Encore Soft Hindutva?
Subhash Gatade January 16, 2006
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#247 Posted by sadna on January 28, 2006 7:26:59 am
Thanks for publicising my ilog but India is not asking for territory in Chinese control on communal basis, nor does India arrange for bombings in China. Nor has India ever in the past asked for Chinese peoples` rights to be curtailed in India`s favor nor for any governments in Chinese provinces to be dismissed.
#246 Posted by MantoLives on January 28, 2006 1:23:48 am
``Give me a lever long enough, and a fulcrum strong enough, and I will move the Earth.``
-Archimedes
fulcrum = British
lever = Jusice and fairplay for all minorities
The weight of the Earth = The weight of the majority
Hand = Jinnah
After Direct Action day or thereabouts, the fulcrum got weaker and weaker and without the fulcrum the hand had no leverage over the Congress. The true weight of the Earth became a major determining factor unlike before. The weight of the earth then decided to crush everything... but still the hand adroitly moved out of the way in nick of time.
Earth morphed from into India, the hand to Pakistan.
The Archimedes mechanism still works but fulcrum , hand and the earth have all changed... and the aims and objectives are no longer noble....
fulcrum = The US
lever = India`s ambitions to counter China
The weight of the Earth = China`s growing role in World Economy
Hand = Indian bourgeosie
#245 Posted by MantoLives on January 28, 2006 12:30:17 am
By the way in 1939 ... the Congress quit the government on its own.... the British did not give any one this ``choice`` as Sadna puts in her own cute little dishonest way.
#244 Posted by MantoLives on January 28, 2006 12:22:26 am
masanamuthu...
I am afraid only an Indian can make a connection there. The truth is that British made a leader out of Gandhi to undercut a massive armed revolt in form of Bhagat Singh etc...
While Gandhi was deliberately fluffed up as a freedom fighter from ``Qaiser-e-Hind`` etc to leader of the freedom movement which did not succeed.... As the quotes I provided prove-they did not get along very well with Jinnah but had to accept him as the man to deal with ...
And while Gandhi wasn`t able to achieve any of his objectives.... Jinnah extracted the maximum deal for his constituents... So who made who a leader?
I am afraid only an Indian can make a connection there. The truth is that British made a leader out of Gandhi to undercut a massive armed revolt in form of Bhagat Singh etc...
While Gandhi was deliberately fluffed up as a freedom fighter from ``Qaiser-e-Hind`` etc to leader of the freedom movement which did not succeed.... As the quotes I provided prove-they did not get along very well with Jinnah but had to accept him as the man to deal with ...
And while Gandhi wasn`t able to achieve any of his objectives.... Jinnah extracted the maximum deal for his constituents... So who made who a leader?
#243 Posted by masanamuthu on January 27, 2006 1:28:15 pm
sadna:
Typical Paki remark and this attitude is precisely why there is a Pakistan. A person pointing that Jinnah wanted eight Congress ministries dismissed when he had just 4 1/2 percent of the Muslim vote , would do so only out of `latent hatred for Muslims`, according to a Paki.
WOW, this is good to know..
Shows how the Brits can make leaders out of anyone..
Thanks..
Typical Paki remark and this attitude is precisely why there is a Pakistan. A person pointing that Jinnah wanted eight Congress ministries dismissed when he had just 4 1/2 percent of the Muslim vote , would do so only out of `latent hatred for Muslims`, according to a Paki.
WOW, this is good to know..
Shows how the Brits can make leaders out of anyone..
Thanks..
#242 Posted by sadna on January 27, 2006 9:26:31 am
Keep on with the rant but just remember next time you talk about ``Muslim League was a minority party`` that it was Jinnah with no ministry whom the British gave the choice to get eight Congress ministries dismissed not vice versa.
#241 Posted by MantoLives on January 27, 2006 8:49:21 am
My claim was that the British would rather have dealt with Sikandar Hayat etc and I have proved it below from Wali Khan`s book which is decidedly anti-Jinnah. I have not denied at times our interests coincided with the British... so thats not something we deny ...
It comes back to whether supporting the British against the Nazis was right and I think it was.... I could care less for your imagined bogeys of the big bad paki... or your latent hatred for Muslims, Jinnah or the Pakistan movement.
``you quote from the period before war broke out and you quote the Viceroy on how his attitude might change once war broke out. Wali Khan and Wolpert quote the British after the war broke out``
The quote I put up is from Wali Khan and yes it is before the war.
It comes back to whether supporting the British against the Nazis was right and I think it was.... I could care less for your imagined bogeys of the big bad paki... or your latent hatred for Muslims, Jinnah or the Pakistan movement.
``you quote from the period before war broke out and you quote the Viceroy on how his attitude might change once war broke out. Wali Khan and Wolpert quote the British after the war broke out``
The quote I put up is from Wali Khan and yes it is before the war.
#240 Posted by sadna on January 27, 2006 8:28:41 am
Corrected for typos.
As you already know, you quote from the period before war broke out and you quote the Viceroy on how his attitude might change once war broke out. Wali Khan and Wolpert quote the British after the war broke out
``Again- it seems to me that you are just arguing because of your latent hatred for Muslims and Jinnah.``
Typical Paki remark and this attitude is precisely why there is a Pakistan. A person pointing that Jinnah wanted eight Congress ministries dismissed when he had just 4 1/2 percent of the Muslim vote, would do so only out of `latent hatred for Muslims`, according to a Paki.
This tactic of Jinnah`s or yours wouldn`t work in a united India. This tactic is typical of the tiny minority which is the Pakistani ruling elite who have survived as rulers for 50 years by shouting `anti-Muslim` every time their power is challenged by a majority. Other nations such as India don`t seek to emulate that achievement because the vast majority of their electorates can`t be fooled by such cheap tactics.
As you already know, you quote from the period before war broke out and you quote the Viceroy on how his attitude might change once war broke out. Wali Khan and Wolpert quote the British after the war broke out
``Again- it seems to me that you are just arguing because of your latent hatred for Muslims and Jinnah.``
Typical Paki remark and this attitude is precisely why there is a Pakistan. A person pointing that Jinnah wanted eight Congress ministries dismissed when he had just 4 1/2 percent of the Muslim vote, would do so only out of `latent hatred for Muslims`, according to a Paki.
This tactic of Jinnah`s or yours wouldn`t work in a united India. This tactic is typical of the tiny minority which is the Pakistani ruling elite who have survived as rulers for 50 years by shouting `anti-Muslim` every time their power is challenged by a majority. Other nations such as India don`t seek to emulate that achievement because the vast majority of their electorates can`t be fooled by such cheap tactics.
#239 Posted by sadna on January 27, 2006 8:16:08 am
As you already know, you quote from the period before war broke out and you quote the Viceroy on how his attitude might change once war broke out. Wali Khan and Wolpert quote the British after the war broke out
``Again- it seems to me that you are just arguing because of your latent hatred for Muslims and Jinnah.``
Typical Paki remark and this attitude is precisely why there is a Pakistan. A person pointing that Jinnah wanted eight Congress ministries dismissed when he had just 4 1/2 percent of the Muslim vote, will do so only do so out of `latent hatred for Muslims` according to a Paki.
This tactics of Jinnah`s or yours wouldn`t work in a united India. This is tactic is typical of the tiny minority which is the Pakistani ruling elite who have survived as rulers for 50 years by shouting `anti-Muslim` every time their power is challenged by a majority. Other nations such as India don`t seek to emulate that achievement because the vast majority of their electorates can`t be fooled by such cheap tactics.
#238 Posted by MantoLives on January 27, 2006 7:55:44 am
Again- it seems to me that you are just arguing because of your latent hatred for Muslims and Jinnah. The reason the British had to invite Jinnah was because as Durga Das said he had emerged as the tallest leader ... there is no doubt the British would have wanted to deal with Sikandar Hayat or Fazli Hussain etc...
Wali Khan, whose book is decidedly anti-Jinnah, writes:
1- In those days, apart from the fact that the Muslim strength was scattered over several bodies, even the Muslim League was divided into two groups. One was led by Sir Mohammad Shafi, the other by Mr. Jinnah. The British were cheesed off with Mr. Jinnah because he favoured joint electorate. The efforts were now directed to winning him over to the other view.
2- Wellington as Viceroy, Quaid-i-Azam had left India and gone and settled in England. The rumour was the something untoward had earlier happened between Mr. Wellington and Mr. Jinnah.: (It was said that when Wellington was the Governor of Bombay he once held a party to which Mr. & Mrs. Jinnah was invited. Wellignton`s wife was an extremely austere person. Mrs. Jinnah, a Parsi lady, was apparently not sufficiently wrapped up to suit her Victorian taste, and so she told her ADC that Mrs. Jinnah might be feeling cold, and would he fetch her a shawl. Mr. Jinnah took this as a slight and left the party with his wife. Since then his relations with Wellington had remained soured). With Wellington elevated from governorship of Bombay to Viceroy Ship of the whole country, Mr. Jinnah didn`t feel keen to come back.
3- The War added to the importance of the Punjab, and Sir Sikander could even tender such advice to the Viceroy as to say about Mr. Jinnah, ``Nothing should be done to inflate him,`` on the ground, among others, that Bengal and Punjab were already supporting the British and they don`t approve of Jinnah. The Viceroy sums up the situation, and reveals his own attitude, in his note of August 31, 1939, as follows:
Sikander`s admirable statement on Saturday last seems fairly effectively to have spiked the guns of Jinnah and Muslim League. It seems to be pretty clear that relations between the Muslim League and the Punjab, Bengal and other important Muslim centers are becoming definitely rather strained and that the chances of a break way are considerable.``
The Viceroy was unhappy with Mr. Jinnah. That was why apparently these other Muslim leaders were keeping their distance from him. The Viceroy goes to write:
``I do not propose to make any move to him until there is an outbreak of war or some other development necessitating immediate contact with all party leaders.
Wali Khan, whose book is decidedly anti-Jinnah, writes:
1- In those days, apart from the fact that the Muslim strength was scattered over several bodies, even the Muslim League was divided into two groups. One was led by Sir Mohammad Shafi, the other by Mr. Jinnah. The British were cheesed off with Mr. Jinnah because he favoured joint electorate. The efforts were now directed to winning him over to the other view.
2- Wellington as Viceroy, Quaid-i-Azam had left India and gone and settled in England. The rumour was the something untoward had earlier happened between Mr. Wellington and Mr. Jinnah.: (It was said that when Wellington was the Governor of Bombay he once held a party to which Mr. & Mrs. Jinnah was invited. Wellignton`s wife was an extremely austere person. Mrs. Jinnah, a Parsi lady, was apparently not sufficiently wrapped up to suit her Victorian taste, and so she told her ADC that Mrs. Jinnah might be feeling cold, and would he fetch her a shawl. Mr. Jinnah took this as a slight and left the party with his wife. Since then his relations with Wellington had remained soured). With Wellington elevated from governorship of Bombay to Viceroy Ship of the whole country, Mr. Jinnah didn`t feel keen to come back.
3- The War added to the importance of the Punjab, and Sir Sikander could even tender such advice to the Viceroy as to say about Mr. Jinnah, ``Nothing should be done to inflate him,`` on the ground, among others, that Bengal and Punjab were already supporting the British and they don`t approve of Jinnah. The Viceroy sums up the situation, and reveals his own attitude, in his note of August 31, 1939, as follows:
Sikander`s admirable statement on Saturday last seems fairly effectively to have spiked the guns of Jinnah and Muslim League. It seems to be pretty clear that relations between the Muslim League and the Punjab, Bengal and other important Muslim centers are becoming definitely rather strained and that the chances of a break way are considerable.``
The Viceroy was unhappy with Mr. Jinnah. That was why apparently these other Muslim leaders were keeping their distance from him. The Viceroy goes to write:
``I do not propose to make any move to him until there is an outbreak of war or some other development necessitating immediate contact with all party leaders.
#237 Posted by sadna on January 27, 2006 7:03:35 am
``But if you look at the quotes that Wali Khan puts up, the British would have rather had Sikandar Hayat or Sir Muhammad Shafi in charge of the Muslims``
Both the Wali Khan and Stanley Wolpert quotes are from official British records. You are trying to rewrite history here. It was Jinnah who was invited along with Gandhi to meet the Viceroy not Sikander Hayat or anyone else.
Durga Das writes in `India from Curzon to Nehru and After`
http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=29615
``Linlithgow`s action in inviting not only Gandhi(as was the case in the past) but also Jinnah.. had the effect of greatly inflating Jinnah`s stature politically. The League leader had been equated with Gandhi for the first time and, what is more, the Viceroy`s decision eloquently confirmed the basic contention made by Jinnah in his correspondence with Nehru that the power struggle in India was between four parties, namely the British, the Hindus, the Muslims and the Princes, and not between the British and the Congress only as Nehru asserted.
The fact of the matter was that the invitation to Jinnah was not extended without reason. Over the preceding two years he had emerged as the tallest among the Muslim politicians and as an uncompromising critic of the Congress. In doing so, he created a favourable impression both on the Princes and on the British bureacracy.``
Durga Das also writes in a later chapter
``The India Office and the Viceroy were now agreed on building up Jinnah as their Crescent Card to neutralise the Congress challenge. This was manifest from Sikander Hayat Khan`s disclosure to me that the Viceroy, on instructions from the Secretary of State, had enjoined upon him and Fazlul Haque[of Bengal] not to undermine Jinnah`s position as ``leader of the Muslim community.``. This happened towards the end of 1939, when Jinnah had taken up an uncompromising attitude and the Muslim Premiers of Punjab and Bengal were under pressure from some of their followers ``to disown Jinnah or cut him down to size.``
#236 Posted by MantoLives on January 26, 2006 9:54:04 pm
Sadna,
The point he makes is that Muslim League and the Muslims were created as a counter force to the Congress by the British... nobody wishes to deny this. The Muslims had been looking towards the British for protection since the time of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan... and we did use the second world war to our advantage.
But if you look at the quotes that Wali Khan puts up, the British would have rather had Sikandar Hayat or Sir Muhammad Shafi in charge of the Muslims ... and the British distrusted Jinnah, being that he represented a Bourgeoisie movement instead of the malleable feudals and ofcourse his Congress record and his less than cordial relations with Lord Wellingdon, and that he drove a hard bargain. Mind you- Wali Khan also says the same things about Ambedkar...
What is even worse is that the late Wali Khan sahab plays on the widespread anti-Ahmadi feeling to bolster his argument about Lahore Resolution being a British-inspired document...
These arguments are not new... there is a new book out in India that explores the same view... but this is only part of the story and while the British sought to use the Pakistan demand as a sort of counterweight to Congress` Quit India... we know that they could not and ultimately they were not in favor of partition.... this is where I disagree with Wali Khan - because the British did not want to partition the subcontinent... neither the conservatives nor the liberals... which is why the public opinion amongst the imperial masters was against the Muslim League which was seen- as Wali Khan admits- a negative body. Jinnah confided in his buddy Dalmiya proudly that he had taken the Muslim jee huzooris and nawabs and made them answerable to himself rather than the British- and this is what such history fails to acknowledge.
Wali Khan`s theory about Pakistan as a desirable pro-west ally under a loyal army is more of applying the future to the past than the other way around- because this is how Pakistan chose to play it out rightly or wrongly.
The point he makes is that Muslim League and the Muslims were created as a counter force to the Congress by the British... nobody wishes to deny this. The Muslims had been looking towards the British for protection since the time of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan... and we did use the second world war to our advantage.
But if you look at the quotes that Wali Khan puts up, the British would have rather had Sikandar Hayat or Sir Muhammad Shafi in charge of the Muslims ... and the British distrusted Jinnah, being that he represented a Bourgeoisie movement instead of the malleable feudals and ofcourse his Congress record and his less than cordial relations with Lord Wellingdon, and that he drove a hard bargain. Mind you- Wali Khan also says the same things about Ambedkar...
What is even worse is that the late Wali Khan sahab plays on the widespread anti-Ahmadi feeling to bolster his argument about Lahore Resolution being a British-inspired document...
These arguments are not new... there is a new book out in India that explores the same view... but this is only part of the story and while the British sought to use the Pakistan demand as a sort of counterweight to Congress` Quit India... we know that they could not and ultimately they were not in favor of partition.... this is where I disagree with Wali Khan - because the British did not want to partition the subcontinent... neither the conservatives nor the liberals... which is why the public opinion amongst the imperial masters was against the Muslim League which was seen- as Wali Khan admits- a negative body. Jinnah confided in his buddy Dalmiya proudly that he had taken the Muslim jee huzooris and nawabs and made them answerable to himself rather than the British- and this is what such history fails to acknowledge.
Wali Khan`s theory about Pakistan as a desirable pro-west ally under a loyal army is more of applying the future to the past than the other way around- because this is how Pakistan chose to play it out rightly or wrongly.
#235 Posted by sadna on January 26, 2006 5:15:18 pm
The import of the Wali Khan excerpt in #231 is not the League support for the war per se, it is to do with Congress having governments in eight provinces but being denied recognition as a national party by the British while Muslim League which did not form a ministry in even one province(and had won only four and the half percent of the total Muslim vote cast) was given a veto over India.
Jinnah too had scant respect for Congress`s electorate.
From Stanley Wolpert
``On September 3, 1939, Lord Linlithgow broadcast the news of Germany`s invasion of Poland. Linlithgow met with Gandhi for almost two hours the following day, after which the viceroy saw Jinnah. Jinnah appealed to the the viceroy for ``something positive`` to take back to his party to help him rally Muslim support for the war. Asked if he wanted Congress ministries thrown out, Jinnah replied, ``Yes! Turn them out at once. Nothing else will bring them to their senses..They will never stand by you.``During this conversation on September 4, 1939, moreover, Jinnah revealed to the viceroy that he now believed the only ultimate solution for India ``lay in partition``.``
In other words, he had begun to think of a separate state but also wanted the many Congress ministeries in the rest of India be dismissed. That when he had won 4 and 1/2 percent of total MUSLIM vote.
#234 Posted by MantoLives on January 25, 2006 10:04:37 pm
PS: I find it very strange that when Gandhi goes on a global recruitment drive for the British in the first war and wins the title of Qaiser-e-Hind (Caesar of India) from the British for it, its perfectly alright...
But if Muslim League throws in its lot with the British against Naziism and Fascism in the second world war (While Congress leaders are secretly in touch with the axis powers) that is some how a crime.
But if Muslim League throws in its lot with the British against Naziism and Fascism in the second world war (While Congress leaders are secretly in touch with the axis powers) that is some how a crime.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- jayp: "A question we must... Losing the Battle, Losing
- nb: And how ridiculous to... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- nb: Parthaab, you remind me... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- jayp: Re: # 43 sharmeen, What are... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- jayp: Re: # 19 tahmed, Paki civil... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- nb: I never knew until... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- _arjun30: heh... ‘Pakistan loses $1.5bn due... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- _arjun30: #64 Posted by... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
