251 by Mantolives
I read Bilal Sahib`s article. Thanks for the link. Looks like the way to go for Pakistan. Somehow a centralised control by Army and giving provinces more autonomy do not go together. It remains to be seen if Musharraf can devolve power to the provinces as he had promised. Looks like Bilal Sahib wrote this article just about the time when Mushy took over. Not much has changed since then, has it?
Sridhar

Dost Mittar

Thankyou once again for the compliment...


rsidhar/anuradha,

As the late professor Bilal Ahmad had pointed out... the salvation and unity of Pakistan lies in following the confederal solution given in the lahore resolution.

-YLH

re: Punjabi domination in Pak
The Punjabi domination in Pak continues to cause a lot of resentments among the smaller provinces:
http://www.balochistanexpress.com/frontpage/news.asp?news=2445&page=FrontPage&name=FRONTPAGE
Sridhar

re: post # 240 by Harimou, post # 248 by Anuradha
Good posts, both.
I was wondering what has gotten into this guy Dionysus? Why is he being such a pain? Well, i got my answers when i read someone else`s post (i think it was one of Dost mittar`s). Our man is a proud Punjabi Paki. Nothing wrong in that. But, he would like nothing better than the 2 Punjabs to unite into an independent nation and let the rest be damned. He does not realise that much water has flown down Jhelum since 1947 and today`s Indian Punjabi does not feel much affinity towards his muslim counterpart as Dionysus would like to believe. In the light of this new discovery of mine, all his previous posts make sense to me. The guy is in his own world that is all. Just let him be.
Sridhar

Hi, sorry to butt in late on this discussion... just thought I`d add my two cents worth...
(this is on the discussion about India`s identity)

What was India`s name in ancient times? Bharatavarsha or Aryavarta... and did it include the whole of India as we know it now?

The point is, does it matter? Is there any need to dig into history books to find out whether we were an ancient nation? whether we were or not, or whatever our name was then, we are undisputedly an ancient civilisation. That we are a nation now is hopefully, not a matter for dispute either. A foreignor might think our country is made up of too many disparate elements to constitute one, but so long as these elements themselves see no need to question that they belong together, we will continue to be a nation.

The basic fact is, we don`t really owe anyone an explanation. Why, in spite of being so distinct in our races, language, religion or culture, we feel that our country is one, or why we love it, is not something that can be explained. Either the other person understands, or he doesn`t.

It might also be that some Pakistanis, (not all, I`m sure), feel a little pained as to why India in spite of all its diversity is able to hold itself together, while their nation though much more homogeneous, has so many problems of divisiveness and lack of unity... (apologies if I`m wrong about this, I really do wish Pakistan all the best)...

Tamilians, Keralites struggling with Hindi and cursing the Centre`s `Impose Hindi` policy (as I have done many times.. think of all the time/money wasted in offices for Hindi translations of every document, which no one reads anyway)... Bihari bhaiyyas, the Bengali babus so fiercely proud of their culture, the Kannadigas who believe that Karnataka is the only state and Bangalore the only city in India fit to live in... the Andhraites who call their language `thene lanti Telugu` (telugu that is as sweet as honey) ... and of course the arrogant punjabis :).. so much diversity... and so much love and pride in their own culture and language...yet on a national level they all think of themselves as Indians.

`Lagaan` comes to mind. Such a hit all over the country, cutting across all barriers. Watching it in a theatre was an experience. The tension in the theatre from the start to finish of the cricket match was something electric. So many diverse people, all united in one singleminded fiery desire, to see India (as represented by Bhuvan and co.) triumph.

dionysius put it well when he asked...

``Just tell us why this vast subcontinent of a multitude of distinct and separate races, languages and cultures (with absolutely nothing in common with each other), is a nation called `India``` ...
Why indeed?

So just what is this mysterious force holding us together? It`s hard to put one`s finger on it, and perhaps it isn`t really necessary to do so. Just knowing that it`s there, is enough.
Why, just to see the heated emotions aroused among such linguistically and culturally disparate people, because a foreigner dared to question their country being a `nation`, should be enough to put to rest all doubt...

As the song in Roja goes
`Bharat hum ko jaan se pyaara hai... sub se pyaara desh hamaara hai...`
Peace.

Manto:
I really do not have much more to contribute to this subject, except to admire once again your wealth of knowledge in this area. I look forward to reading your thoughts in a book form one day.
Thanks for an informative discussion.

Late Prof. Bilal Ahmad`s article on the Lahore Resolution:

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000929&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1

I agree to this post at #121 by dionysus on September 11, 2003 8:50am PT
harimau #184

Prayers? Pilgrims? Temples? blah...blah... In a nutshell, `India is a nation because we are all Hindus`. Simply Amazing! When it comes to Islamic Pakistan & Kashmir we hear the same Indians make snotty comments about religion being an unacceptable foundation for nationhood. Did no one tell you Indians that what`s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander !??

But the subsequent post at #122 by dionysus on September 11, 2003 9:17am PT is deplorable and the author shold not get provocated by any remark to start hitting back below the belt.

Guys !!! maintain dignity and get back to the arguments. I also implore to my Indian friends not to get into the trap that the religious blinkered Islamists would like every one to put and try to see unity, solidarity, one-ness and love amongst humans(h-sapiens) in terms of their stories about the world (which is one of the world views that so many Islamists have tried all over the world!! Pakistan and Afghanistan included))

roohi,

Thankyou.

I agree and that is why I was looking forward to more articles from both sides... I think a similar critique from the Indian side...

-YLH

Mantolives

On a board on Muslim League, various justifications offered by its descendents shouldn`t constitute `india-pakistan match`. To be fair to you, I will post these justifications on some other boards too.