Pak Tea House » Pakistan » Jaswant's Jinnah
Jaswant's Jinnah
By Karan Thapar
There’s a book published tomorrow that deserves to be widely read. It’s Jaswant Singh’s biography of Jinnah. Read on and you’ll discover why.
Singh’s view of Jinnah is markedly different to the accepted Indian image. He sees him as a nationalist, even accepting that Jinnah was a great Indian. I’ll even add he admires Jinnah and I’m confident he won’t disagree when I interview him tonight on CNN-IBN.
The critical question this biography raises is how did the man they called the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity in 1916 end up as the Qaid-e-Azam of Pakistan in 1947? The answer: he was pushed by the Congress’s repeated inability to accept that Muslims feared domination by Hindus and wanted “space” in “a re-assuring system”. Singh’s account of how the Congress refused to form a government with the Muslim League in UP in 1937, after fighting the election in alliance, except on terms that would have amounted to its dissolution, suggests Jinnah’s fears were real and substantial.
The biography does not depict Jinnah as the only or even the principal villain of Partition. Nehru and Mountbatten share equal responsibility. While the book reveals that Gandhi, Rajagopalachari and Azad understood the Muslim fear of Congress majoritarianism, Nehru could not. If there is a conclusion, it is that had the Congress accepted a decentralised, federal India, then a united India “was clearly ours to attain”. The problem: “this was an anathema to Nehru’s centralising approach and policies”.
Singh’s assessment of Partition is striking. After asserting that it “multiplied our problems without solving any communal issue,” he asks “if the communal, the principal issue, remains…. in an even more exacerbated form than before… then why did we divide at all?” The hinted answer is that no real purpose was served.
But Singh goes further. He accepts that because of Partition, the Muslims who stayed on in India are “abandoned”, “bereft of a sense of real kinship” and “not… one in their entirety with the rest… This robs them of the essence of psychological security.”
But that’s not all. He does not rule out further partitions: “In India… having once accepted this principle of reservation (1909)… then of partition, how can we now deny it to others…?”
Where the book compares the early Jinnah and Gandhi, the language and the analysis tilt in the former’s favour. At their first meeting in 1915, Gandhi’s response to Jinnah’s “warm welcome” was “ungracious”. Gandhi insisted on seeing Jinnah in Muslim terms and the implication is he was narrow-minded. Of their leadership, the book says Gandhi’s “had almost an entirely religious provincial flavour” while Jinnah’s was “doubtless imbued by a non-sectarian nationalistic zeal”.
Finally, “Jinnah… successfully kept the Indian political forces together, simultaneously exerting pressure on the government.” In Gandhi’s case “that pressure dissipated and the British Raj remained for three more decades.”
Unfortunately, I can’t assess the reliability of Singh’s viewpoint. I’m not an historian. But I can assert that it’s courageous and probably a valuable corrective. We need to see Jinnah without the prejudice of the past. It may be uncomfortable to accept suppressed truths but we can’t keep denying them.
This book will stir a storm of protest, perhaps most from Jaswant Singh’s own party. He realises that. But it did not deter him.
Filed under: Pakistan · Tags: Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, BJP, Congress, Gandhi, India, Indian Muslims, Jaswant Singh, Jinnah, Nehru, Pakistan, Partition
94 Responses to "Jaswant's Jinnah"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- Kaalchakra
said Akb
Those who detest Mullahs so strongly have a... - Fingolfin
said PTH
i second Raj here. typing those posts takes t... - MA
said Dear Saad, Well done my friend on writing such a n... - saad
said Ahem: Bit like Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru, the older... - AKB
said Islamophobia: Washington’s New Form Of Coloniali... - AKB said What's in a name?? Calling yerself 'ibn e Ahmed' w...
- AKB said Calling the Mullahs will only make them say you ar...
- tajender
said Perfidious Tajender Hooliganism”.
i pity u pe... - ahem
said to saad
Imagine a bus with two steering wheels... - ben 10 games online said Paktehouse.net is the best and biggest website of...
bonobashi
you had warned right at the outset of your post that it was “a quick aside”.
gandhi, though a pioneer in nobler philosophies, was no pioneer when it came to mixing religion and politics. agreed. but what is sad, to me, is the fact that he did it as the successor to and to replace the leadership, truer successors and legacy of the likes of gokhale and nairoji. and that he did it within and to their party. he was not alone. but he was the deciding factor.
yet this was not the primary issue. a minority of 90m was never going to think nor (hopefully) act as a minority. a political solution was required. secular, democratic, unitary, majoritarianism was not the answer. regardless of whether it was british, european or indian/gandhian* secularism.
* there is a slight difference between the two, in my view.
“If you are open to the idea that some of the assertions that you have made with such daunting certainty and complete self-assurance may be debatable, I would like to comment further, after returning from the morning chores, tasks and meetings.”
bonobashi,
Sure. I am always prepared to discuss what I write here or anywhere else.
bonobashi,
I just wish you posted your thoughts without waiting for my consent.
Frankly, I don’t like the format of this blog. It has hard to follow a discussion without first scrolling for miles. I hope Raza and Yassar would look in to that.
to be honest i never imagined JS would take such a line of thought so different from the regular ultra nationalist position of his party and other ‘lets play it safe ‘ parties including the Congress. it nice to see a different point of view. then there’s the strange thing about LK Advani that makes you wonder… anyway regardless of what the intentions of JS are, his credibility as a historian and the controversy around his expulsion from BJP…etc..perhaps there is scope now for more discussion in India about the partition without simply blaming MAJ or Nehru or x or y. maybe everyone made their mistakes. hope all views are not shot down simply as outrageous and unpatriotic. history should be understood as it is. we have a right to know our history and correct if the popular perception has been distorted. at least we should try. nice to see a politician stepping out knowing he’s going to face the heat(although i never really liked JS). hope it’s not just another politicians gimmick.hope the media and politicians turn this into a free for all.
sorry…i meant ‘don’t turn’ in the last line.
@bloody_civilian,
By not pleasing, I meant that Jinnah held a certain bogeyman image of Hindus in general. Refer to his conversation with officials from Turkey where he warned about the domination of a Hindu empire, or whatever that means. It doesn’t sound pretty, to be honest. I frankly have never understood this argument that Jinnah wanted Muslim League to be the sole spokesperson for Muslims. That, for all practical purpose, is laying a groundwork for a future partition. In fact, it sounds like the argument that RSS and BJP periodically makes about them being the sole party for Hindus etc. What was wrong with Congress claiming support for Muslims as well. I am not a big fan of Nehru, but I do not subscribe with the view that he had a greater role in Partition than anyone else. When people claim that Nehru wanted a caste-based Hindu dominated congress to rule India, they forget that Pakistan remained a similar place for the Muslim bourgeoise or the Brahmins among them. The ‘space’ that JS keeps talking about was the space for the Muslims elite. I find it totally ludicrous the idea that Jinnah propagated two-nation theory solely as a bargaining chip. By that line of reasoning, he was then fooling another set of people and giving them false hopes. It just seems very convoluted. As for coming from a poor background, I always thought that he had rich parents. I am not sure how accurate JS is about that aspect.
Well unless you don’t apply your mind to history frankly you won’t understand it.
What was so wrong with Congress claiming support of Muslims…nothing after all Jinnah himself remained a Congressman for the longest time. However the Congress was rejected by the Muslims…even in 1937 when League did poorly…it still did manifolds better than the Congress on Muslim seats.
Why then didn’t Congress make coalition ministry with the League (which had won UP Muslim seats and Bombay Muslim seats and was the second largest party over all) in 1937 even after the fact that the League had contested elections as an ally of the Congress (and influential pro-congress Hindu industrialists had funded League’s 1937 campaign).
Yes Jinnah made that statement in Cairo in December 1946. And he must have made many such statements to beef up the support for his case as a lawyer but then this is the same man who is the only politician to be called the best ambassador of hindu muslim unity. What is strange and ironic is not that we want you to accept that Congress conceded Pakistan but the failure of Indians in general to realize that by sheer arrogance and majoritarianism the so called secular Congress alienated the one man who had for thirty three years made every possible effort to bring Hindus and Muslims together, who had very reluctantly ridden the tiger of two nation theory and Pakistan and had still brought it back to the Indian jungle in 1946.
Pakistan scheme did not start with Jinnah. The truth is that some sort of separation was inevitable even if Jinnah was not born though it might have 30 or 40 more years.
What Jinnah did in 1946 was give Congress a chance to reconcile United India with the idea of Pakistan. And then Congress shattered it and you accuse Jinnah of making a bogeyman out of Hindus in December 1946.
Let me tell you what is not pleasing. A half naked fakir who encourages Mullahs in the name of the false religious frenzy called Khilafat despite appeals from Jinnah to the contrary. What is not pleasing is an impetuous young Pandit who claims to be secular and liberal and accuses the “MINORITY” Muslims of being reactionary when asking for their demands while appeasing the MAJORITARIAN Hindu Mahasabha (anyone who has read the going ons of the Nehru Report knows that the elder and younger Nehru did not agree to Jinnah’s fourteen points which would brought India together under Mahasabha’s pressure).
In other words communal majoritarianism is progressive according to Congress but when a muslim minority asks for certain safeguards it is reactionary.
To me what is not pleasing is this white-washing of history on both sides …and to me Nehru and Gandhi are not very pleasing at all given the humbug that they’ve created -the joke that was played on the poor hapless masses and continues to be played every day in Pakistan and India.
“Rich parents”.
He came from a middle class family and had no fortune in 1902 when he started his practice. His parenbts were penniless or his father. His mother passed away in 1892. Jinnah unlike Nehru and Gandhi worked for a living and made his fortune himself. It is the most inspiring story for anyone.
But then prejudiced minds might still claim he was from rich parents because he studied law in England. He was sent as an apprentice in the Grahams trading company.
YLH,
There is no need to get worked up, man. I was merely pointing out my issues with Jinnah. I never claimed that I was right. Neither did I claim that Nehru and Gandhi are above any criticism. But, this post is about Jinnah so I was airing my views about Jinnah. I think you are being presumptuous in assuming that I am just basing my opinion on hearsay and not on history. I am not saying that grievances of Jinnah were unfounded, not did I ever mention that the idea of two-nation was his creation. All I am saying that he provided the major philip to the movement. As for your argument, I guess you are also assuming that Jinnah merely uttered those words because he wanted to back up his case. Either way, it does not sound pretty. Those comments were actually quite nasty. Nehru for all his faults is the principal reason why India has retained some of the secular ethos, no matter how tattered it is. It’s a little hard to accuse him to be sympathetic towards Hindu fundamentalism. The facts just don’t add up. The Muslim population in undivided India was quite substantial. I am not sure if they could rightly be considered as a suffering minority. 35-40% of a population is a significant ‘minority’. As for Gandhi stirring up Mullahs by siding with Khilafat movement, I agree with you. That was not wise. But, I never implied that Gandhi was saint or that he should be considered as one. For example, when earthquakes in Bihar killed more than a million people, he piously attributed it to will of God. Tagore was extremely critical of him on that one, as any rational person would be. A lot of his ideas are wooly-headed and crazy.
A lot of us have great admiration for Jinnah, but unfortunately, we(or I) don’t share the unadulterated image that you have. I know that there was a time when Tilak asked Jinnah to be his lawyer. I also don’t doubt his secular ethos. But, I also get confused when in his private life, he found it hard to reconcile his daughter marrying a Parsi. Now, I understand that like most great personalities, he had his contradictions. For my part, I still have a hard time explaining some of his methods. History is not merely a chronology of events and facts. What you may interpret from a sequence of events may not be same as my interpretation. So, what you see as a lawyer merely beefing up his case, I see as a outpouring of a vitriol that was a result of a perceived slight from the ‘Hindu’ leaders of the Congress. For that matter, a lot of Bangladeshis even do not share your interpretation of Jinnah. I guess, that is a different story. Regarding your questions about why congress didn’t join league to form a government in UP, well, I can offer an alternate explanation. Why doesn’t congress form a government with BJP in modern India? The reluctance of congress in both cases seem natural to me.
As for Jinnah having rich parents, I apologize. My facts were wrong. He was a self made man, but so were a lot of other people too, even Patel or if you find that example odious, Lal Bahadur Shastri.
This is precisely the kind of arrogance and ignorance that forced Jinnah to turn away from the Congress.
I don’t know what facts don’t add up but the fact is that Nehrus did the Hindu Mahasabha’s bidding when they rejected the 14 points in 1929. If you read the minutes of the meetings it becomes quite clear that all of Congress was ready to accept Jinnah’s amendments and it was Mahasabha that vetoed it.
As for your ridiculous little “alternative” explanation… how does the BJP analogy hold? Congress was allied with the Hindu Mahasabha (the forerunner of the BJP) all throughout the independence movement. Wasn’t the Hindu Mahasabha a majoritarian communal party?
Muslim League did not contest as a party in opposition to the Congress. Had you been more aware of history you would know that in 1937 Muslim League and the Congress were electoral allies. Not only that Muslim League was not a Majoritarian party but the party of a MINORITY. Why is it that the Congress allies itself with Indian Union Muslim League even today? I suppose the difference between IUML and AIML is that the former doesn’t win anything outside Kerala.
Therefore it must require either complete ignorance of the facts or simply a mental gymnastics that don’t make sense for someone to draw an analogy between BJP (whose mother party the Hindu Mahasabha Congress was allied to during the independence movement) and the League’s stance in 1937.
PS:
I’d like to ask everyone here to honestly apply their minds to this question:
What do you call a “Secular” political party that allies itself with a communal party of the Majority but calls the communal party of the minority “reactionary”?
There is the Jinnah answer to this question but I’d like you to answer this for yourselves.
Hypothetical situation:
Suppose if PPP were to ally itself with the Jamaat-e-Islami and call the Christian National Party “communal” and “reactionary” would be describe PPP as a mainstream “liberal” party.
I am at loss to understand as to why my doubts are construed as being arrogant. I understand that there may be some issues about which I am ignorant. Should I preface every question or doubt with ‘please’, ‘your honor’, etc., so as not to sound arrogant. I took note of your point that Muslim League and congress were allies in the election, but it’s quite common for two parties to be allies to fight election and yet not form a government. I can give you several instances where two-three parties have fought election as allies and then, due to some differences, have refused to form a government. I guess, there is a difference of perception. To a man on the street, Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha were two sides of the same coin, communal and narrow minded. In fact, like you consider my attitude arrogant, I perceive Jinnah’s attitude as arrogant. So what if all the 14 points were not agreed to by congress. There could be a middle ground that needed to be explored. As for the analogy with BJP, well, as I said before, BJP, like Muslim League, is perceived to be communal. Please take note that I am using the word perceived. You would find millions of Hindus who steadfastly refuse to paint BJP as communal. Just to clarify, I am not one of them. When you make your point ad nauseam about Nehru’s comment about ‘reactionary’ Muslims, you fail to extend him the latitude that you give to Jinnah vis-a-vis his comments about Hindus. Anyone who has read his book, “The Discovery of India” would be hard pressed to paint him communal, in any sense of word. In fact, even to moderate Hindus, his interpretation of historical facts is quite frustrating at times.
I think you are taking poll allies as somehow to be an accurate reflection of ideologies. Politics make strange bedfellows. I wouldn’t be surprised if tomorrow BJP purged itself of all the people responsible for the Babri masjid episode as well Gujrat pogrom, congress extending its hand to form a new government to thwart the non-progressive communists. Like you pointed out, congress has poll ties with IUML today. Should congress be called communal? A lot of people would say ‘yes’. In my view, it is just a relationship of convenience. For congress’ attempts to be the majority party in pre-independent India, I just think that is something any party tries to do. Where in the world have you heard about any party trying to be altruistic? It’s just hard electoral mathematics. You can see that, even now, in modern India. I would be flabbergasted if someone theorized that Muslim League had a more inclusive agenda than Congress, in spite of the machinations of Hindu Mahasabha. For any party that paints itself as secular and inclusive, it’s an anathema to give space to another party that is blatantly about a section of population, be it Muslim, Sikh, Christian, etc. It’s always a losing proposition.
I find the parallel to that tussle before the country broke up in Iraq of today, between Shias and Sunnis. Does that mean that Sunnis should demand a separate homeland? Some would say yes, some no. It all depends. Now, before you take this to be a question about validity of two-state theory, I would like to stress that a theory is just a theory. What has happened has happened. There is no wrong or right per se. My doubts or questions are merely an academic exercise.
Akash mian,
First of all …only someone completely ignorant of history or deliberately sinister will claim that Muslim League (the organization of a minority community) is the same as the Hindu Mahasabha (the organization of the majority community)… that is like saying White Supremacist groups are the other side of the coin of minority black affirmative action groups. It kind of wreaks of the Republican Propaganda against Sotomayer I must say.
But let us accept that you speak for the man on the street in 1937… why the hell was the CONGRESS allied with the Hindu Mahasabha and yet discriminatory towards the League?
Let us put aside the Pirpur report which outlines in detail the communal behavior of the Congress Party … the banning of cow slaughter, the imposition of dev nagri script, Hindi as national language (I suppose separation on the basis of language is valid if Bengalis do it right but not Muslims) etc etc…
This is from the alpha omega of the Indian nationalist Muslims… the ultimate showboy… the Congress’ darling … Maulana Azad:
I have to admit with regret that both in Bihar and Bombay, the Congress did not come out fully successful in its test of nationalism.” [p. 16]
a. The Case of a Parsee, Mr. Nariman in Bombay
The first was the case of Mr. Nariman, a Parsee and an acknowledged leader of the local Congress in Bombay, who was generally expected to lead the provincial government. Sardar Patel and his colleagues could not reconcile with such a leadership of non-Hindu Chief Minister where “the majority of members in the Congress Assembly Party were Hindus.” [p. 16] Thus, a Hindu leader was presented, instead of Mr. Nariman.
“Mr. Nariman was naturally upset about the decision. He raised the question before the Congress Working Committee. Jawaharlal was then President and many hoped that in view of his complete freedom from communal bias; he would rectify the injustice to Nariman. Unfortunately this did not happen. … He [Jawaharlal] sought to placate Patel and rejected Nariman’s appeal. … Nariman was surprised at Jawaharlal’s attitude, especially as Jawaharlal treated him harshly and tried to shout him down in the meeting of the Working Committee.” [p. 16-17]
Nariman decided to take the case to Gandhiji. But the ploy and cunning of Sardar Patel and his colleagues were such that:
“Nariman had lost the case even before the enquiry began. It was finally held that nothing was proven against Sardar Patel. None who knew the inner story was satisfied with this verdict. We all know that truth has been sacrificed in order to satisfy Sardar Patel’s communal demands. Poor Nariman was heart broken and his public life came to an end.” [p. 17]
b. The Case of a Muslim: Dr. Syed Mahmud in Bihar
“A similar development took place in Bihar. Dr. Syed Mahmud was the top leader of the province when the elections were held. He was also a General Secretary of the All India Congress Committee and as such he had a position both inside and outside the province. When the Congress secured an absolute majority, it was taken for granted that Dr. Syed Mahmud would be elected the leader and become the first Chief Minister of Bihar under Provincial Autonomy. Instead, Sri Krishna Sinha and Anugraha Narayan Sinha who were members of the Central Assembly, were called back to Bihar and groomed for the Chief Ministership. Dr. Rajendra Prasad played the same role in Bihar as Sardar Patel did in Bombay.” [p. 17]
“These two instances left a bad taste at the time. Looking back, I cannot help feeling that the Congress did not live up to its professed ideals. One has to admit with regret that the nationalism of the Congress had not then reached a stage where it could ignore communal considerations and select leaders on the basis of merit without regard to majority or minority.” [p. 18] “I have said that the Swaraj Party won a large following in the Central as well as the Provincial Legislatures. Perhaps its most remarkable achievement was its success in capturing seats reserved for Muslims. The electorates were communal and only Muslim voters returned Muslim legislators. The Muslim League and other communal parties were therefore able to play upon the fears of the Muslims and generally returned candidates with communal leanings. Mr. Das was able to overcome the fears and apprehensions of the Muslims of Bengal and was acclaimed their leader. The way he solved the communal problem of Bengal is memorable and should serve as an example even today.
In Bengal, Muslims were the majority community but for various reasons they were educationally and politically, backward. They had hardly any place in public life or Government service. Even though they numbered over 50 per cent of the population, they held hardly 30 per cent of the posts under the Government. Mr C.R. Das was a great realist and immediately saw that the problem was an economic one. He realised that till the Muslims were given the necessary assurances for their economic future they could not be expected to join the Congress wholeheartedly. He therefore made a declaration which took not only Bengal but India by surprise. He announced that when Congress secured the reins of power in Bengal, it would reserve 60 per cent of all new appointments for the Muslims till such time as they achieved proper representation according to population. He went even further in respect of the Calcutta Corporation and offered to reserve 80 per cent of the new appointments on similar terms. He pointed out that so long as the Muslims were not properly represented in public life and in the services, there could be no true democracy in Bengal. Once the inequalities had been rectified, Muslims would be able to compete on equal terms with other communities and there would be no need for any special reservation.
This bold announcement shook the Bengal Congress to its very foundations. Many of the Congress leaders violently opposed it and started a campaign against Mr. Das. He was accused of opportunism and even partisanship for the Muslims but he stood solid as a rock. He toured the whole province and explained his point of view to Muslims and Hindus alike. The strength and sincerity of his purpose was such that ultimately the Bengal Congress was converted to his point of view. His attitude made a great impression on Muslims in Bengal and outside. I am convinced that if he had not died a premature death, he would have created a new atmosphere in the country. It is a matter for regret that after he died, some of his followers assailed his position and his declaration was repudiated. The result was that the Muslims of Bengal moved away from the Congress and the FIRST SEED OF PARTITION WAS SOWN. [pp. 23-24]
(Now I have quoted Azad despite the fact that I know Azad was the master of understatement. The truth is even more sinister)
Partition did not happen because of Vande Mataram … Vande Mataram was merely a symptom of the communal disease which Congress suffered from. Muslim League took up the demand for Pakistan from Muslim Majority Areas. I recommend people read K K Aziz’s “Idea of Pakistan” to understand issue better.
. The issues with Vande Mataram are very different from the issues with the pledge of allegiance. US Supreme Court ruling allows for people to not attend the pledge of allegiance mind you. But it is not because Vande Mataram evoked Hindu religious imagery but the fact that Vande Mataram itself was derived from a horrendously communal anti-Muslim book as shown above. The adoption of Vande Mataram showed as I have mentioned above the Congress’ increasing appeasement of the Hindu Mahasabha.
Congress had been appeasing Hindu Mahasabha and was allied with it throughout the independence movement. Hindu Mahasabha was a communal Majoritarian organization. Why then did the Congress have a problem with the Muslim League which was a minority’s organization?
And get it out of your head… Muslim League did not claim to be an inclusive party. It was a party there to forward the political interests of a minority. It was not secular party but it was not a religious party either. It was minority party aimed at temporal and political objectives…
Just like the Christian National Party of Pakistan cannot be the other side of the coin of the Jamaat-e-Islami … All India Muslim League cannot be the other side of the coin of Hindu Mahasabha.
And allying itself with IUML, Congress has done the right thing. As a secular national party, it is finally doing what it should have done in 1937… included representatives of minority in its representation. But what if Congress was to ally itself with BJP or Sangh or RSS? Wouldn’t that be communal.
All Majoritarian groups are fascist. All minoritarian groups are a necessity for a secular democratic system.
Reading the exchange between Akash and Yasser I have two observations to make:
1. Reading various people describing the events and personalities surrounding the partition of India is like hearing the proverbial blind men describing the elephant; there are many narratives and yet not all of them are mutually exclusive.
2. YLH has a phenomenal memory and intellect; and if that is not enough, he is well read and continues to read voraciously. All this makes him a very formidable debater.
Having said the above, I want to say this to Yasser as an admiring elder; you can use your skills any way you want but IMHO the best use you can make is by educating those of us who have questions because we have not spent as much time as you have reading and learning but whose questions are not driven so much by narrow nationalism or fascism but by genuine doubt.
What I am saying is, assume ignorance when you suspect arrogance and innocence when you suspect deviousness.
Of course you will come across some jerks who are beyond redemption but in the process you will be able to get your message; our message out to many of us simple folks who have no agenda beyond seeing peace returns and our land move beyond the contentiousness of the last 62 years.
So if we start from this position of doubt driven by genuine ignorance, I can understand Akash’s reasoning. Not all minority parties are equal and not all are necessary in a secular democracy. To keep this discussion objective, let us use other examples for the moment.
YLH used the example of Black experience in the US, yet these black Americans adopted two different methods to wage their just battle.
One was that of MLK; an uplifting story of human rights struggle that is revered by all in my adopted land.
Then there is the second of Malcolm X, a more divisive story and more controversial story.
That they both had the same objectives in mind matters not, these two stories are bound to evoke two different set of feelings in the majority.
The ends matter, no question but so do the means.
Similarly the context matters.
A black minority community needed the church in the 1960s out of a necessity to organization its movement; otherwise no institution existed for them to rally around.
Today such tools are redundant.
I will let Akash speak for himself, but to an Indian living in 2009 it sometimes becomes hard for me to understand why any community would need to organize itself around its religion when we have the protection of a secular constitution available to all of us.
For example, like many others I too fail to understand what the Akali Dal can do for the Sikhs that is not available to them otherwise. Call people like me skeptics but too often we have heard the Akalis yell: ‘Panth khatare vich hai’ (The Sikh Panth is in danger) when out of power and then do exactly what the congress government does once the role is reversed.
I am not even sure what ‘Sikh rights’ do they pretend to fight for. That they remain today wedded to their narrow and selfish parochialism is not a source of comfort but an embarrassment for many liberal Sikhs and Hindus alike.
Of course 2009 Punjab is not 1946 India and there lies the rub. There was a lot of apprehension then (read below). The only reason I bring this example up is to be fair to people like Akash who may be genuinely democrats at heart and just unable to understand that minority apprehensions arise not because of people like them but because of people like Modi and Bal Thackeray.
This brings me to my next point; the action and more importantly the motivations of Nehru. It is really heart warming to think that finally Indians and Pakistanis are finally giving their long misunderstood hero, MAJ his due.
However it is important to take care not to malign another hero while we try to right this historic wrong.
Nehru is often attacked by everyone these days but especially those who try to establish their maverick credentials on the PTH.
Seculars attack him from the left for selling out to the Mahasabha and self described right wingers like Majumdar attacks him for being a sissy socialist and a liberal.
Undeclared ones like Hayyer think he was at the best a dimwit who did nothing worthwhile after winning the genetic lottery.
Yet look at all that he faced and still left behind a secular India. YLH wrote above that even the supposedly solid congressmen like Patel did not accept a non-Hindu in Bombay as a leader and that Gandhi was no help then either.
That is an eye opener for those who think that becoming a secular democracy was India’s destiny. Majumdar mentioned on these very pages a few days ago when we were discussing India’s constitution that Nehru or not, India would have had secular principles built into its constitution.
Maybe that is true but is it not equally conceivable that had Nehru died like MAJ in 1948, then without his centering tendencies, Indian polity too would have veered sharply towards the political right continued to do so with each successive year like a Hindu Pakistan?
Also is it so hard for all those who attack Nehru to concede that perhaps rather than arrogance it was his inherent inability (like mine today) to see his countrymen not as Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs but as Indians; one and all.
I often find myself asking myself this question; if I can not satisfactorily understand why an Akali Dal is needed in Punjab today, then why is it not possible for Nehru to not understand the need for a AIML in 1937? Maybe he overlooked the ground realities in 1937 out of sheer naïveté rather than arrogance?
This is not to say he was right; his rejection (and he was not alone, it was a joint decision by the congress) of MAJ’s conciliatory overtures was a colossal blunder and the unforgiving history will always judge his harshly for this.
Nehru’s decision put MAJ in an unenviable position; who could either bide his time and wait for his chance later but for the moment play a second fiddle to the haughty congressmen or else strike out a risky course to try to ride the tiger of communal passions. At this point MAJ could have chosen to stay away from the congress but stick to his guns and a role as a Muslim spokesman without demanding an out from the Union.
Thus he could have become our MLK, a principled even if reluctant resister. However he chose give a call for separatist. Sadly for India and also for the life long secular MAJ; this way he too perhaps made a wrong call. Now that Pakistan is a reality is another story that I have no problems with.
That these two men made those two wrong calls in 1937-1940 does not make either of them a villain in my eyes; but a pair of tragic heroes whose stories becomes all the more poignant because they were principled men but all too humans; and because they were human, they were flawed.
Today, we, their countrymen are a living proof of their mistakes. One can get angry because Akash does not understand why MAJ was called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity, yet you have to cut him some slack when he feels bewildered by MAJ’s words where he said the following:
“The Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither inter-marry, nor inter-dine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. … [They] derive their inspirations from different sources of history. They have different epics… To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and the final destruction of any fabric that may be so built”
Yet YLH and BC may wonder how stonehearted and deaf could Indians be if they could not notice the desperate tone of apprehension of the same man when he laid out his misgivings in the following words:
“The Hindu caste system established about one thousand years ago is still going strong and the untouchables are an outstanding illustration in history how those in power persecute those under their power. The constitution may cause some temptation in the beginning but it is not our Government….”
And then at another place:
“They (Hindus) started in the legislatures with a song of Bande Matram which is not only idolatrous but in its origin and substance a hymn to spread hatred for the Mussalmans. And they in their wisdom tried and are persisting now and compelling the school authorities to sing Bande Matram at congregations and school gatherings although it is admitted that it is not a national song….”
In the above two speeches, MAJ, a man admired by YLH, BC and others laid bare his apprehensions and made the case for a Pakistan.
The fact remains that another Titan whom both Akash and I admire, (and who conceptualized a beloved new nation in his timeless epic “The discovery of India”) remained strangely oblivious to the pleas of the same MAJ in 1937.
That dear Akash, is the real Greek Tragedy of our land.
Regards.
“That these two men made those two wrong calls in 1937-1940 does not make either of them a villain in my eyes; but a pair of tragic heroes whose stories becomes all the more poignant because they were principled men but all too humans; and because they were human, they were flawed. ”
Gorki Sahab, I absolutely agree with you. Jinnah and Nehru were both good, decent and sincere people, but like all human beings they made mistakes– mistakes which led to the division of the subcontinent. Even as we celebrate our respective Independence Days, I cannot help thinking that last weekend was also the anniversary of one of the greatest human tragedies of the the 20th century: Partition.
Regards
@ I think Nehru has many good things to his credit after 1947 but I do not see him through rose tinted glasses.
He stood like a rock against the Congress rightwingers but he also messesd up the economy and mostly also our foreign policy. He mishandled Kashmir from every angle.
He was not neutral between communities.that is one of many myths about him.
@gorki
I often find myself asking myself this question; if I can not satisfactorily understand why an Akali Dal is needed in Punjab today, then why is it not possible for Nehru to not understand the need for a AIML in 1937?
you understood the crux of what i was asking. Thanks for elucidating well.
Or for that matter the BJP, the Shiv Sena, the Telugu Desam or even the DMK. A single party Congress government is all that was ever necessary. Nehru and his cohort could never understand why no one saw the point; the communists, no strangers to one party rule, would have agreed.
Hayyer:
Seeing anyone through rose tinted glass does the person a disservice. Historical figures should be viewed as people made of flesh and blood too and thus cannot be perfect. I agree with your assessments of Nehru’s in general. His mistakes on Kashmir, economics etc. should not be whitewashed. However the fact remains that Nehru above all else comes out through his writings, speeches and legislative policies as a very earnest person, a thoughtful man with an immense dedication to India and its people.
If nothing else, he will always stand tall in history based on his elaboration of a vision for an India which was all an inclusive yet uniquely Indian. He took great pains to emphasize that the Modern India was neither wholly Hindu nor was anybody or any culture living in it an alien. He wrote very sympathetically, even glowingly about all our forefathers and their ideas, regardless of ethnicity or their faiths.
It may be too simplistic a vision from a historian’s point of view but from the POV of a statesman; such inclusive and vivid narration is nothing short of a timeless blueprint for forging a new nation out of the hodgepodge of narratives and cultures that his generation had inherited. I am certain many others held similar views but by laying out such an inclusive epic for India’s past he laid the foundation for a future of India that was hopeful and sunny. It is for this one reason that I feel joined the ranks of the greats like Jefferson and Augustus. The only other pan India who comes close to him in this regard is Emperor Akbar.
Regarding political parties, I think you misunderstood. The situation in 1937 with the AIML was different as I outlined by quoting MAJ’s apprehensions.
India is different today and is a secular democracy. A constitution guarantees that all citizens, regardless of race religion or ethnicity are equal. In this scenario, I have no problems with multiple parties, regional parties or even parties of narrow class interest such as the communists. I do however have a problem though when a party professes to speak for and promote the interests of any one group to the EXCLUSION of others. If the Akalis tomorrow rename themselves the Punjabis, accept more than token Hindus and propose to speak for Punjabi Hindus as well that is OK with me.
My problem is that they call themselves a Sikh party and insist that Sikh rights come first to the exclusion of all others form them. Worse they insist that they and only they understand what is best for the Sikh interests.
Now I am not a congressman but consider a congress Sikh equally capable of speaking up for himself and for all, Hindus and Sikhs alike in the first place and besides do not understand which Sikh interests are at risk in a truly secular India that we need a political party to protect them.
The corollary is that if the Akalis believe that the constitution is not strong enough to ‘protect Sikh interests’ then extra constitutional methods are justified.
Such parties can still function in a democracy if men were all principled angels. Since they are not, then it is only a short walk from ‘protecting interests’ of one community to the chauvinistic suppression of another in a mixed population.
Thus each demagogue shifts just so slightly to the right till we have a Bhinderanwale taking the argument (of Sikh Interests) to its logical extreme by advocating that Hindus either leave or play second fiddle to the Sikhs.
Regards.
Gorki
Much could be said on what motivates those who practice the political arts. The present politics of the Akalis is about as meaningful as that ofthe Congress.
And, I should have added, about as necessary.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, I may add.
Gorki
what percentage of the sikh vote do the akalis actually command? and what is congress’ share?
bengal SCF was with AIML. is there a similar non-exclusivist parallel with the akalis?
muslim religious leadership was staunchly anti-AIML. how about the akalis?
india was a brit colony then. in the last year or more, she had an increasingly assertive congress govt. with a lame duck raj.
i have little issue with nehru’s secular credentials. post-partition he became the best leader the muslims of india (excluding kashmir) could find, after having first ignored, then viled and pushed out the leaderhip 90% of the same muslims had voted for in ’46.
Well, we Indians like math and logic, and i gave the following which till date no one could disprove.
Undivided India:
Total population = 1.55 billion.
Muslims = 600 million
Low caste Hindus = 600 million
High caste Hindus = 200 million
Christians, Sikhs and Others = 150 million
Half Partition:
Undivided India will be controlled by Muslims. Because Jinnah+Ambedkar+Jesus would have easily joined hands and would have pushed Brahmins out.
Nehru realised this threat and hence wanted Muslims out. But the problem is, India without Muslims, Hindus will kill Hindus and again Brahmins will have no place to hide.
So he decided half partition with Lord Mountbatten and kept 50% Muslims as a shield between 15% highcaste and 85% low caste. Brahmins are hiding behind Muslims. No Muslims, No Brahmins. Simple.
Can someone disprove this theory?.
Periyar, Jinnah and Ambedkar – Historic meeting (1940):
The historic meeting of the three leaders took place at Bombay on January 8, 1940. The leaders must have either corresponded with each other directly or indirectly or their friends arranged such meeting as explained above.
On January 5th morning, EVR left for Bombay along with the following at the invitation of the non-Brahmin citizens of Bombay:
Justice T. A. V. Nathan, P. Balasubramaniam – Editor of Sunday observer, the mouth piece of Justice Party, C. N. Annadurai, the General Secretary of Justice Party and T. P. S. Ponnappan. C. Panjatcharam
He was sent off by Kumararaja Muthaiah Chettiar, General Kalifullah and others.
On 06-01-40 by 10.00 a.m, he arrived at Dadar station with his colleagues. He was given a reception and taken by a decorated coach fitted with two white horses! Evening, he met Ambedkar and latter took the former to his residence. Both discussed on various social and political issues from 9.00 to 10.30 p.m.
On 07-01-40, Ambedkar arranged a meet in the Gokhale Educational Institute and gave a dinner. S. C. Joshi, M.L.C., Dr. R. R. Bhole, M.L.A., D. G. JADAV, M.L.A and others attended the function. Ambedkar introduced the guest to them.
On 08-01-40, they met Jinnah at his residence and discussed about the current situation of their activities from evening 5.30 to 8.30 p.m. P. Balasubramaniam, T.A.V. Nathan, K.M. Balasubramaniam – Advocate were also present. They discussed about the working of anti-Congress parties.
It is said that they had also discussed about :
1. The possibility of creating a non-Brahmin opposition group within Congress.
2. Urging Muslims, Scheduled Caste and non-Brahmins to leave Congress and join non-Congress parties.
3. Joint action by parties opposed to Congress.
4. Anti-Hindi agitation.
5. Embarrassing Congress and Congress leaders by all means.
6. Muslims, non-Brahmins and depressed classes working together.
7. Demand of separate states for Mahars, Muslims and Dravidians.
8. Representing to British Government accordingly
Ref:
indianhistoriography.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/the-historic-meeting-of-ambedkar-jinnah-and-periyar/
http://www.periyar.org/html/ap_bios_eng3.asp
Nope, its unfalsifiable. congratulations.
YLH saab,
I shall post a longish reply later, but I am disappointed that you took refuge in that age old tactic of shooting down an argument, that is, questioning the motive or proclaiming that the other person has devious motives et al. I have no personal dislike for Jinnah. However, it is not right to swing to the other extreme even when reasonable doubts are aired about him. But, there are facts, some that show his increasing vitriol in his later years. Why it happened, there may be various causes. He, for example, was not so forgiving when it came to recalcitrant Bengali muslim leaders variously terming them as either a Hindu stooge or a congress stooge. In fact, that is what fascinates me more about him, these seemingly dichotomies in his personalities. As for your comparison with Black minority groups, that is a little far fetched. Muslims in pre-independence India had a substantially different historical background than Blacks had in America. As I have said before, 35-40% of the population is not a ‘minority’ in that sense of the word, especially if you remember, muslims had a disproportionate representation in armed forces, if not in civil services. As for your claim about Nehru rooting for imposition of Devnagri script, from the report, it seems like he was for both Urdu and Devnagri script. Now, by implying that Devnagri was somehow not muslim, you are going towards the same argument that Hindu fundamentalist use that Urdu is a muslim language. The larger idea in your argument that the burden of reasonable and secular behavior is solely the responsibility of the larger community is preposterous. The surest way to keep a minority a minority is to treat them as an endangered species, unless, of course, they are. What one should strive for is to have laws which don’t discriminate. The rest would take care of themselves. The case of Sikhs is a classic example. With the oft repeated claim that Nehru was siding with Hindu Mahasabha, well, he got the rap from the other side that he was somehow too appeasing towards Muslims. And, then it requires a considerable feat of mental jugglery to imagine that Nehru suddenly woke up on 15th August to rediscover that he was a secular after all. While I may have been impetuous in comparing league with Hindu Mahsabha, but then in practice, they were very alike, using threats, intimidation, bullying to get their demands. The celebrated example, of course, is the Direct Action Day. Now that is fashionable to term Patel as the one solely responsible for every mess, it can be explained by some as solely a reaction towards what he perceived as bullying behavior. Some of the fourteen points that he proposed would be difficult to accept if one wanted a viable nation state. What it would have led to would have been a collection of quasi states. There is no doubt that Jinnah wanted a secular democratic state, but with guarantees that would have been extremely difficult to fulfill. As for C.R. Das’s proposition of special reservation and all that stuff, from our experience for the last 60 years, I can see the reason why it was outrightly rejected. It solves nothing but merely provides an outlet for the cream of a group.
Regarding the issue of Vande Mataram, I am always intrigued as to why it is made such an issue. No one should be forced to sing/say anything. In my view, it’s entirely a community’s right not to sing or say anything if it conflicts with the basic tenet of its faith, but to recirculate events that happened long time ago to ban it saying that it was associated with cruel things in the past somehow beats any logical reasoning. True that there were Hindu mobs carrying out killing singing Vande Mataram, but how does it justify coloring the song as dark or malicious. I am sure I do not need an example to justify my case. It is self explanatory.
I shall write more, but later.
Thanks.
Look dude I don’t think you are in any mood for an honest debate.
Let us just cut the crap and first acknowledge that Congress was ready to ally itself with the majoritarian Hindu Mahasabha but shot down the Minoritarian Muslim League even though the latter was under the leadership of one of its own stalwarts who had bent over backwards to bring Hindus and Muslims together.
Also… I find it amazing that you arrogantly keep comparing Mahasabha – a majoritarian communal organization with the League. Now you’ve brought up the humbug of direct action day. Most indians seem to think that they invented the English language but I can assure you that direct action in the English language means civil disobedience. And that is precisely what it was…
How ironic that it went violent in one city even though it was much more successful elsewhere. How ironic that after the mess cleared up the British viceroy in his famous letter of 21st August admitted that there was no evidence of League’s involvement in violence…and that three times as many Muslims died as Hindus. Or the fact that the British nevertheless used the incident to force Jinnah to modify his terms for interim government?
Or that Francis Tuker’s famous account talks about muslims armed with sticks but also about Sikhs being bussed in armed to the teeth with rifles, pistols and kirpans? Who brought them there?
Ofcourse all of these are questions that no Indian has been honest enough to answer. Calcutta killings are laid down to ML’s door but without any real evidence except a few excerpts from speeches of certain second tier Muslim League leadership and some misquotes (like the famous but completely fabricated “we’ll have India divided or destroyed” invented by a third rate American photographer who was Gandhi fan)
And you ask about “vande mataram”. The damned song was from a book called Anand Math. Have you read the storyline? I didn’t think so.
None of these things are justifications ofcourse. Partition wouldn’t have happened anyway. Jinnah- who people like you abuse incessantly- actually gave everyone an opportunity to have both a Pakistan and keep India united. Too bad it was vetoed. Let us then have the intellectual honesty to accept the facts.
And btw…can you quote which part of the 14 points do you think were not acceptable in a modern nation state?
14 points- not entirely Jinnah’s were rejected only because Hindu Mahasabha wouldn’t agree to them.
And actually even before that Jinnah’s four amnedments that offered joint electorates were also rejected by the Congress because of Hindu Mahasabha.
And also how is quoting Azad. Questioning your motives?
but with guarantees that would have been extremely difficult to fulfill. As for C.R. Das’s proposition of special reservation and all that stuff,
it was about federation, not reservations.
the 14 points were drafted by jinnah but reflected the consensus views of the ‘delhi meeting’, a more diverse gathering of muslim pols than ever before or after. noorani has written about what jinnah thought of reservations and sep electorates. and why and under what conditions he was prepared to faithfully carry the mandate. jinnah’s contribution to the ‘delhi meeting’ was a watering down of what became the 14 points.
federation, or even a confederation, with no population exchange would have meant something entirely different from reservations, sep electorates, or even the politics of vote banks… esp with provinces having the freedom to leave/change the second tier federal units, once a constituion was in place, as envisaged by the CMP.
just to add that the delhi meeting was presided over by the aga khan and mostly contributed to by azad, ansari, ali bros etc.
gorki
being anti-congress did not automatically mean you were a communal separatist. congress’ ‘nationalism’ could subsume interests of the ‘majority’ community. but the aspirations of the second largest community could not be championed without the mud of ‘communalism’ being slung at them. sir syed said: ‘Hindu and Mussalmans are words of religious significance otherwise Hindus, Mussalmans and Christians who live in this country constitute one nation’. he was as good as a founding father to congress. yet he too was labelled a communalist the moment he moved even slightly away from congress.
a minoritarian party need not be exclusivist. you once posted the jinnah quote about dalits. he could not have claimed to speak for them. like congress claimed to speak for muslims despite never having managed even 5% of the muslim vote! gandhi of course had the force of satyagrah to stake his claim to speak for dalits. the frightening thought of gandhi dying from the fast got ambedkar to capitulate.
muslim leage had started as a self-professedly ‘communal’ group. it was born in dhaka, btw, yet hardly had any bengali office bearers. after being hooted out of congress, jinnah’s AIML stood next to congress in boycotting simon. unlike the unionists, justice party etc. the mullahs were vehemently anti-AIML. yet, jinnah’s cabinet did not have a single mullah. in fact, it had an ahmedi muslim. moreover, it had a hindu member. and, it had a majority of bengalis (compare with 1906′s AIML in dhaka). indeed, only months earlier, jinnah had delivered the AIML and its 90% muslim mandate to a united india of the CMP.
and, it had a majority of bengalis (compare with 1906’s AIML in dhaka)
i had meant to say.. a far bigger proportion than in 1906. suhrawardy was asked to stay back in india; kh nazimuddin was CM E.Bengal. also, ch zafarullah khan joined in december. The first cabinet of Pakistan: Liaquat Ali Khan (Prime Minister, also in charge of two ministries: Foreign Affairs & Commonwealth Relations, and Defense); I. I. Chundrigar (Commerce, Industries, and Works); Ghulam Mohammad (Finance); Abdur Rab Nishtar (Communications); Ghazanfar Ali Khan (Food, Agriculture, and Health); Jogendra Nath Mandal (Law and Labour); Fazlur Rahman (Interior, Information, and Education).
gorki
how about analysing the following two thoughts taken together:
1. “Instinctively I think it is better to have Pakistan or almost nothing if only to keep Jinnah far away and not allow his muddled and arrogant head from (sic) interfering continually in India’s progress” (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; First Series; Vol.13; page 324).
2. “I cannot help thinking that ultimately the Muslims of India will suffer most” (ibid; page 24).
keeping in view my last 2/3 posts. and azad’s statement that ‘nehru and patel had become the biggest flag bearers for partition’.
Dear BC:
The short answer to your question is of course not! being anti-congress does not automatically make one a communal separatist.
If being anti-congress meant being communal or separatist then more than fifty percent of Indians on any given day are anti-national separatists (and would mean that I too have been a separatist most of my life in India.
)
Fortunately not many people (except for Indira Gandhi and her cabinet ministers like YB Chavan) ever believed that.
Before I discuss the matter of Akalis any further let me say that I more than anyone else understand that India in 1937 or even 1946 was very different than it is today so we cannot compare AIML leadership’s compulsions and apprehensions then with that of the Akali Dal’s today or in 1984.
The reason however that I am conflicted about the Akalis of India today is that they claim to speak up for the ‘Sikh Panth’ only which they periodically claim is in danger of being overwhelmed by the Hindus. To overcome some perceived handicaps they demand special status for the Sikhs. When they speak to their base they never mention how their demands will impact the Hindus around them or even larger national issues. The implication is that as long as Sikh issues are addressed, whatever happens to anyone else is not their problem. Moreover whenever there is a conflict of interest between Sikhs and others, their stated position is not that of an impartial referee but of a declared partisan for one side. This is not just a theoretical problem; time and again they have (rightly so) raise the human rights violations by the police against Khalistani separatists but have stayed mum on the issue of Sikh separatist violence against Hindus when they were trying to effect an ethnic cleansing. They dismissed it as ‘state propaganda’ or tried to whistle past it as ‘not my problem let the law decide etc’.
However the real problem I have with the Akali Dal (and similar organizations) is that to exist as a political party, they have a stated goal of protecting only ‘Sikh Interests’ which makes the following assumptions:
1. The fact that whether one is a Sikh, (or not) is relevant in the public arena; and that fact IS IMPORTANT to the matters of the state (compare that to MAJ’s speech on Aug 11th1947)
2. That all Sikhs of India are one homogenous block for whom this one fact is all important and that supersedes all other identities, be it regional, professional or political. Thus they assume a Sikh congressman is somehow less of a Sikh; either brainwashed or a sellout.
3. The constitutional protection of a secular democracy to a Sikh as a citizen of India can never be enough even in theory and is somehow ALWAYS LESS THAN the same grantee to a Hindu by virtue of the later being in a majority.
4. Now this last implied position, that no matter what; a constitution can never guarantee fairness to a minority in a multicultural society makes me uneasy because if one accepts that then it follows that we should have an Akali Dal agitating in California, in Canada, and everywhere else where there is a Sikh minority to protect the same unclear ‘Sikh rights.’
I disagree with those assumptions but still as long as their political activity is within the framework of a secular Indian Republic, I don’t care if they form a political group and contest elections on those planks. They are also free to attack the congress as much as they like; for that too is their right within the framework of the republic of India.
So far so good.
The real problem arises when this argument further and insists that:
1. Congress (or any other non Sikh majority party) is a Hindu party so a Sikh has no place in it
2. Congress and India is one and the same thing.
3. That because the congress is anti-Akali, it is anti-Sikh; therefore it means a Sikh has no place in India.
Now such thinking is only a short step removed from a Bhinderanwale like demagogue who comes along and insists that Indian laws are Hindu laws and the Sikhs being different are in fact being subjected to ‘Hindu tyranny’ when they are asked to follow the laws of the land, never mind the fact that the laws are secular and apply equally to all citizens regardless of faith.
Now taking this argument to its logical extreme he insists that under such circumstances Sikhs and Hindus cannot live together and Sikhs have no choice but to ask for a separate land, a Khalistan. My argument with him then is that:
1. Even if he (and some other Sikhs) believe that the congress is anti Sikh, why cannot they all form another Indian party; call it ‘The anti-congress party’ and oppose the congress to their hearts content?
2. Even if the congress (one party in a multiparty democracy) is very popular at any one point (as in 1984 when it won ¾ seats in the parliament) why is it synonymous with India, the country.
3. Furthermore when they speak of leaving the Indian republic and create a ‘Khalistan’ in the state of Punjab, then what constitutional grantees do they have to offer to its now minority Hindu population so that they will not be subjected to a ‘Sikh tyranny’?
This may sound cynical to the extreme but the Akalis politicians are indeed a cynical lot. Whenever they are in power, they are happy, once they find themselves out of power, then suddenly cries of ‘Panth Khatare vich hai’ (Panth is in danger) seem to arise out of their party meetings.
To break this inexorable line of reasoning; one has to believe that Congress is NOT India; it is just another political party; its leaders do not necessarily speak for all Indians and that when we disagree with the congress we can go over its heads to the real masters of India; its people.
Fortunately for India, a majority of Indians believe that this is true. A majority of them are not congressmen yet are considered loyal Indians all the same.
Regards.
BC: In an answer to your other question, the Akalis usually control a majority of Sikh votes in Punjab on any given day; their percentage varies, I believe in the aftermath of 1984 riots at one point they got something like 80-90% of the cast Sikh votes and an avowed sepratist; Simranjit Singh Mann was on of the elected MPs then. Since then the vote percentage has come down again.
Regards.
thanks gorki
my point was simply what you have confirmed: AIML and akalis cannot be compared. even if they were, there are more (glaring) constrasts than similarities.
as for congress not being india – sadly congress was seen as india before partition. of those who were in opposition to congress, the AIML was the most vilified. in fact, everything i said, esp about congress, was in a strictly pre-partition context.
but congress, for a time after partition, did have a mandate to speak for the punjab. even the akalis had a tacit alliance with and had been coalition partners with congress. pre-partition, congress had never managed even 5% of the muslim vote. yet nehru insisted that he and not jinnah spoke for them. and in the face of 90% saying that jinnah did speak for them, he said partition was preferable than to have jinnah… while, at the same time, stating his belief that partition would greatly harm the muslims. and all this in a matter of no more than 15 months! from april 1946 to aug 1947.
BC: Not having JLN’s collected Works available to me at the moment, I am unable to find the context in which the quotes by Nehru in your questions were written so will respond later. For now the best I can say in his defense is that if he was being attacked equally from the left and the right then he must have being doing something right.
So even at the expense of leaving myself open to the charge of changing the subject I answer the question about the Nehru quotes by writing two quotes about him:
The first was by Sardar Patel who once sarcastically remarked after the partition that the only nationalist Muslim left in India was JL Nehru.
The second is by Francois Gautier who in his book ‘Rewriting history’ accused him og negationism i.e. denying the ‘crimes’ of Muslims in India. He writes the following:
“This one (quote by JLN) deals with Mahmud Ghaznavi, the destroyer of thousands of Hindu temples, who according to his chronicler Utbi, sang the praise of the Mathura temple complex, sacred above all to all Hindus… and promptly proceeded to raze it to the ground: “Building interested Mahmud and he was much impressed by the city of Mathura, where there are today a thousand edifices as firm as the faith of the faithful. Mahmud was not a religious man. He was a Mahomedan, but that was just by the way. He was in the first place a soldier and a brilliant soldier”… Amazing eulogy indeed of the man who was proud of desecrating hundreds of temples and made it a duty to terrorise and humiliate pagans. And guess from whom is that quote? From Jawaharlal Nehru himself, the first Prime Minister of India and one of the architects of independence!
So while I did not answer your question directly, I hope the above gives you an idea how others around him and historians feel JLN felt about the Muslims.
Sorry.
Regards.
thanks gorki
JLN’s secular credentials are not the issue. nor his post-partition work. my question is entirely about partition itself. about the democratic principle of not only federation vs partition and dealing with a mandate as big as 90% of 90 million people. so it’s really about his democratic credentials. again ‘attacked from both left and right’ is only relevant if it is strictly in the pre-partition context. mahmud ghaznavi is a bit too pre-partition to shed any light on his democratic credentials. of course accusing JLN of being ‘too secular’ and the quote harms no one except Gautier’s own reputation as an objective historian.
correction:
“Bloody Civilian
August 23, 2009 at 12:49 am just to add that the delhi meeting [of 1929] was presided over by the aga khan and mostly contributed to by azad, ansari, ali bros etc.”
!!! azad and ansari were not there. almost all non-congress muslims were. old khilafat central committee guys and some jamiat-ulema guys were there. i don’t know what i was thinking when i was typing this!
Generally when you are a chain-smoker it effects your thinking capability because you are not fully concious. We generally eulogize or demonize an action but we do not evaluate if the action was taken conciously or unconciously.JINNAH MIGHT HAVE SPOKEN OF PARTITION BECAUSE HE WAS UNCONCIOUS STATE OF MIND DUE TO HIS AGGRESSIVE SMOKING HABIT.It would be worth knowing his rate of smoking when he was friend of UNITED INDIA and when he was for partition of INDIA
I can tell you what I understand by the word Hindutva
What exactly you mean by Hindutva with respect to international Audience Hindutva is nothing but study of Hindu Sociology (community-sense or jathi or caste), study of Hindu Spirituality, study of Hindu history for betterment of mankind. Communist was gifted by one individual called Karl Marx, Capitalism was gifted by one individual called Adam Smith, Islam was gifted by one individual called Mohammed, Christianity was gifted by one individual called Jesus, Judaism was gifted by one individual called Abraham, and Hindutva was gifted to humanity by the collective civilization called Hindu Civilization.
What exactly you mean by Hindutva with respect to national Audience of Bharat (SAARC). Hindu is our nationality.
State is a political aspect Nation is a cultural aspect.
Nationality Jathi or Community-sense
____________________________________________________
Hindu Brahmin
Hindu Kayasth
Hindu shatriya
Hindu Marwari
Hindu Vaishya
Hindu Rajput
Hindu Jats
Hindu Bunts
Hindu Advaitas
Hindu Hari-jan
Hindu Vanvasi
Hindu Buddhist
Hindu Jains
Hindu Christian
Hindu Sikhs
Hindu Gowdas
Hindu Lingayats
Hindu Muslims
etc