Articles Comments

Pak Tea House » Jinnah, Pakistan, Partition » Partition of India: The Dialogue continues

Partition of India: The Dialogue continues

 In continuation of Pak Tea House’s earlier “Partition of India: a Dialogue” we reproduce from The Hindu,  A G Noorani’s famous article “Assessing Jinnah” written in the aftermath of L K Advani’s “Jinnah is secular” scandal. This is a well written piece which praises Jinnah for his contribution to the freedom struggle but also takes him to task for his failings.  It also calls for a balanced assessment of the man, and not the hero-demon dichotomy that exists in scholarship about him in the subcontinent.  For Pakistanis, there are several lessons here which should be driven home and internalized:

1.  Jinnah was essentially a secular liberal who had fought for a United India.  It was when he was spurned by the Congress that he devised an alternative strategy.

2. Pakistan, as it was formed on 14th August, 1947, marked a defeat for Jinnah’s objectives and not their fulfillment.  Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan was envisaged within an India whole.  Yet it was the inherent contradiction in Jinnah’s strategy that weakened his hand at the end.  He over played his hand and was left out in the cold.

 3. Pakistan was not created for any theocratic ideal or millenial dream.  It was – like all nation states- a product of history.   It can only survive if it pays heed to Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan as a secular democratic state committed to the welfare of the masses.

4. Peace with India and reconciliation with our past is the only way Pakistan can lay to rest the demons that have haunted it since its creation.

ASSESSING JINNAH

IGNORANT biographers have made much of the fact that at a reception in his honour on January 12, 1915, Gandhi asked Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who was presiding, to speak in Gujarati; implying that he was embarrassed because he knew only English. But Gujarati and Cutchi were the only two languages Jinnah spoke perfectly; “beautifully”, M.C. Chagla recalled. His devoted follower M.A.H. Ispahani put it delicately: “Even in this language [English] the meticulous don would have found some flaws” (The Jinnah I Knew ; page 107).

But, with the indifference to matters of substance that marks most writings on Jinnah, they overlook a more significant aspect to the relationship. Dr. Ajeet Jawed draws pointed attention to its implications. When Gandhi returned to India from South Africa, Jinnah was a national leader towering above Motilal Nehru, Tej Bahadur Sapru and M.R. Jayakar. He was a colleague of Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. He performed a central role in the Congress, the Muslim League and the Home Rule League (HRL). Gandhi’s demand was certainly presumptuous, if not insulting. But it revealed his pronounced tendency to establish his ascendancy. It worked with all others – save Jinnah. In his correspondence, he even advised Jinnah gratuitously about his wife. In October 1916, addressing a conference over which Jinnah presided, Gandhi referred to him as “a learned Muslim gentleman … . an eminent lawyer and not only a member of the Legislature but also president of the biggest Islamic association in India” (Secular and Nationalist Jinnah; page 193).

Gandhi was “cutting Jinnah to size”, as a sectarian leader. Jinnah was neither put out nor deflected from the course he followed. Chimanlal Setalvad and he remained two persons who never subordinated their will and judgment to him. On his part, till the end Jinnah treated Gandhi as a peer. He was not forgiven for this. Jinnah could not be “domesticated” like the Nehrus and Sardar Patel, nor co-opted.

Equally wrong is the impression that Jinnah was embittered because Gandhi, in effect, ousted him from two bodies – from the Home Rule League of which Jinnah was president, and from the Congress. About what happened in the former, we have Jayakar’s detailed account in his memoirs, The Story of My Life (Vol. I, pages 316-318 and 404-5). In December 1919, Jinnah invited Gandhi to join the HRL as its president. So much for his ambition and ego. He overruled Jayakar’s opposition, which was based on Gokhale’s advice: “Be careful that India does not trust him on occasions where delicate negotiations have to be carried on with care and caution… . He has done wonderful work in South Africa… . but I fear that when the history of the negotiations… is written with impartial accuracy, it will be found that his actual achievements were not as meritorious as is popularly imagined.”

Gandhi promised Jayakar that he would not change the HRL’s character. He became its president in March 1920. Gandhi and Jinnah had cooperated at the Amritsar session of the Congress in November 1919. At the Calcutta Congress in September 1920, Gandhi unfolded his programme of non-cooperation. Jinnah said that while he was “fully convinced of non-cooperation” he found Gandhi’s programme unsound. Gandhi was able to win over the doubters. He failed with Jinnah. Maulana Shaukat Ali tried to assault Jinnah, but was stopped by his friends. Gandhi took the battle to the HRL and presiding over its session on October 3, 1920, had its objectives changed in breach of his promises. It was a coup. Nineteen veterans resigned from the HRL, including Jinnah, Jayakar and K.M. Munshi (vide Jayakar, page 405 for the text of the letter). Gandhi flouted his promises to Jayakar, as he recorded.

On October 30, 1920, Jinnah wrote a letter to Gandhi which is of historic importance: “I thank you for your kind suggestion offering me `to take my share in the new life that has opened up before the country’. If by `new life’ you mean your methods and your programme, I am afraid I cannot accept them; for I am fully convinced that it must lead to disaster. But the actual new life that has opened up before the country is that we are faced with a Government that pays no heed to the grievances, feelings and sentiments of the people; that our own countrymen are divided; the Moderate Party is still going wrong; that your methods have already caused split and division in almost every institution that you have approached hitherto, and in the public life of the country not only amongst Hindus and Muslims but between Hindus and Hindus and Muslims and Muslims and even between fathers and sons; people generally are desperate all over the country and your extreme programme has for the moment struck the imagination mostly of the inexperienced youth and the ignorant and the illiterate. All this means complete disorganisation and chaos. What the consequence of this may be, I shudder to contemplate; but I, for one, am convinced that the present policy of the Government is the primary cause of it all and unless that cause is removed, the effects must continue. I have no voice or power to remove the cause; but at the same time I do not wish my countrymen to be dragged to the brink of a precipice in order to be shattered. The only way for the Nationalists is to unite and work for a programme which is universally acceptable for the early attainment of complete responsible government. Such a programme cannot be dictated by any single individual, but must have the approval and support of all the prominent Nationalist leaders in the country; and to achieve this end I am sure my colleagues and myself shall continue to work.”

This was not an intimation of parting of ways but a plea for unity against the British, differences on the methods notwithstanding.

At the Nagpur session in December 1920, Gandhi’s capture of the Congress was complete. Only, it was a victory procured by a Faustian deal with the Ali brothers on Khilafat. Jinnah was in a minority of one. Decades later, Munshi lauded him for his courage. Ian Bryant Wells’ comment is fair: “By taking up the Khilafat issue, he gained substantial support for his own political programme.” Without the Ali brothers’ support, he could not have pushed through his programme.

Before long, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) ordained that Congressmen should give 2,000 yards of hand-spun yarn every month. Jinnah was still not embittered. This is what he said on February 19, 1921: “Undoubtedly Mr. Gandhi was a great man and he had more regard for him than anyone else. But he did not believe in his programme and he could not support it” (The Collected Works of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah; edited by Syed Shatifuddin Pirzada; Vol. I; page 411. Emphasis added throughout). Jinnah attended the Congress’ annual session in Ahmedabad in 1921. The yarn requirement was another matter.

Jinnah knew what was at stake. He accurately predicted that the movement would divide the communities and breed disrespect for law and order. He supported the Khilafat cause, opposed the Ali brothers’ methods, and gave up once Turkey made its own decision. He told the League: “We are not going to rest content until we have attained the fullest political freedom in our own country. Mr. Gandhi has placed his programme of non-cooperation, supported by the authority of the Khilafat Conference, before the country… . The operations of this scheme will strike at the individual in each of you, and therefore it rests with you alone to measure your strength and to weigh the pros and cons of the question before you arrive at a decision. But once you have decided to march, let there be no retreat under any circumstances… . One degrading measure upon another, disappointment upon disappointment, and injury upon injury, can lead a people only to one end. It led Russia to Bolshevism. It has led Ireland to Sinn Feinism. May it lead India to freedom… I would still ask the Government not to drive the people of India to desperation, or else there is no other course left open to the people except to inaugurate the policy of non-cooperation, though not necessarily the programme of Mr. Gandhi.”

He convened a meeting of representative Muslims in Delhi in March 1927, which put forth four major demands. One of these was for a one-third representation in the Central Legislature. A committee of the Congress, set up to examine their import, accepted the demands. Its members were Motilal Nehru, Sarojini Naidu, Maulana Mohammed Ali and Srinivasa Iyengar. The AICC accepted the committee’s views with minor changes.

The Hindu Mahasabha led by Madan Mohan Malaviya opposed these demands, as did Muslims in some provinces. Opposition to the Simon Commission divided the League, but Jinnah supported the Congress in the campaign to boycott this all-White body. The alternative constitutional proposals adopted in the famous Nehru Report dashed Jinnah’s hopes. The Report did not even refer to Jinnah’s proposals, or to their acceptance by the Congress. Jinnah now put forth his 14-points. Their rejection and his personal humiliation at the All-Parties Convention are chapters in a story told several times over. (For a crisp, documented account vide Uma Kaura’s classic Muslims, and Indian Nationalism; Manohar; 1977.)

Three myths must be laid to rest. First, it did not mark “a parting of ways”. Jinnah said in his speech at the Convention: “We are all sons of the soil. We have to live together… If we cannot agree, let us at any rate agree to differ, but let us part as friends.” The second myth is that soon after this Convention, “Jinnah found himself in the company of the Aga Khan” and other reactionaries. The Aga Khan convened an All-India Muslim Conference in Delhi on December 31, 1928, around the same time as the All-Parties Convention on the Nehru Report in Calcutta. Wolpert `records’ how Jinnah came late, looked around and what he wore. It is a fabrication. While the Ali brothers and even radicals like the Leftist poet Maulana Hasrat Mohani participated, in sheer disgust at the outcome of the Calcutta Convention, Jinnah did not. He had rejected the invitation brusquely.

The third is about Motilal Nehru’s attitude. His letter to Gandhi on August 14, 1929, reported his talks with the Hindu Mahasabha leaders: “We agreed that the Hindu opposition to the Muslim demands was to continue and even be stiffened up by the time the Convention was held.” He concluded: “You will see that the stumbling block in our way is this question of one-third Muslim representatives and on this point even the most advanced Musalmans like Dr. M.A. Ansari, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Mr. T.A.K. Sherwani and others are all very strongly in favour of the concession. I would therefore ask you to direct your attention now to the Mahasabha leaving Ali Brothers and Mr. Jinnah to stew in their own juice.” (The Indian Nationalist Movement 1885 – 1947; Select Documents; edited by B.N. Pandey; Macmillan; pages. 63-64). This document establishes that: the convention failed because of the Hindu Mahasabha’s obduracy; Motilal Nehru cooperated with the Mahasabha leaders though he saw no harm in the demand; and the “advanced Musalmans” failed to stand up to the Congress leaders for the community’s rights, which Jinnah did without falling in the Aga Khan’s camp of pro-British reactionaries. This is what made Jinnah truly unique – clarity of thought, moral courage, and sturdy, uncompromising independence. These were the qualities that made him so formidable an adversary later and so tragic in his fall from the ideals he once espoused.

Jinnah continued to cooperate with Gandhi even after Nagpur. In December 1929, he went all the way to Sabarmati Ashram to discuss the Viceroy’s announcement of a Round Table Conference. Documents published recently show Jinnah pleading with the Viceroy on his behalf and that of the Congress in 1929-30. “I am left with the impression that Mr. Gandhi himself is responsible,” he wrote.

His wife Ruttie’s death in her 30th year, on February 20, 1929, shook Jinnah to the core. He withdrew from society and became distant. To think that it changed his political outlook is to underestimate the man’s commitment and to fly in the face of the record. Even in 1937, eight years later, he saw “no difference between the ideals of the Muslim League and of the Congress, the ideal being complete freedom for India”.

On July 21, 1937, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to Rajendra Prasad: “During the general election in U.P. [United Provinces] there was not any conflict between the Congress and the Muslim League.” With characteristic Nehruvian consistency, he proposed “the winding up of the Muslim League group in the U.P. and its absorption in the Congress”.

In later years, Azad professing, as ever, superior wisdom pinned the blame on Nehru. It was Azad, not Nehru, who gave the surrender terms to Khaliquzzaman: the League’s group “shall cease to function as a separate group” (for the text vide Indian Politics 1936-1942; by R. Coupland; Oxford University Press; page 111). Sapru’s letter to B. Shiva Rao of The Hindu, dated November 16, 1940, referred to his experience of “party dictatorship or Congress Ministries wherever they have existed… . So long as these people were in power they treated everybody else with undisguised contempt”. That experience led him to believe that the “Western type of majority rule in India will not do. And we shall have to come to some arrangement by which we may take along with us the minorities in matters of general interest” (Crusader for Self-Rule; Rima Hooja; Rawat Publishers; page 280). This is precisely what Jinnah came to hold and for the same reason – the Congress’ refusal to share power.

He had received short shrift from Gandhi and the British at the Round table Conference in London and decided in desperation to settle down there. Returning to India, he arrived at a pact with Rajendra Prasad in 1934, in which he abandoned separate electorates. In the light of 1928, he insisted that the Congress secure the Mahasabha’s assent as well (for the text vide Marguerite Dove’s Forfeited Future; page 462). Nehru, however, went so far as to assert: “There are only two parties in the county, the Congress and the government.” Jinnah retorted: “There is a third party in the country and that is the Muslims.” If in 1928 Jayakar questioned Jinnah’s credentials as a representative, in 1937 Nehru did likewise: “May I suggest to Mr. Jinnah that I come into greater touch with the Muslim masses than most of the members of the League.” The Congress, at one remove Nehru himself, represented everybody and would lay down the terms for the future.

Jinnah accepted the challenge and built up through mass politics a representative capacity that stunned all. Nothing in his past should have surprised any. Men like Mohammed Iqbal and Maulana Mohammed Ali had come to regard him as the “only” Muslim leader. At the League’s session in October 1937, Jinnah pleaded: “Let the Congress first bring all principal communities in the country and all principal classes of interest under its leadership.” He had in mind, not merger, but “a pact”, a concept he had “always believed in”. But Nehru had no use for “pacts” between “handfuls of upper-class people”. Jinnah, in his view, represented them alone. There really was no “minority problem”. The people were concerned with bread and butter. Economic issues alone mattered.

Jinnah laid bare his heart in a much neglected speech at Aligarh in February 1938 in which he recalled the past: “At that time there was no pride in me and I used to beg from the Congress.” The first “shock” came at the RTC; the next, in 1937. “The Musalmans were like the No Man’s land. They were led by either the flunkeys of the British government or the camp-followers of the Congress… . The only hope for minorities is to organise themselves and secure a definite share in power to safeguard their rights and interests.”

He had said in October 1937 that “all safeguards and settlements would be a scrap of paper unless they were backed up by power”. In Britain the parties alternate in holding power. “But such is not the case in India. Here we have a permanent Hindu majority… .”

This is where Jinnah’s recipe went disastrously wrong. The solution lay, not in aggravating the communal divide by his two-nation theory; but in the tactics of the Jinnah of old – mobilise both communities, espouse secular values and seek protection for the rights of all minorities as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had urged him to do.

Jinnah refashioned the League and made it a progressive body. He told the students at the AMU: “What the League has done is to set you free from the reactionary elements of Muslims and to create the opinion that those who play their selfish game are traitors. It has certainly freed you from that undesirable element of Maulvis and Maulanas. I am not speaking of Maulvis as a whole class. There are some of them who are as patriotic and sincere as any other but there is a section of them which is undesirable. Having freed ourselves from the clutches of the British government, the Congress, the reactionaries and so-called Maulvis, may I appeal to the youth to emancipate our women.” Later he delivered “a warning to the landlords and capitalists who have flourished at our expense” (J. Ahmad; Vol. I; pages 39, 43 and 507).

What was his alternative, the Viceroy asked Jinnah. He replied on October 5, 1939, that “an escape from the impasse … lay in the adoption of Partition”. His article in Time and Tide of London on January 19, 1940, spoke of “two nations who must both share in the governance of their common motherland… so that the present enmities may cease and India may take its part amongst the great nations of the world” – as one nation. An identical contradiction was made in his speech of August 11, 1947: “a nation of 400 million”. The Pakistan Resolution of March 23, 1940, did not refer to the two-nation theory that Jinnah now began to advocate with greater stridency. It envisaged in the last paragraph an interim centre prior to partition, which Ambedkar alone noted. Even 24 hours before its adoption, the draft provided for a limited centre (vide the writer’s article, “The Partition of India”; Frontline; January 4, 2002).

In a real sense our leaders were a profoundly ignorant and arrogant lot. They failed the crucial test which Edmund Burke propounded in his Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents written in 1770. He held that “the temper of the people amongst whom he presides ought to be the first duty of a Statesman. And the knowledge of this temper it is by no means impossible for him to attain, if he has not an interest in being ignorant of what it is his duty to learn”.

It is not any “interest” alone which prevents self-education. So does Hubris. Jinnah, Gandhi and Nehru were men of colossal pride and vanity beyond the ordinary. Jinnah should have known that besides the inherent falsity of the poisonous concept, a nationalism based on religion degenerates into violent sectarianism. Gandhi acting as “the supreme leader” never seriously strove for conciliation in a plural society. Nehru denied the validity of the concept itself. Both spurned Jinnah. He painted himself into a corner from which he did not know how to escape.

We know in retrospect how and why things went wrong. Jinnah did not devise a formula for power-sharing in a united India. The Congress was adamant against sharing power with him. Nehru forgot the lessons of 1914 when socialists expected the workers to rise against their governments when they went to war. The workers turned out to be more chauvinistic than the “upper classes”. So it was with communal feeling in a deeply religious society which Nehru least understood. Neither did Jinnah. He espoused the two-nation theory. While its consequences affect India, it holds his own state hostage.

We now find the problem of a “permanent majority” in all plural societies in Europe, Asia and Africa. On December 20, 1986, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam’s spokesman in Madras (now Chennai) said “two nations… coexist in one country”. The LTTE does not propound sincerely a “viable alternative to Eelam”, though.

Arend Lijphart’s seminal work, Democracy in Plural Societies, published in 1982, propounded the concept of “consociational democracy”. This would have been unthinkable to the Congress. It implied a national pact on power sharing. Safeguards are not enough. Empowerment is crucial.

From 1906 to 1936, the basis for discourse on the minority problem in India was a pact on safeguards for the minorities. What Jinnah said at the RTC in London on September 5, 1931, was conventional wisdom then: “The new Constitution should provide for reasonable guarantees to Muslims and if they are not provided, the new Constitution is sure to break down.” Jawaharlal Nehru had no patience with anything that preceded his arrival on the scene of Indian politics. In a letter to Gandhi on September 11, 1931, he branded Jinnah’s proposition as “narrow communalism”.

Nehru’s was a nationalism that denied the very fundamentals of Indian society, so far removed was he from the realities. Even Jinnah’s moderation in 1931 was of no avail against Nehru’s obdurate refusal to recognise that minorities were entitled to some rights. Nehru’s was an absolutist secularism garnished with a socialism that he could only dimly perceive. A colossal intellectual failure all round produced a tragedy of cataclysmic proportions. Tragedy, it has been said, lies not so much in the conflict between good and evil as between one good force and another.

Like Nehru, Jinnah also shattered the established basis of discourse. Nehru did so on the minorities’ rights, Jinnah on India’s unity; Nehru in arrogant ignorance, Jinnah in arrogant reliance on his tactical skills. Jinnah’s greatness lay in the pre-1940 record when he was a tireless conciliator, a real statesman. Both men were secularists. Therein lies the tragedy. Nehru harmed secularism by denying the legitimacy of minority rights. Jinnah ruined it by the two-nation theory.

The leaders drifted apart not only politically but also in personal estrangement. After 1937, Jinnah’s rhetoric became abusive. Gandhi did not spare comments of a personal nature, either.

In the aftermath of Partition, rhetoric on both sides, Indian and Pakistani, verged on abuse. Pakistanis questioned Nehru’s sincerity as a secularist. On the Indian side, a portrait of Jinnah came to be painted of a man rude, arrogant and bereft of humanity. Sarojini Naidu’s was a portrait of a man of deep sensitivity and refinement: “a naive and eager humanity, an intuition quick and tender as a woman’s, a humour gay and winning as a child’s”.

Unlike Chagla, Jinnah’s other junior, Yusuf Meheralli, went to prison and courageously argued back with him. But he never denigrated Jinnah. He told an American reporter: “After half an hour’s conversation with Jinnah one returns a devotee.” Men as diverse as V.P. Menon, Frank Moraes, P.B. Gajendragadkar, A.S.R. Chari, Mohammed Yunus and M.O. Mathai have testified to Jinnah’s warmth and impeccable good manners. He would argue patiently with the young.

The great short-story writer Sadat Hasan Manto interviewed Jinnah’s chauffeur and wrote an essay, “Mera Saheb” (My Boss), which was published in a collection called Ganje Farishte (Bald Angels). An English translation was published in the Illustrated Weekly of India of February 10, 1985, by Mr. Ghazeli (a pen name, of course). It reveals a man intensely human and in pain. Whenever memories of his dead wife and estranged daughter possessed him, their clothes would be spread out on the carpet for a while. He would then walk to his bedroom, wiping tears. Memoirs of his ADC Ata Rabhani, I was the Quaid’s ADC (Oxford University Press; 1996) reveal a clubbable gentleman.

But the caricature of “whiskey, pork and Savile Row suit” came to stay. No one mentioned two respected Congress presidents who were devotees of Bachus. One, a man of religion, was a notorious alcoholic; the other, a lawyer, was a notorious addict. In a state of inebriation he once kicked a bucket containing food; the guests fled. Jinnah’s neighbour in New Delhi, Sir Sobha Singh, recalled that he always drank in strict moderation.

Remember, Jinnah was eagerly sought after to sit on committees. A good committee man must be a good listener with a talent for compromise. No one cares to ask why it was that while Jinnah got along famously with Tilak, Malaviya and Lajpat Rai, he had problems with Gandhi. “Lalaji had generally not much difficulty in working with M.A. Jinnah.” They would walk into each other’s room with ease “sometimes several times in the course of the same day… and go together to Malaviyaji to continue the discussion” (Lajpat Rai by Feroz Chand; Publications Division; page 499).

That people were surprised when Jinnah’s stout defence of Bhagat Singh in the Assembly was brought to light recently shows how little he was understood. “The man who goes on a hunger strike has a soul. He is moved by that soul” and was prepared to die for the cause, Jinnah thundered. Few had as good a record on civil liberties. “I thoroughly endorse the principle, that while this measure should aim at those undesirable persons who indulge in wanton vilification or attack upon the religion of any particular class or upon the founders and prophets of a religion, we must also secure this very important and fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in bonafide and honest criticisms of a religion shall be protected” (CW, Vol. III, page 208). (Vide the writer’s essay “Jinnah’s commitment to liberalism”; Economic and Political Weekly; January 13, 1990.)

Yet, it is doubtful if, in the entire history of India’s struggle for freedom, anyone else has been subjected to such a sustained, determined denigration and demonisation as Jinnah has been from 1940 to this day, by almost everyone – from the leaders at the very top to academics and journalists. In his Autobiography Nehru maliciously caricatured him as one who distrusted, if not disliked, the masses and attributed to him a suggestion, he “once privately” made, that “only matriculates should be taken into the Congress”. No authority for this palpable falsehood is cited. Jinnah was not one to make such a remark privately which went against his entire outlook. Nehru wrote thus in 1936. Nearly two decades earlier Jinnah’s strong assertion to the contrary was made publicly and in London on August 13, 1919, in his evidence before the Joint Select Committee of Parliament on the Government of India Bill.

The Secretary of State for India Edwin Montagu was downright rude: “Question 3633: How long have you been in public life Mr. Jinnah? – (Answer) Since I was twenty-one (i.e. 1897). 3634: Have you ever known any proposal come from any government which met with your approval? – Oh, Yes… 3636: You must have felt very uncomfortable?… ”

Major Ormsby “Q 3810: You speak really as an Indian Nationalist? – I do.” Lord Islington asked: “Q 3884: You would say that there are people in India who though they may be not literate, have a sufficient interest in the welfare of the country to entitle them to a vote? – I think so, and I think they have a great deal of common sense… . I was astonished when I attended a meeting of mill hands in Bombay when I heard some of the speeches, and most of them were illiterates.” Could such a man have made the suggestion Nehru attributed to him in 1936? Not surprisingly, in 1937 Jinnah converted the League into a mass organisation, pledged to complete independence.

Interestingly, the next day Jinnah took his wife Ruttie to the theatre. He had as a student performed in plays and even toyed with the idea of becoming an actor. When they returned home, a little after midnight Ruttie gave birth to their daughter Dina. It was on August 14-15, 1919, a devoted friend of both recorded (Ruttie Jinnah: The Story of a Great Friendship; Kanji Dwarkadas; page 18).

Addressing the League in 1924, Jinnah proudly noted that “the ordinary man in the street has found his political consciousness”. He mentioned “Mahatma Gandhi” and threatened that if the British did not respond Indians should “as a last resort make the government by legislature impossible” and resort to “parliamentary obstruction and constitutional deadlocks”. This was the language of a Congressman, not liberals like Sapru.

Most of Jinnah’s friends were non-Muslim and they remembered him affectionately. Kanji Dwarkadas’ two volumes of memoirs, India’s Fight for Freedom and Ten Years to Freedom, are well documented. K.M. Munshi said “Jinnah warned Gandhiji not to encourage the fanaticism of Muslim religious leaders” in the Khilafat movement. He wrote in his Pilgrimage to Freedom (1968): “When Gandhiji forced Jinnah and his followers out of the Home Rule League and later the Congress, we all felt, with Jinnah that a movement of an unconstitutional nature, sponsored by Gandhiji with the tremendous influence he had acquired over the masses, would inevitably result in widespread violence, barring the progressive development of self-governing institutions based on a partnership between educated Hindus and Muslims. To generate coercive power in the masses would only provoke mass conflict between the two communities, as in fact it did. With his keen sense of realities Jinnah firmly set his face against any dialogue with Gandhiji on this point.”

Even so Jinnah did not part company with him. Three other episodes followed – the Nehru Report, the RTC in London, and the Congress’ arrogance of power (1937-39). He appealed to Gandhi in 1937, through B.G. Kher, to tackle the situation. Jinnah drew a blank.

Belatedly, on December 6, 1945, Gandhi confided to the Governor of Bengal, R.G. Casey: “Jinnah had told him that he (Gandhi) had ruined politics in India by dragging up a lot of unwholesome elements in Indian life and giving them political prominence, that it was a crime to mix up politics and religion the way he had done.”

In 1936, even as he set out mobilising Muslim support, Jinnah refused to exploit the Shahidganj Mosque issue in Lahore and doused the fires. Jinnah was no Advani (vide the author’s article “Ayodhya in reverse”; Frontline, February 16, 2000). The Governor of Punjab wrote: “I am greatly indebted to the efforts of Mr. Jinnah for this improvement and I wish to pay an unqualified tribute to the work he has done and is doing.”

Pothan Joseph was handpicked by Jinnah to be Editor of the League’s organ Dawn. He recalled that “there was no trace of pressure or censure and he was anxious to test his views by inviting criticism in the seclusion of his drawing room… the notion of his having been a common bully in argument is fantastic, for the man was a great listener… he was really a man with a heart, but determined never to be duped or see friends let down. He didn’t care a hang about being misrepresented as Mir Jaffer or Judas Iscariot. No one could buy him nor would he allow himself to be betrayed by a kiss.”

Amazingly, Jinnah’s superb record as an MP remains yet to be studied – as a member of the Central Legislative Assembly he spoke on a variety of subjects; the Motor Vehicles and the Post Office Acts included. On March 10, 1930, he denounced the restrictive orders imposed on Vallabhbhai Patel and on January 22, 1935, the detention of Sarat Bose. He emulated the combative style of British MPs. The British, arrogant as ever, resented it. Indians, thin-skinned, took it personally.

Dewan Chaman Lall, a close friend for 30 years and a noted Congress MP, recalled Jinnah’s efforts for settlement before and after 1940 and said in 1950: “He was a lovable, unsophisticated man, whatever may be said to the contrary. And he was unpurchasable.”

Sarojini Naidu did not change her opinion of the man even after he began to advocate partition. She described him at a press conference in Madras on January 18, 1945, as the one incorruptible man in the whole of India. “I may not agree with him, but if there is one who cannot be bought by title, honour or position, it is Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah.” Predictably Nehru was “upset” by her “excessively foolish speech” (SWJN: First Series; Vol. 13, page 546).

Surely, any decent biography, any honest appraisal must reckon with the entire record. No serious effort has been made to explain the change. Why did a man who wrote on March 17, 1938, that “it is the duty of every true nationalist, to whichever party or community he may belong, to help achieve a united front” against the British advocate the partition of India on March 23, 1940? Why, indeed?

The reason is not hard to seek. Jinnah was an Indian nationalist who did not believe that nationalism meant turning one’s back on the rights of one’s community. The Congress stipulated that, virtually. Its shabby record on Muslims in the Congress bears recalling; some day Jinnah lost his balance, abandoned Indian nationalism and inflicted on both his nation and his community harm of lasting consequences. Nehru, in contrast, stood by the secular ideal till his dying day.

Pakistanis, on the other hand, wilfully shut their eyes to Jinnah’s grave mistakes and canonise him. They overlook the damage inflicted on Pakistan itself, let alone the Muslims of India.

Jinnah’s record from 1906 to 1940 does not obliterate the record of 1940-48 any more than Nehru’s brave fight, against all odds, for secularism in India or Gandhi’s conscious choice of martyrdom alters the record prior to 1947. Gandhi knew his life was in peril, but did not compromise and did not flinch one bit.

The record prior to 1940 only deepens the tragedy that befell Jinnah, and because of him, the India he loved and the community whose interests he sought to advance. Responsibility for the partition was not his exclusively; but his share was enormous.

The League’s Resolution of March 23, 1940, brought partition into the realm of the possible. The collapse of the Cabinet Mission’s Plan of May 16, 1946, for a united India dragged it into the abyss of inevitability. For this, Jinnah was not a bit responsible. That phase deserves a closer study than it has received.

Indians and Pakistanis must come to terms with Jinnah’s record in its entirety. He was of a heroic mould but fell prey to bitterness and the poison that bitterness breeds. In the present age, some will be talking of his virtues; others of his failings alone. Posterity alone will do him justice.

Some day, the verdict of history on Jinnah will be written definitively. When it is written, that verdict will be in the terms Gibbon used for Belisarius: “His imperfections flowed from the contagion of the times; his virtues were his own, the free gift of nature or reflection. He raised himself without a master or a rival and so inadequate were the arms committed to his hand, that his sole advantage was derived from the pride and presumption of his adversaries” (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; The Modern Library; Vol. II, page 240).


Written by

Filed under: Jinnah, Pakistan, Partition · Tags: , , , , , , ,

467 Responses to "Partition of India: The Dialogue continues"

  1. Bin Ismail Pakistan Unknow Browser Unknow Os says:

    @ Bade Miya (September 16, 2010 at 7:20 am)

    “…..one can argue that a mature democracy would not give grounds for such a protest…..”

    Even the most mature and established of democracies tend to give grounds for such protests, and that too, quite generously. One does note, however, that in democracies where literacy levels are higher, such protests are generally less violent. This unfortunately, is a luxury that nations like ours do not enjoy.

    “…..Would you have argued differently had the lawyer’s movement in Pakistan led to formation of a more enlightened democratic government?…..”

    Such protests have an innate propensity to turn violent. Therefore, I would not have argued differently. It is the violent outcome of such protests, that in my opinion, is the darkest aspect of such activities.

    “…..What are your views about the protest in Kashmir?…..”

    Loss of human life and property and destruction is not something that can be advocated. In my opinion, mass scale violence and riots, even if politically successful, still tend to leave scars that live through generations. Such scars have the potential of keeping the flame of hatred alive for a long time.

  2. due Germany Unknow Browser Unknow Os says:

    The past is full of people misunderstanding each other.
    Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru, Mountbatten and so on…

    Let us just say they misunderstood each other and move on.

    What is the solution for today’s mess?
    Who can implement?

    Old books and dead persons are not going to help us a bit. If intelligent people keep talking about all this dead stuff then the less-intelligent will be misled and take to them even more fanatically.

    Our lands are full of the less-intelligent (not for any racial reasons but for want of good education).

    Break out of this old-book worship and dead-men worship. PTH is going waste. Is there no one on the PTH panel to stop these outpourings? I am sick of reading them all over again and again.

  3. Bin Ismail Pakistan Unknow Browser Unknow Os says:

    @ due (September 17, 2010 at 8:25 pm)

    “…..Old books and dead persons are not going to help us a bit…..”

    For as long as the contents of an “old book” are fresh and applicable, it is adoptable. And for as long as the thoughts, words and actions of a “dead person” offer us an example worth emulating, the memory and mention of that dead person will remain to be inspiring.

  4. KMR Overseas Egypt Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Enough of talk related to Jinnah. Impossible this man secular at any point of time. The notion of Jinnah secular is pure lie.
    Also there is no way Pakistan rejoin India.

  5. Harimau Iyer India Internet Explorer Windows says:

    The only lie that has not been said about Jinnah is this.

    “Jinnah said that Hindus and Muslims are like peas in a pod and will happily live together in the same country.”

    Every other lie, including that he did not ask for the Partition of India, is being propagated! It doesn’t matter he asked for Pakistan.

    Wow, it just struck me! You are all correct in claiming that Jinnah didn’t want the Partition of India.

    He wanted all of India to be named Pakistan and the Hindus in it to live as dhimmis!

    Wow!

  6. Deep United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Jinnah was clearly uncomfortable with the mass movement nature of Gandhi’s initiatives. He was comfortable with all the other Indians who were content to lobby the british from the comforts of their homes and cities. I see Gandhi as not so much a man of big ideas and a man of action who believed that the end cannot justify the means. I am glad we had Gandhi. If not for his enduring ideas and those of Nehru, India would not have survived the first turbulent decade.

  7. Chikna United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    “Pashtuns in Pakistan, regardless of their spread, are still a visibly unassimilated ethnic group who proudly retain their culture. If Pashtun officers get nukes and point them at Islamabad, that’d be for Islamabad to deal with, but I’d suspect that Islamabad would do the same thing it did in 1971, by stripping Bengali officers of duty (remember, Bengalis were 55% of Pakistan’s entire population, but that didn’t keep Islamabad from cleansing them out of the army)

    As far as northern Afghanistan is concerned, the current political divide means that nobody even has to formally declare independence, because as long as the Pashtuns and nonPashtuns of Afghanistan continue to live in separate worlds and political dispensations, it means that the Pashtuns will naturally gravitate towards each other. The Afghan conflict of the 1990s offers ample evidence.

    You saw what happened when Pakistan tried to get their longtime pre-Taliban Pashtun stooge Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to accept the Durand Line – even a stooge like him refused. This is one of the reasons Pakistan yanked support from Hekmatyar and created Taliban. No Pashtun will accept the Durand Line which artificially splits them. That’s why a desperate Pakistan is hoping to swallow the whole of Afghanistan, because it knows it can’t pry the Pashtuns on either side of the non-existent Durand Line apart from each others. Stealing the sovereignty of Afghanistan and subordinating it to Pakistan’s will isn’t going to solve the problems of the region. Kashmir is only a downstream symptom of the Pashtun problem, as I’ve already established, and as such it can’t remove the Pashtun problem which is the ultimate root cause of Pakistan’s behaviour. Constantly squawking about Kashmir is merely Pakistan’s way of diverting everyone’s attention away from the real root problem, which is why I feel it necessary to draw attention right back to that root problem that Pakistan doesn’t want us all to talk about.Pretending that Kashmir is the real problem is just escapism and unwillingness to face the root cause. I can see why Pakistan wants to escape and hide from the real problem, because it’s not something they can easily deal with. However, trying to shift blame for the underlying Pashtun problem onto India by claiming that it’s really Kashmir as the problem, simply isn’t going accomplish anything.

    The Pashtun problem is the preceding problem – it’s the root cause of all of Pakistan’s external conflicts: conflict with Afghanistan, conflict with India, conflict with the Soviets, conflict with the USA.

    By ducking the real problem, Pakistan is only going to make its conflicts worse, until external adversity completely overwhelms it. Currently, Pakistan is counting on China to save its butt, however Pakistan’s pursuit of increasing Islamist jihadism as a solution will only eventually set all of Central Asia on fire, including Xinjiang. Eventually China will turn against Pakistan, just as Islamabad’s previous patron the USA likewise has begun to turn against it. Pakistan will of course refuse to accept blame even then, and will finally even blame China, which it currently calls its “all-weather friend”. The “all-weather friend” won’t stay so friendly after Pakistan has set Xinjiang on fire.

    But the real problemm is searching for balls bending over at the feet of Abrahamic snakeoil salesman.

    I had a dream … not a dream but a nightmare

    I had switched off the lights and was sleeping in the interior room of our haweli with my brothers, sisters and parents. Suddenly I lost the two balls which I always had. I started searching in the room for those balls in dark. Some thing.. I guess it was weird noise of thumping of a book made me come out of the haweli. There was this bearded old man in green (OMG) robe with a book in one hand and very old snake oil lantern in other. I had seen him entering our village a day before. OMG was a snake oil salesman by trade. He told me to start searching the balls under the oil lamp near his feet.

    I – “but I lost the balls inside in the haweli. Please give me that lantern so that I can search the balls where they were lost”

    OMG – “it does not matter, bend over and start searching under my feet.”

    I – “Why?”

    OMG – Because the book in my hand says so.

    I – what is this book?

    OMG – this is divine God’s book.

    I – where does it say so?

    OMG – you cannot understand so I need to read to you and make you understand.

    Then OMG starts reading some lines in alien language. I do not understand a bit. OMG makes me bend over and search under his feet while he was reading those lines.

    After a while he stops reading and tells me..

    OMG – the book also says that if you search for your balls under my feet then not only you will get your lost balls but also get the balls of your brothers and fatrher’s and even of your cousins and uncles who live in the next door. Imagine how rich and powerful you will be with so many balls. To get others balls you need to bring them to my feet and to bend over.

    Now I forgot about my own lost balls and started desiring more and more of others balls. To bring others to his feet first I only thumped books but later I started forcefully bring my brothers and cousins. To wake more people and bring them to OMG’s feet for bending over and searching balls one of my cousin came up with a great idea of using the Oil of OMG to set fire to the whole Mohalla. That is what we did! Whole mohalla and nearby neighborhood gutted in the fire. Snakeoil Abrahmic salesman had a vicarious laughter. Now every one was bending over and searching the balls under the lamp which OMG only possessed. Long time passed…

    Truly we had reached the nadir of bestiality and stupidity.

    ===

    Wake up!

    The alien book could be of 4th century, 7th century or 19th century. The bearded OM could have alien white, green or red (topi) garb.

  8. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Pakistan Opera Windows says:

    SAFMA BAN
    SAFMA BAN
    SAFMA BAN
    SAFMA BAN

  9. Prasad India Google Chrome Windows says:

    Chikna//Wake up!
    The alien book could be of 4th century, 7th century or 19th century. The bearded OM could have alien white, green or red (topi) garb//

    Alien book with guns and globe is still extremely important for India coz this logo of IM results in periodic bomb blasts !! book hasnt reached its end as yet

    rabid islam is the bane of humanity…no religion is so violent…and certainly no religion bent backwards after its inception!!

    For instance islam in 600 AD was the most modern religion of its time and hence many races immediately embraced islam…since it was very close to modern science of those times. The founder of Islam wanted to truly create a modern society devoid of caste/creed/pagan beliefs etc…a revolutionary idea indeed. But lack of flexibility has resulted in total destruction of this noble thought called islam.

    Not sure how bombing innocent people is solving problems of muslims in India and further appeasing allah

    Profound problems of Indian population will ensure we will never solve this for decades. Only solution is education ( not the dirty madrasa one but mainstream!)

  10. Akram Malik United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Education is nothing to do it is just for knowledge .Why at the air port of India Pakistan Bangladesh high educated people takes bribe openly.Only solution is the punishment for doing anything wrong if it is small or big .Most of the population of the above countries are having trouble with educated Babus all over the country.Because the Mainstream educated people know how to fool the others even they are more educated then them.When they hold your file you can not do anything no matter you are Ghandi Ginah sunee shiea ahmidee pashtoon sikh parsee White or Black Yellow Blue ………….

  11. smith Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    someone need donation via paypal and alertpay click here

  12. Definitely imagine that that you stated. Your favorite justification appeared to be on the internet the simplest thing to be aware of.

    I say to you, I definitely get annoyed even as people think about worries that they plainly do not know about.
    You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest and also
    outlined out the whole thing with no need side
    effect , people could take a signal. Will probably be again to get more.

    Thanks

  13. Link exchange is nothing else but it is only placing the other person’s weblog link on your page at suitable place and other person will also do similar for you.

  14. AKB Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Nothing will help the critics of Jinnah to undermine his position. Jinnah had a mission and he accomplished it well by knocking down all his opponents. It’s now too late to ‘judge’ him otherwise and that would only be falsity. Jinnah created Pakistan as a result of religious impetus over him. He couldn’t go aganist the stream and ended up with an Islamic or Muslim state. It is another thing that the state he created could not prove true to his dreams but it is a fact that Jinnah faced pressure from Muslims and had to give up his pants and coat and switch over to sherwani pajama’s with topi over his head. He also said his Namaz at Eidgah karachi….It’s just like Zaiul haq giving up his Pallmall ciggies after criticized over his smoking foreign brand …How hypocrisy works is strange thing ununderstandable by weaker judgmental minds. Ofcourse, to some part Jinnah was led by the thrust of the waves to demand what his proponents wanted….and he got them that!! So far so good!
    The old chapter must now be closed…………because it’s already ‘past and closed’ and digging it further will only create confusion and add to unnecessary qualified remarks about him and the creation of Pakistan or division of India on religious basis. It is not true that states cannot be found on religious basis…they have been found even in the modern times…another strong element which augments splitting of a country is ethnic diversity and language. It’s again Mother India’s turn to give birth to new babies!!

  15. AKB Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    BHARAT MAATA DIES KUNDALINI IN THE LAP OF US!!
    .
    Independence In The Pocket Of The US: “Mera Pyara Bharat?”
    By Colin Todhunter

    /

    With a population of 1.2 billion people, many believe that India is the arena where the future direction of humanity is being played out. Mired in poverty and still bound by tradition, it is on an insatiable quest for modernity. With 17 per cent of the global population, the route to development chosen by India will impact the people living here and elsewhere throughout the planet. However, the future of humanity may not be determined in India, but by events in a much smaller country – Syria.
    .
    When the Soviet Union (USSR) fell apart, there was much talk from the US of a multi-polar world, where Washington would be just one influential player among many – a world where an autonomous India would play a vital role. It was nice sounding talk. But that’s all it was – talk. In the wake of the collapse of the USSR, the US has been hell-bent on achieving global superiority.
    .
    The US’s orbit of influence has extended throughout Eastern Europe and into many of the former Soviet states in central Asia. While Bush senior was mouthing media-friendly words about multi-polarity, Dick Cheney was at the same time stating that the US sought world domination. Look no further to see the US track record by casting your mind back to events in Yugoslavia, Libya and Iraq. Look no further to see its role currently in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan. To date, the US has been responsible for millions of deaths and maimings in its quest for superiority, but its project now appears to be reaching a critical point.
    .
    Unfortunately for the Obama regime, it’s no longer the early 1990s when the US believed it reined supreme and Russia was in disarray and China still relatively weak. China has emerged as a genuine global player and Russia has a new-found confidence under Putin. If China and Russia thought Libya was a pawn worth sacrificing, they regard the more significant Syria as a different matter entirely.
    .
    A former Soviet ally that still has strong links with Russia, Syria plays host to Russia’s only naval base outside of the former USSR. That in itselfn is something the Russians think is worth defending, given their build up of naval forces in the eastern Mediterranean and their military hardware supplies to Syria. Both Russia and China know that if the US, its allies and its proxy Free Syrian Army topple the Assad government, all roads then lead to oil rich Tehran.
    .
    Controlling Iran’s oil would serve many purposes, not least strengthening the value of the faltering dollar and US economy by ensuring the dollar remains in high demand as the global currency for oil trade – a situation threatened by various countries, including Iran, that have moved off the dollar.
    .
    But the US will not stop with Iran. Moscow and Beijing are also firmly in Washington’s plans for destabilization too via exploiting political and ethnic divisions, especially in the border regions of Russia and China.
    .
    Syria is to all intents and purposes the scene of a cold war between the US and its allies and Russia and China. It’s a high-stakes game because some within the Pentagon think it’s better to draw China into a military conflict now, when it can still be defeated, rather than later. Syria or Iran could be the powder keg that achieves this goal.
    .
    Of course, Washington knows that if military confrontation can be avoided, even better. And, to this end, much US foreign policy is now directed towards undermining China’s growth and outmaneuvering it across the globe. While China lost ground in Libya, it is loathe to do so in the much more strategically important countries of Syria, Iran and Pakistan.
    .
    With a massive build up of NATO forces in the Mediterranean, what we are witnessing in Syria has all the ingredients that could lead to a third world war, especially given the Russian presence there as well. The tens of millions lost in the first two wars would be a fraction of the possible billions who would perish this time around, given that the three main protagonists – the US, China and Russia – all have nuclear arsenals.
    .
    As far as India is concerned, the US regards it as playing a key part in its geo-political aims by containing China and not as some equal, autonomous partner in a mythological multi-polar world. And, unfortunately, India has been moving increasingly closer to the US in recent years and, by implication, complying with its hegemony. But imagine for a moment a world where India pursues a more independent path that would be strident in its rejection of predatory capitalism and US-led militarism in Syria and
    elsewhere.
    .
    Imagine a model of development that would in fact be inspired by particular policies adopted by the likes of Cuba, Bhutan, Venezuela, Costa Rica and Bolivia, which place strong emphasis on health, ‘happiness’, education and bio-diverse agriculture and not least on the rights of indigenous peoples, sustainability, respect for the environment and/or common ownership
    .
    As 15 August approaches when people will wrap themselves in the national flag and chant “Mera pyara Bharat”, India’s role in the world is worth considering because, for some, ‘independence’ for India is almost becoming a euphemism for living in the pocket of the US. Depending on the nation’s ability to switch track, however, it could yet positively influence the future of humanity after all.

  16. AKB Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    HINDIA IS WORSE THAN PAKISTAN!!

    /

    How the political class has looted India
    A. G. Noorani
    / http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3700211.ece
    The Hindu
    TOPICS
    crime, law and justice corruption & bribery
    election political candidates
    politics election
    politics
    /
    Politicians dutifully disclose their increasing assets at each election but no questions are ever asked about how they acquired this wealth nor are any explanations provided

    “Study these four men washing down the steps of this unpalatable Bombay hotel. The first pours water from a bucket, the second scratches the tiles with a twig broom, the third uses a rag to slop the dirty water down the steps into another bucket, which is held by the fourth. After they have passed, the steps are as dirty as before… They are not required to clean,” but simply to execute an assigned duty. V.S. Naipaul’s famous remarks in his early work An Area of Darkness aptly describes the sheer futility of the ritual disclosures of assets by election candidates. The media performs its duty, each time, of comparing the latest figures with the ones disclosed only a few years earlier; marvelling each time at the talent our political class has of amassing money in a short time with none to demand that they account for the dramatic increase. We have moved far from the early days of independence when Rajaji described the tribe as gentlemen without any ostensible means of livelihood who can be rounded up by any magistrate on a charge of vagrancy. At whose expense have they acquired this wealth? And to whom should it be returned?

  17. AKB Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    NAI TEHZEEB KE GANDAY ANDAY

    ,

    Women Employed by New York Lawmaker Describe Sexually Hostile Office

    Five women who worked for Vito J. Lopez, the assemblyman from Brooklyn at the center of a growing sexual harassment scandal, described in interviews an atmosphere of sexual pressure and crude language in his office, with frequent unwanted advances by him and others, requests for provocative dress, personal questions about their boyfriends and fears of reprisals if they complained.

    By their accounts, Mr. Lopez told some women not to wear bras to work. He requested they ///////////

    Read More:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/nyregion/women-employed-by-vito-j-lopez-describe-sexually-hostile-office.html?emc=na

Leave a Reply

*


3 × = eighteen

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>