Pak Tea House » History, Jinnah » Important Corrective to distortion of history by Viewpointonline
Important Corrective to distortion of history by Viewpointonline
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Waseem Altaf’s article on Viewpointonline (Jinnah “the Quaid”) made some completely inaccurate claims that need to be addressed. Almost every claim in the said article is inaccurate when tested on the touchstone of historical facts. Since Viewpointonline is as closeminded in its approach to dissent as Daily Ummat or LUBP, they are unlikely to publish my rebuttal.
Mr. Altaf’s first claim is that Jinnah became a Shia to advance his political career. This is completely inaccurate. Jinnah had converted out of Ismaili Khoja Faith in 1901 (5 years before Jinnah entered politics as an Indian Nationalist) after his sister Mariam was excommunicated from the Aga Khani sect by the Aga Khan himself for marrying out of the Aga Khani sect. In any event most of Muslim League’s founding members were Ismaili and Aga Khan was the first president of the Muslim League. Therefore Mr. Altaf’s claim is laughable to say the least. In any event Jinnah should have either converted to Sunni Islam or to Hinduism to forward his political career by that logic.
Mr. Altaf’s second claim that Jinnah disowned his daughter is also not backed by any real historical evidence. Not only is there no legal document that states that Jinnah disowned his daughter but evidence suggests to the contrary. A substantial amount is left to his daughter in his will after the said marriage. Here is an account by Dina Wadia (from “A Daughter’s Memory”):
“My father was not a demonstrative man. But he was an affectionate father. My last meeting with him took place in Bombay in 1946. He had come from New Delhi, in the midst of most heavy preoccupations with crucial negotiations. He phoned, inviting me and my children to tea.
“He was very happy to see us – Dina was five and Nusli, two. We mostly talked about the children and politics. He told me that Pakistan was coming. Despite his pressing engagements in New Delhi he had found time to buy presents for us. “As we said good-bye, he bent down to hug Nusli. The grey cap, which he wore so often that it now bears his name, caught Nusli’s fancy, and in a moment he had put it on his grandson’s head saying, ‘Keep it, my boy.’ Nusli prizes the cap to this day. I remember the gesture because it was characteristic of his sensibility and consideration for me and my children. At the time of partition, Dina decided to stay on in India. She had married into one of the wealthiest Parsi families of India, the Wadia family.”
Does this sound like he disowned his daughter?
Dr. Ayesha Jalal’s painstaking work as well as that of H M Seervai shows that Jinnah’s Pakistan was not synonymous with partition of India or the partition of Punjab and Bengal. Neither Mountbatten nor his latter day apologists like Mr. Waseem Altaf fully understand the significance of the fact that Punjabi and Bengali are not synonymous with “Indian”. The multiple identities thesis is well known and when Jinnah argued that a Punjabi is a Punjabi before he is Muslim or a Hindu he was stating what was obvious to a historian – regional identities trumped communal ones and communal trumped and continue to trump national identities. Jinnah himself an Indian nationalist for most of his life was well aware of this unfortunate fact. Mountbatten’s response- again not completely stated in terms that Mr. Altaf gives (he seems to be very generous in paraphrasing)- showed Mountbatten’s inability to understand the complex dynamics of identity in South Asia. In any event partition was forwarded by Nehru and Gandhi who shot the cabinet mission plan down. Even Maulana Azad accepts it. That Jinnah was moved by the violence at partition is admitted even by unsympathetic Indian historians. That he made every effort to put it down ruthlessly where ever he could is also recorded as part of history. I do not wish to respond to the wild fantasies about wine parties and what not because they have no historical merit.
Then we come to other odd distortions of history- the caricature of Jinnah created conveniently over the years- that Mr. Altaf deploys in his poorly researched article. Almost all impartial academics have rejected charges of “excessive snobbery” and “elitism” leveled against Jinnah. Ian Bryant Wells writes on Page 237 of “Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity”: “Jinnah was not, however, a political elitist that he is sometimes painted as being… he remained committed to the rights of the people of India and showed himself able to come to the streets to motivate and lead the masses”. Incidentally even today in Mumbai there is a hall commemorating the mass agitation Jinnah led against Lord Willingdon.
The reason why Jinnah chose to be Governor-General instead of prime minister is plain enough. The Times of London wrote in its editorial of July 11, 1947: “Yet those who will be called to rule Pakistan may hold that relatively undeveloped qualities that make up much of its territory must be guided by a governor general capable of exercising the functions of higher control and co-ordination which formerly vested in a Canning or a Curzon.” The powers Jinnah enjoyed were far less than those enjoyed by either Canning or Curzon, mind you, and when compared to, say, powers vested in and assumed by President Abraham Lincoln in the aftermath of the civil war, Jinnah’s powers were toothless.
Even Lord Mountbatten, who never made any effort to hide his ambitions, had more power as Governor-General than Jinnah. Mountbatten was handed — allegedly — a blank piece of paper by Nehru for cabinet selection. Mountbatten presided over not just every major decision of the Indian government but he even commanded and directed the Indian troops in Kashmir. This was far beyond the powers Jinnah had.
As a student of law and constitution, I must state here that in the empire’s history, a powerful politician like Jinnah taking over as the first Governor-General of a self-governing dominion is the norm and not the exception. Lord Elgin and Lord Dufferin were two such political Governors-General, both instrumental in the formative phase of Canada. Ireland’s first Governor-General of the Dominion was an active party politician (Jinnah on the other hand had resigned from the presidency of the Muslim League soon after independence stating that he could not as Governor-General remain at the head of an avowedly communal organisation). So if Jinnah is to be called autocratic, then from Bismarck to Lincoln and Roosevelt, every Dominion Governor-General was autocratic, including India’s first Governor-General.
So why did Nehru choose to become prime minister instead of Governor-General? Important as Nehru was, he was just one party leader and at best a stalwart amongst at least three others. There was no question of Congress forwarding Nehru’s name for the Governor-General given that he was not a neutral arbiter for the various party factions. He had a major rival in Patel and his position in the Indian pantheon was by no means as absolute as Jinnah’s. Jinnah was — as Nehru wrote in his book, Discovery of India — the only Muslim League politician of noted ability, and entirely without the lure of office. Nehru’s role in India was to be that of a respected party politician and not that of an impartial arbiter that Jinnah’s followers expected.
There are many myths that are woven around Jinnah’s period as Governor-General of Pakistan, one of which was forwarded by Campbell Johnson who inaccurately claimed in his book Mission With Mountbatten that Jinnah applied for powers under the Ninth Schedule of the Government of India Act 1935 (GOIA 1935). It was the Ninth Schedule of the GOIA 1935 that strengthened the Governor-General and gave him powers to ensure passage of bills in a form that had been recommended by the Governor-General. From July 19, 1947 onwards, the Ninth Schedule was no longer available.
A constitutional point of divergence between the Dominion of Pakistan and the Dominion of India was Section 93, which empowered the Governor-General to dismiss provincial legislatures. It was Pakistan that omitted Section 93 and India that adopted it. Therefore, the Pakistani Governor-General could not, in contrast to the Indian Governor-General, dismiss a legislature. This is very relevant in the context of the Khan Ministry dismissal, for that dismissal was not the dissolution of a legislature but simply constitutional manoeuvring. The governor of NWFP, after concluding that Dr Khan Sahib no longer commanded the confidence of the House, invited Abdul Qayyum Khan to form the government, which he did. After this, the House was prorogued and reconvened when Qayyum had established a majority before the budget session. Technicality? Perhaps. However, the Canadian Governor-General as late as December 2008 used the same constitutional device to save Prime Minister Harper’s government and no one accused her of being undemocratic.
The dismissal of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP, now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) government has long been cited as an example of an early streak of authoritarianism in Pakistan’s history. It is said much of Pakistan’s later crisis of democracy has its roots in this decision. This sound bite has been used by many critics of Jinnah as being one grave example of lack of statesmanship at a critical juncture. I have a different view and I will endeavour to explain why.
We must examine whether Jinnah’s actions vis-à-vis the NWFP Assembly in that first week of independence were unconstitutional. If these actions were not unconstitutional, were these undemocratic and malicious under a veil of constitutionality? Finally, if we conclude that these actions were either unconstitutional or undemocratic, were these actions responsible for Pakistan’s subsequent crisis of constitutionalism and democracy, which manifested itself in the form of prolonged periods of direct military rule in the country.
To begin with, it is important to note again that Pakistan opted to omit Section 93 powers, which allowed the central government to dismiss provincial legislatures. India, on the other hand, retained these powers and used the same on several occasions to dismiss provincial legislatures. The dismissal of the Khan Ministry in NWFP, however, was not a dismissal of the legislature. The governor of NWFP, Sir George Cunningham, acting on the advice of the Governor-General under Section 51(5), dismissed Dr Khan Sahib as the chief minister and invited Abdul Qayyum Khan of the Muslim League to form the government. Therefore, the issue of constitutionality of the action does not arise per se.
Now the real question is whether this meant a dismissal of a democratically elected government and whether this action taken at the behest of Jinnah was indeed undemocratic or malicious. To address whether the decision was democratic or not, let us consider the facts. Dr Khan Sahib became the premier after the 1946 election on the basis of 30 members in a House of 50. Out of these 30 members, 12 were Hindu MLAs. It may be pointed out that the weightage given to the Hindu community was 24 percent against an actual population of six percent in the province; 11 of these 12 Hindu members moved to India at independence. Of the remaining 19, two belonged to the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, an ally of the Congress Party. Congress proper had won only 16 seats out of a total of 38 Muslim seats. Therefore, Dr Khan Sahib enjoyed the support of 19 members in a House of 39, already a minority government. Later the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind members also parted company and so did a Congress member Mian Jaffar Shah, leaving Dr Khan Sahib with only 16 members in a House of 39. As for the procedure adopted to effect a ministry and get the requisite support, the newly formed League ministry had to show its numbers by the next budget session, which it did.
Even otherwise Dr Khan Sahib had lost all moral authority to govern after the referendum a couple of months before independence, which had returned 51 percent votes in the Muslim League’s favour. While in recent years some have tried to argue that the referendum was questionable, the truth is that Congress had not only endorsed the referendum but had successfully procured the removal of Sir Olaf Caroe, who it deemed inaccurately as pro-League, as governor, replacing him with Sir Robert Lockhart to preside over the said referendum. Even Dr Khan Sahib had confidently declared that if the League received 30 percent of the votes in the election, he would resign. Dr Khan Sahib himself agreed that the referendum was as proper or improper as the election that had gotten him into power and this was promptly reported to the Viceroy by Rob Lockhart, Congress’ governor of choice. Lockhart went on to advise Dr Khan Sahib that the right and proper thing to do was to resign immediately. The governor also expressed concern that the continuation of a ministry so utterly hostile to the new state would be untenable and that the Viceroy should consider dismissing the NWFP government under section 93, which would be the best course available. In public, of course, both Dr Khan Sahib and Bacha Khan continued to declare that the referendum was improper and fraudulent. To this end, it is important to quote Kanji Dwarkadas, who in his letter of July 26, 1947 said: “An American journalist who has returned to Delhi from the Frontier has told me that…the Frontier referendum was run on fair lines and not as Dr Khan Sahib and Abdul Ghaffar Khan have explained it. He found Dr Khan Sahib to be muddled headed and both Khan brothers are now rather sore with the Congress for having let them down.”
As a liberal democrat with close to four decades of parliamentary experience in the Indian legislature, Jinnah was repulsed by the idea of dismissing any Legislative Assembly. Therefore, in early August, he suggested instead that if given a chance the Muslim League could form a coalition government with non-Muslim representatives, which would give the Muslim League legislative majority and thereby bypass the Section 93 dismissal. As mentioned earlier, this Section 93 was in any event not available after August 14, 1947. Rob Lockhart was of the view that if a change was to be made, in the fitness of things, it had to be made quickly because he recalled that Dr Khan Sahib had warned of a mass movement, which he “would try and keep non-violent”. Lord Mountbatten failed to heed either advice and consequently it fell to the Governor-General of Pakistan to take a decision that he had hoped to avoid.
The Khan brothers were openly hostile to Pakistan. They had boycotted the referendum citing that it did not have the option of NWFP remaining independent or worse joining Afghanistan. Bacha Khan had on June 27, 1947 called for an independent and free Pathan state based on Islamic principles and social justice. Dr Khan Sahib meanwhile continued to distribute arms licences to his party men. Similarly, consider the police intelligence report of August 5, 1947 that said: “It is rumoured in some circles that Congress and Red Shirt supporters might start civil disobedience after the 15th of August if the Congress Ministry is made to vacate the office. It is reported that the Faqir of Ipi will declare jihad against the British and the Hindus after the Id and that the Zalmai Pakhtoon Party would fight the Muslim League for the attainment of Pathanistan” (See No 220, National Documentation Centre, Islamabad, 1996, 263-264, The Referendum in NWFP). In the circumstances, which government was going to allow an openly hostile government to continue in power, especially when that government had lost its majority in the Legislative Assembly? In the US for example, President Abraham Lincoln had dismissed not one but five state legislatures in the South in the immediate aftermath of the civil war. Jinnah, on the other hand, had not dismissed the legislature but had ensured an in-House change. Therefore, in the view of this writer at least the dismissal of the Khan Ministry was constitutional, democratic and morally responsible.
Finally on Balochistan and the annexation of Kalat, I would say that no princely state in Indian subcontinent was given the right to sovereignty by either India or Pakistan. This is the legal paradigm. It is no more coercion than India’s actions in Hyderabad, Junagadh, Tripura or Travoncore. So frankly that is neither here nor there.
Filed under: History, Jinnah · Tags: Governor General, Important Corrective, Jinnah, Pakistan
132 Responses to "Important Corrective to distortion of history by Viewpointonline"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- sunny
said to amjad who wrote:
…
“Islam has broug... - amjad
said Islam has brought much destruction upon mankind an... - sunny said to amjad
Islam has brought much destruction upon m...
- sunny said 1)
We know that many muslim pakistanis living in U...
- kaalchakra
said If that is true, then it would make sense for Faiz... - kaalchakra said Rex, I totally missed that possibility. Yes, the I...
- sunny said The name Ravishankar will drive the muslims (like...
- sunny said Pakistanis have developed a habit and politics of...
- amjad said no.hindutva is divisive force.they are like knight...
- Rex Minor said Kaal,
If Faiz was the revolutionary poet as Tajend...
ylh
an eye opener for sure. i mean i confess to subscribing the view that Jinnah had disowned his daughter, not legally, but for all practical purposes. that bit about their last meeting was certainly news to me. Dina’s last meeting with her father is not common knowledge in India for sure.
that said, nobody can deny the fact that Dina’s marriage to a Parsi did not cause a strain in their relationship and that was a bit of hypocrisy on Jinnah’s part considering he married Ruttie( also parsi).
you are obviously aware of the dialogue between Jinnah and Dina when Dina told her father that she intended to marry a Parsi. Jinnah asked her to marry one among the million muslim boys but Dina refused. that is not an indication of a truly secular man. from then on, in company, Jinnah always referred to his daughter as Mrs Wadia. so the relationship was obviously strained because of the marriage, subsequent meetings notwithstanding.
Jinnah found words of praise from all theleaders of India at the time including his ‘rivals’. among the people who knew him well, my favourite description of Jinnah comes from the Indian leader Sarojini Naidu who said, “a sincerity of purpose and the lasting charm of a character animated by a brave conception of duty and an austere and lovely code of private honour and public integrity… Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emaciation, languid and luxurious of habit, Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s attenuated form is a deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance. Somewhat formal and fastidious, and aloof and imperious of manner, the calm hauteur of his accustomed reserve but masks, for those who know him, a naive and eager humanity, an intuition quick and tender as a woman’s, a humour gay and winning as a child’s. Pre-eminently rational and practical, discreet and dispassionate in his estimate and acceptance of life, the obvious sanity and serenity of his worldly wisdom effectually disguise a shy and splendid idealism which is of the very essence of the man.” so she did say that he was ‘imperious’ and ‘fastidious’ of manner which we very well know is a euphemism for ‘elitism’. Indeed it is this that which created the massive disconnect between him and the people that Jinnah suffered for most of his career. the crucial point where Gandhi proved so precocious in creating a connect with the masses. but i am afraid that for the rest of the post, you have justified Jinnah’s doing by that of the mistakes of others.
that is unfortunate.
whatever Lincoln did, he was the democratically elected president vested by such powers by the people.
Jinnah was not. the problem with Jinnah is that he did not even start the process of establishing his vision for Pakistan in the form of a constitution. apart from a few speeches here and there, he did nothing concrete to establish the secularism that he spoke about.
you justify Jinnah’s assuming governor-generalship by that of others doing the same not realizing that those others did so in a time when democracy had not yet been evolved very seriously as an administrative method. that was not the case with Jinnah.
Nehru did not just become the Prime Minister of India. he conducted elections. that is crucial. and nobody was under the illusion that the Governor General had more powers than Nehru. you talk about Patel, but the party hierarchy has already been established by then and Patel had understood that he would be second in command although by no means any lesser.
Dismissing the government in NWFP was ridiculous simply because they did not follow it up with elections as should happen in a fair democratic process. that is what made the dismissal authoritative. for all the discussions about the number of MP’s he had, the fact is that the truth can only be determined by a free and fair excercize of adult franchise.
he also forced Urdu down rebellious Bengali throats which sowed the seeds of decades of Bengali discontent which resulted in Bangladesh. his speech in the Dhaka University to the students there is famous. this after you say in your article, that Jinnah was aware of the fact that regional identities are more important than religious ones? did he have nothing in the way of prescience?
anyway, his blunder was not in what he did so much as in what he failed to do once Pakistan was created.
blaming the Indian leaders for not accepting the cabinet mission plan is also incorrect and unfair to them. one look at what that plan entailed and you would not want to enter that abomination of an idea. the plan was disgusting to say the least and no leader worth his salt and intelligence would ever accept such an inane and draconian plan. after listening to such a plan, it is completely believable that Nehru would have decided heart of heart that he would be happier in a divided India than a united India with such a plan. seperate electorates for Hindus and Muslims?! what kind of a country would that be?! i think after a plan like that Nehru had decided that he would have his divided India where he was confident he could ensure perfect secularism and a pure democracy, neither of which were entailed in the CMP. and Nehru came through. he knew he could ensure minority rights in India the result of which was the kind of constitution India has and the fact that no Hindu Muslim riot took place in India as long as he was PM, this immediately after the partition.
Gandhi of course opposed it till the very end. even offering Jinnah the post of the Prime minister of united India( Jinnah refused).
plus has now come to my knowledge( thanks to no-communal) that Jinnah had accepted the CMP only as a stepping stone to Pakistan.
Nehru and Gandhi cannot be blamed at all for rejecting the CMP as it was the worst plan ever proposed. the irony of Pakistan is that it was created as a safeguard for the muslims who needed no protection owing to the fact that they were already a minority in these parts. an overwhelming percentage of the Indian Muslims stayed where they were anyway so the rationale behind the formation of Pakistan is a little flimsy anyway.
astute as he was, Jinnah knew all this and yet did not listen to the wisdom of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad who insisted that partition will only weaken the representation of the Indian Muslims. so assuming Jinnah knew this, the only conclusion you can draw from this is that Jinnah was either a megalomaniac, or he was a fool not to see this. the narrative in Indian is that Jinnah was brilliant and therefore a megalomaniac who wanted to go down history as the maker of a nation. that he did is the best testimony to his brilliance and yet also to his vanity.
* confess to subscribing to the view….
PS i forgot to tell you that the blank piece of paper that nehru handed to Mountbatten was a mistake that they laughed at later. it was only an indication of the pressures that Nehru faced in the immediate aftermath of the partition.
he later handed Mountbatten the proper list and Mountbatten had nothing to do with the selection of the cabinet.
can you also please tell me how Jinnah had lesser power than Mountbatten? what is it that Jinnah could not do which Mountbatten could and did?
*the irony of Pakistan is that it was created as a safeguard for the muslims who needed no protection owing to the fact that they were already a MAJORITY in these parts
Bet Jinnah could have bettered Bradman’s average had he bothered to play cricket. Usain Bolt is thankful he doesn’t have to run against Jinnah. Napoleon should be grateful he lived in a different era. Einstein is lucky he discovered relativity before Jinnah got around to doing it. Heard Jinnah performed open-heart surgery with left hand while negotiating the Cabinet Mission Plan with his right. The laws of gravity only occasionally applied to him.
Let us suppose Jinnah’s image is restored to “glory”. How does that help Pakistan? How does it help reduce the fascism that is inherent in islam?
Pakistan has long ago left the shores on which Jinnah died.
Instead of calling me a troll it would be more correct (and fair) to call those people trolls who continue to set hopes on Jinnah and his “glory”.
Even if we suppose that Jinnah was a perfect muslim and perfect because he had returned to islam, and Gandhi, Patel etc. were all idiots and scoundrels – it will no more help Pakistan and islam and muslims take to the path of honesty. On the contrary it will only make them more arrogant with the argument: “it is never a muslim’s fault”.
ylh’s Jinnah worship is going to cost us a lot many many more lives. I wonder whether ylh can be wise – or is he only self-righteous (like his worshipped idol)?
pakistan was forced upon indians to establish bania raj in india.its creation has nothing to do with the interest of general hindu or muslim.nearly all muslim religious institutions were opposed to creation of pakistan.hinduism is divisive philosophy,see what is happening in banglore main reason of exodus is general behaviour of local hindus(ramsena).rss is rumour spreading society.
If only Jinnah was a prophet, Jinnah worshipping would have yielded results.
He didn’t even have pure Islamic blood. His forefathers were pagan kuffar.
I went through the criticism brought about by Mr.Yasir Latif Hamdani on an article published in “viewpointonline.net” dated August 17, 2012. The first observation is that Jinnah converted from the Ismaili sect to Shiaism in 1901; way ahead of the start of his political career, hence his conversion would not have helped him in capitalizing on it politically.
Well the source of this information is a statement rendered by Mr. Sharifuddin Peerzada who was a court witness in a case still pending at the Sindh High Court, challenging the faith of Jinnah, whether he was an Ismaili or Twelver Shia. What is the credibility of Sharif ud Din Peerzada and what has been his conduct and character during the constitutional history of this country is not a mystery. The fact however remains that Jinnah knew the consequences of declaring himself an Ismaili and hence fully capitalized therein by converting to Shiaism when he was in active politics.
The fact is that one of his funeral prayers was held as per Sunni customs led by Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, the other as per Shia rites at the governor house, led by Syed Anis-ul-Hasnain, while his Ismaili relatives filed a case at the Sindh High court declaring him an Ismaili.
As far as Jinnah’s relations with his daughter are concerned this is what wikipaedia says referring to Jinnah’s Assistant Mr.M.C.Chagla:
Dina’s relationship with her father became strained when Dina expressed her desire to marry a Parsi-born Indian Neville Wadia. Jinnah, a Muslim, tried to dissuade her, but failed. Mahommedali Currim Chagla, who was Jinnah’s assistant at the time, recalls: “Jinnah, in his usual imperious manner, told her that there were millions of Muslim boys in India, and she could have anyone she chose. Reminding her father that his wife (Dina’s mother Rattanbai), had also been a non-Muslim, a Parsi also coincidently, the young lady replied: ‘Father, there were millions of Muslim girls in India. Why did you not marry one of them?’ And he replied that, ‘she became a Muslim’”.
It is said (by Jinnah’s associate M C Chagla in ” Roses in December”) that when Dina married Neville, Jinnah said to her that she was not his daughter any more.It has not been corroborated by any other source. Jinnah allegedly disowned her and the father-daughter relationship became extremely formal after she married.But the legal notice of disowning never came which is essential for legal purposes. They did correspond, but he addressed her formally as ‘Mrs. Wadia’. Dina and Neville lived in Mumbai and had two children, a boy and a girl. Dina’s son Nusli Wadia became a Christian, but converted back to Zoroastrianism and settled in the industrially wealthy Parsi community of Mumbai. Dina did not travel to Pakistan until her father’s funeral in Karachi in September 1948. Their relationship is a matter of legal conjecture and hair splitting as Pakistani laws allow for a person to be disinherited for leaving Islam (hence no claim on Pakistani properties of Jinnah) and Indian laws recognizing religion’s traditional succession rules to operate.
Waseem Altaf mian how or why did converting to Shiism in 1901 help Jinnah’s political career? My source is not Shareefuddin Peerzada. My source is Ian Bryant Wells. Why dont you write to A G Noorani and ask him. Your idiotic comment about Ismailis flies in the face of the fact that Aga Khan the first president of the league and all major stalwarts were Ismaili. In any event Jinnah became a Khoja Shia in 1901. Almost all Khojas excommunicated from the Ismaili sect join the Khoja Shia twelvers. Doctrinally Khoja Shia Twelvers are not exactly the regular 12ers and are bound by Hindu personal law.
You use Wikipedia and ambiguous comment of Chagla even though Chagla and Jinnah had drifted away in 1929 and Dina did not get married till 1938. Meanwhile there isnt a single document that proves this claim.
You Mr Altaf are intellectually dishonest or challenged in terms of comprehension. In any event your nonsensical article has been laid bare and now you can run back to your comrades and bad mouth me as is the wont of every sore loser these days.
ylh
jinnah was far better than ghandhi and nehru both.nehru forced firoz ghandhi to marry his daughter indira in vedic way.marriage was illegal as firoz ghandhi was not hindu.
ghandhi was main obstruction in marriage of vijay laxmi pundit with his syed mahmood.all her life vijay laxmi cursed ghandhi for this evil act.
these are personalities who established secularism in india.
Not sure what crack ahem is on but only an idiot will conclude that I wish to portray Jinnah as the perfect Muslim whatever that means.
Who is Ian Bryant Wells, Coordinator of Intelligence Studies in the Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia and who hired him to write a book “Jinnah”please enlighten the readers.
Now Mr.Yasir claims to be a scholar.The readers may like to go through the language in the above comments by Mr.Yasir Latif Hamdani and see for themselves the “intellectual” shades of “scholarship”.”Idiotic comment”,”intellectually dishonest” and “challenged in terms of comprehension” “nonsensical article” “bad mouth” and “sore loser” ARE SOME OF THE EXPRESSIONS USED BY Mr.Yasir Latif Hamdani in the above two comments:
An academic scholar would not use bitter and indecent language but would make his observations more cogent and logical which I do not find in Mr.Hamdani.Hence it is not worthwhile to engage in an argument with an emotionally unstable and “charged” person.No more comments on my part.
Fingolfin,
I am sorry but you are stuck in a narrative that is informed by nationalist mythologies of both countries. Ayesha Jalal and H M Seervai have already blown to bits this history. Therefore I recommend that you read Ayesha Jalal’s Sole Spokesman or listen to her lectures on Jinnah on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DqZw9HcnIQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fO1nTa08Cs
She also addresses the issue of Azad etc…
As for your question about Jinnah being unelected… Jinnah was appointed governor general because of the popular mandate his party had received in 1946 elections. So while in form he might be unelected, in substance he was an elected leader.
Wasim Altaf mian…
Not sure where I have claimed to be a scholar… I only claim to be an honest man which is more than I can say for an intellectually dishonest person like you. The point dear Waseem Altaf mian is that Jinnah converted to Shia 12ers in 1901. So your claim is basically a lie and has been shown up as a lie.
Instead of making ridiculous comments about Ian Bryant Wells being hired etc… have you even read the book? Why don’t you enlighten us as to who paid Ian Bryant Wells to write the said book … and why a leading publisher in India published this book? Or why University of Chicago – a prestigious American School- chose to republish it? It cuts against the grain of the ridiculous nationalist mythology of Pakistan which you in main rely upon. Therefore only an idiot or a mentally incapacitated person will claim that someone got Wells to write the book.
This is A G Noorani’s article http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2217/stories/20050826003003400.htm which uses Ian Bryant Wells’ book. So your pathetic little comment shows just how incapable you are of carrying out a dialogue on the basis of fact. I suppose someone paid A G Noorani as well, and Patrick French… and Ayesha Jalal… and H M Seervai … and an endless list of historians who disagree with your ridiculous contentions which are merely a regurgitation of Pakistan Studies nonsense.
So run away by all means… that is what people like you do when you are unable to put up a case cogently.
“plus has now come to my knowledge( thanks to no-communal) that Jinnah had accepted the CMP only as a stepping stone to Pakistan.”
No communal has his or her point of view. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012%5C08%5C13%5Cstory_13-8-2012_pg3_5
Simple Question , Was not MAJ the leader of So called “indian Musalman”?
About Quaide Azam Mohummed Ali Jinnah, RA .. I largely agree with the telltale observations and comments of Yasser Latif Hamdani. I am not a particular fAN of Ayesha Jalalk .. her writings involving pakistan are sometimes Grants and often career promotion oriented , thus occasionally truth becomes less-relevant and In Justice rings the bells (it means injustice in fashionable context. (( Flashback: “In” and Out. Go Sloane in ””’Chel’sea Change””” sense!)).
While I am on the topic of doing Justice.. what happened regarding the Public Interest Writ Hamdani filed in the High Court. It is rough territory in this Country.
Evil runs deeper. Did you read about the Gang Rape [circa 1978] of Mohtrima Shabnam Jii in front of her husband and children by some baadmoeasche-goons from Khushaab and Vehari. We close books and claim we are going by the book. Truth becomes the casuality. Between Truth and Outrages ly some painful realizations nicknamed Inbetweenties…
This is what we did through Indifference to Quaide Azam’s dream (MAJ must be turning in his Karachi grave) about Pakistan.
Ask logistics expert and nouveau riche with Old BOR Money bussing magnate Alhajj Farooq Bandial why majority-[ppulation East Pakistan severed itself from its Western Wing.
The Jinnah Institute should pioneer/sponsor – - short although the national memory has become because of evil permeating and rot at the top – - some garma-garam research on that topic. “Realization of truth is bitter but better”, to quote inimmitable/irresistable Paris Biennial Laureate Iqbal Geoffrey.
Law paints no pretty pictures. It must transcend researching PR or mittip-AO-ing and all forms of Exploitation and cover-up.
(( Waan Bhucharraan Zinda BAD!! ))
It is funny to note that Pakistan after losing its majority wing in 1971 have become the self appointed inheritors of Jinnah’s legacy. Funny because the clarion call for the TNT was actually spearheaded by the erstwhile East Pakistanis (Bengalis) who secceded when they realized what they had ended-up with.
It does not matter what Jinnah wanted. Just as it does not matter what Gandhi wanted. It is what Pakistanis want today. They want religion to rule the roost and it is their god given right to live as they want to.
This singular fixation on what Jinnah wanted or did not want seems to stem from deep concern of some intellectuals who simply cannot understand what Pakistan has become today – it has become what its majority wanted and if you dont like it – tough!!
(Refer to the A. Jalal links by YLH). Ayesha became very defensive when she was asked how come if Jinnah was so forward looking that he forsaw the advent of the cold-war that he couldnt see the scale of violence that was to follow the announcement of the partition? (Not a direct quote).
This suggests that there is a war going on for the heart and soul of the people of Pakistan. The historical Jinnah seems to have become some sort of abstract Jinnah. This mythical Jinnah is now being used as a weapon in this war and all sides seem to be painting it in a color that suits them.
Jinnah the politician seems to be contradicting Jinnah the man, Jinnah the young lawyer appears at odds with Jinnah at the doorstep of his maker.
Jinnah the politician was outplayed by Nehru and Patel. Jinnah the visionary was a failure. He knew he was dying yet he did not make explicit efforts to laydown a well annunciated roadmap for his country. This singular ommision suggests that Jinnah knew that he had been suckered, in a manner of speaking and was so disheartened that he prety much resigned himself for whay may happen and didnt care what happened to Pakistan.
IMHO, Zia was more visionary. He at least gave the whole country, Pakistan, an identity that was distinctly not Indian. Jinnah never tried to do so. Perhaps in his heart Jinnah still thought of himself and his new countrymen as Indians.
Jinnah can not compete with real Islamic heros like bin quasim, unless Jinnah is converted to an Arab Sunni mardemomin. Its work in progress.
Here is an interesting comment from akar Patel on tribune –
The words ‘silent majority’ are often used when Pakistanis writing in English refer to Zia’s laws or their fallout, such as the shooting of Salmaan Taseer.
The truth is that the laws that remain on the book unchanged through dictatorial and democratic governments are there because they are popular.
There is no silent majority in Pakistan, only a minority that doesn’t grasp reality.
The Quaid-e-Azam and Ziaul Haq were two leaders who knew what Muslims wanted and gave it to them.
Eid mubarak to all readers of The Express Tribune.
Yasser Latif Hamdani says:
August 20, 2012 at 12:54 am
Not sure what crack ahem is on but only an idiot will conclude that I wish to portray Jinnah as the perfect Muslim whatever that means……….U RIGHT YASSER,
AGAR GADHE KE SAR PE SEENGH HOTE TO AHEM BARASINGHA ZAROOR HOTA.
ylh
thank you for the link to the videos. i really enjoyed them. i am well aware of Jalal’s narrative thanks to her articles that i have read. i read your article too.
no-communal also mentioned the Woodrow Wyatt account. in your article, you do not mention that you disagree with the Wyatt’s account.
if you do not, then is it not clear that Jinnah considered the CMP as a stepping stone towards Pakistan? please let me know your take on this for to me, this is crucial in forming my final opinion on Jinnah. it is in fact the decider for me. thank you.
as far as the videos are concerned, Jalal is someone who i hold in high regard not least because of the fact that i am a huge fan of Manto and some bias has crept in form the very beginning.
in her speech she talks about the Jinnah in the 30′s and his work in creating a better understanding of the center-provinces paradigm. she then goes on to talk about how Iqbal’s idea was not a sovereign state but a state which existed within a larger India. she also talks about the second round table conference and how when Jinnah read Rehmat Ali’s note, he said that” i should warn you though, all my friends are Hindu!”
that to me was the highlight of the talk.
She discusses the Lahore resolution and after that enters the realm of the mid-forties. all this is to say that her narrative does not tear most of my narrative to bits at all but that mostly agree’s with it. Jinnah too she says, was dead against separate electorates. that begs the question, why in the world did he then accept the Cabinet mission plan?!
where my narrative diverges from Jalal’s is during the partition period. she says that it was the Hindu Mahasabha and the Congress that opted for partition. she says that these two groups made the voters of the non-muslim majority areas to opt for partition as opposed to unity which was what the ‘other’ part of Punjab and Bengal opted for. well obviously! if the choice was between ALL of Bengal and Punjab going into forming the new state) as Jinnah wanted) compared to MOST of Bengal and Punjab going into forming the new state, would you honestly ever chose the latter as an Indian? of course you would not! you would try and get as much land to be a part of the country you belong too. this also not to say that just because the partition would not happen, that there would be no bloodshed. there would still be a mass exodus of Hindu’s to Hindu majority areas and of Muslims to Muslim majority areas. that would not change.
if anything the moving population would be bigger.
Jalal also keeps criticizing the Congress for not accepting the CMP not bothering to go into what kind of a plan that was. i cannot understand in what circumstances such a plan would ever be accepted. this, based on the principles of separate electorates that Jalal in this very speech says that Jinnah abhorred. separate electorates do not guarantee rights to Muslims, only a sure shot route to anarchy by creating more problems among the communities.
Gandhi even said that he would rather see partition than this sort of ‘grouping’ and he was absolutely right.
the CMP never had any justification and never will. Nehru might have coveted power or he might not have, but rejecting the CMP is the best thing he did for both our countries. rejecting it was no indication of of his powermongering. it was an indication of his sanity.
even Jalal says that the Achilles heel of the plan was that if Muslims could demand provincial autonomy, then why could not the others? why the special privilege? and she was absolutely right.
the CMP fell flat on all accounts. so the burden of guilt that you seem to think is Nehru’s to bear for rejecting it, is not at all. it might have been had the plan been an excellent one. given it’s nature, Nehru did us all a favour.
as far as Kalam is concerned, when asked the question, Jalal says that the reason Kalam did not go along with Jinnah was ‘party dynamics’. this is ridiculous. Kalam and Jinnah just happend to see the entire issue with completely different lenses. i am sure you have read Kalam’s interview to Shorish Kashmiri and his prediction about Pakistan, each of which has come true.
here it is just in case you have not.http://newageislam.com/books-and-documents/maulana-abul-kalam-azad–the-man-who-knew-the-future-of-pakistan-before-its-creation/d/2139
the man was the most prescient man of his times and his ideological brethren were Nehru and Gandhi which is indicative of the fact that he dedicated his autobiography to Nehru.
so there Jalal just does not speak the truth.
thee video has not ‘torn to bits’ anything that i have said. the fact that dismissing the NWFP gvt without giving Dr Khan Sahib the chance to prove majority and then not conducting elections. forcing Urdu on Bengalis, not initiating the democratic process or the creation the constitution and becoming governor general are just some of the blase allegations.
you say his election is justified by the 1946 government. you know as well as i do that that is not constitutional. especially for someone who had always prided himself over it. that is just not the way democracy works. in every other case YLH, the people knew full well WHAT exact powers they were giving to the leader in an election. but in the absence of an existing constitution, EVEN if an election had been conducted, how are the people to know what powers will be vested with the leader? it is like giving a man a blank check. that is what is the meaning of conducting an election without a constitution. in Jinnah’s case an election was not even conducted anyway. so that is an argument that cannot defend Jinnah.
Jinnah can always be the hero to Pakistan. that does not mean that everything he did had a justification or has to have one. on some scores, Jinnah was just plain wrong. more Indians today criticize Gandhi and Nehru as opposed to eulogize them.
Jalal openly blames ONLY the congress for the partition. this is an incredibly myopic view. Congress stuck to their guns and Jinnah to his. if Congress can be found fault with for not accepting the draconian CMP then why not blame Jinnah for not dropping his stance and giving into the Congress to ensure a united India in which Muslims would have been 33% of the population?! why does not one person in Pakistan do that? because that is not in concomitance with the Jinnah narrative of Pakistan.
to try and exonerate Jinnah of any blame is naive.
in my view, the Congress pulled and the AIML pulled, neither of them wielding and they tore the Punjab and Bengal together.
What was the religion of the man who presented the two-nation theory, based on religion; that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together.Was he an Ismaili,a Khoja shia,an Asria ashri shia,a Sunni or what.Or religion had no place in his life as he often avoided the query as to which religion he belonged to.Two-nation theory vis-a-vis the speech of August 11 1947,flies in the face of Jinnah who exploited religion to the optimum and then negated it in one go.
Yaseer Latif Hamdani
Two Questions Mr YLH
1. How LONG Your Obsession with Jinnah Last
.
2 What has this OBSESSION with Jinnah given you
ie what have you achieved by this Jinnah Obsession
Fingolfin,
that was an amazing link thanks
There are a few questions in my mind which maybe figlofin or RHR can answer as a teacher answers a student.
For about 700 years the followers of Islam ruled Major portions of India. From the behaviour of the Rulers I feel that there was no itention by them to proselytise. Their intention was to enrich and empower themselves which is the intention of all adventerous people. Even in the prsent period we see this happening all over the world. At that time there was not much in trade or manufacturing where one could devote their energies.So grabbing land was the only way one could satisfy his ambition.
The rest of the populace kept on living their lives.
Hindu religion was just a compilation of various philosophical treatises, epics,stories or legends sometimes contradictory to each other. Education was limited and the texts were very difficult which only a few had read so what they said became religion. Casteism was one such aberration which somehow became the biggest bane of Hinduism.
Apart from Manusmriti which is hardly the touchstone of Hinduism (of course I have never read Manusmriti or other many scores of religous texts)became an integral part of Hinduism.
Quran or Bible are generally treated by Hindus as another set of Religous books as venerable as own home grown texts. I have never found Hindus degenerating Quran or Bible and they criticise them as much as they criticise the Hindu texts. In Hinduism there is no bar to following teachings of Quran or Bible.
For 700 years the Muslims and Hindus lived peacefully. Of course there was some barriers between them.There was no inter marriage as there was no inter marriage between different castes of Hindus.
Literature, Art and Poetry flourished each borrowing from other. There were many Muslim writers viz. Rahim, Raskhan Kabir who wrote and borrowed episodes of Hindu epics. Till today Hindi has not been able to match the poetry written during that period.
With the advent of the British and the Industrial revolution and consequent to the opening up of various other means of opening of avenues for growth the competition grew. Landlords took a back seat and expertise, street smartness, enterprise and such qualities became the hallmark of successful men.
In such a mileu with greater education the bane of caste system in Hinduism started geting diluted and now it can be said to be nearly nil. There is lot of inter marrying and no discrimination.
Why then we could progress so much in the sphere of bridging the divide between castes why has the divide between religions become so huge. The religion as such now plays a much minor role in ones life than it used to say a hundred years earlier. We have been able to realise deletrious effect of religion and move beyond. I know of various people both Hindus and Muslims who in their personal lives care too hoots for ritualistic religion but when it comes to a comparison between Hinduism and Islam or India and pakistan they become man eating tigers.
Vijay Goel,
In order to understand how Hindus and Muslims used to live in peace with each other, perhaps you need to read the works of another Goel – Sita Ram Goel. You could read “The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India” at voiceofdharma!
.
Nothing is so badly understood as the caste-system. The least understanding of the caste system happens to be among the educated Indians. If you wish to understand the caste system just read a little bit of what Premendra Priyadarshi has to say on it. His writings are freely available on scribd and elsewhere.
.
Al Beruni writes in his Kitab al-Hind:
“According to their marriage law it is better to marry a stranger
than a relative. The more distant the relationship of a woman with
regard to her husband, the better.”
.
Till the arrival of the Muslims in India, Indian society as long as it was organized according to Vedic Law, used to marry exogamously across janas (tribes), occupations, regions, gotras. When the Vedic Law broke down, then people started organizing according to trade guilds and due to endogamy, it gave rise to castes.
.
“Castes” or jatis as caste is often wrongly termed has nothing to do with Hinduism.
to ylh
What you do is Jinnah worship. You interpret everything that happened 70 years ago with the intention of justifying and glorifying Jinnah.
Let the dead remain dead.
Pakistan proves the failure of islam, Jinnah and their lies. That is what counts today.
Actually RHR should be calling you a troll. But he does not dare to. So he lets loose his frustration at me by calling me a troll.
Anyway who writes in favour of islam, secularism in or through islam and Jinnah is actually a troll.
The worst of islam is yet to come. The worst Jinnahism is already there to suffer under.
You can wax eloquent on Jinnah and his statements – but lies and tricks will always remain lies and tricks that destroy those who eulogize them.
Fingolfin,
If Maulana Azad was such a prescient person, then surely you accept his view that Nehru’s alteration of terms was nothing less than a bombshell for everyone and the most tragic occasion in Indian history. You can’t both appreciate a man’s prescience and then forget that Azad chided Nehru and criticised him bitterly for his actions vis a vis the Cabinet Mission Plan. Azad blames Nehru squarely and calls his rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan a folly of the highest order. I’ll quote Azad below.
However the Abul Al Kalam Azad link you put up is a fake interview concocted by Shorish Kashmiri, an Islamic fascist fundamentalist who had opposed Jinnah during the Pakistan Movement. Why is it a fake? Read my article below:
http://pakteahouse.net/2009/12/01/the-man-who-forged-an-interview-shorish-kashmiris-maulana-azad-hoax/
Hardly something to go by. What Ayesha Jalal says about Azad makes a lot of sense. His posthumous confessions prove her point. May I suggest that you read India Wins Freedom the uncensored version. Azad was jee huzuri of Gandhi and Nehru. But he did try to speak the truth. Jalal is right on the money in her description of Azad.
“Nehru might have coveted power or he might not have, but rejecting the CMP is the best thing he did for both our countries. rejecting it”
This is wishful thinking at best. No impartial historian has ever concluded this. The Cabinet Mission Plan gave an elegant solution and I am sorry there is no way you can justify Nehru’s volte face. Btw the Congress was ready to work the Cabinet Mission Plan on its own terms as late May 1947 (that is with the erroneous interpretation of the grouping clause).. so your point is neither here nor there. I don’t think you even bothered to read my article. There was nothing wrong with the Cabinet Mission Plan… I am hard pressed to see why you feel it had no justification. You haven’t quoted any justification. On the contrary read H M Seervai’s Partition of India Legend and Reality. He was the foremost constitutional lawyer of India. His view is drastically different from yours about the Cabinet Mission Plan.
Anyway this is what Maulana Azad writes:
On the final day, Mr Jinnah had to admit that there could be no fairer solution of the minority problem than presented in the Cabinet Mission Plan…As such, he advised the Muslim League to accept the scheme and the Council voted unanimously in its favour Page 157
“if Congress can be found fault with for not accepting the draconian CMP”
How was it draconian? Merely saying it doesn’t prove it. It was not draconian by any measure. Secondly Congress accepted the plan but then chose to alter its basic spirit by suggesting that the opt out clause for provinces to opt out of groups after first elections actually meant that the provinces were at liberty not to join the groups in the first place.
Again I must quote Maulana Azad who you said was the most prescient person of his time:
“I explained in detail what the implications of the Plan were and pointed out that the Plan was in fact a great victory for Congress… I further pointed out that the Cabinet Mission Plan had accepted in all essentials the Congress Point of View.” Page 164
About Nehru’s actions vis a vis the CMP, Maulana Azad says:
“Jawaharlal is one of my dearest friends … I have nevertheless to say with regret that this was not the first time that he did immense harm to India’s national cause. He had committed an almost equal blunder in 1937 Page 170
The mistake in 1937 was bad enough. The mistake of 1946 proved even more costly Page 172
Jinnah had a mandate for a separate state. It was now up to Congress to negotiate with the Muslim League and come to a mutually acceptable position. By accepting Cabinet Mission Plan Jinnah showed that he was willing to work out a compromise. Other countries have done it. Look at Quebec in Canada.
“even Jalal says that the Achilles heel of the plan was that if Muslims could demand provincial autonomy, then why could not the others?”
This is not what she says. She mentions the question of right of self determination vis a vis the partition of Punjab and Bengal. She does not say that as a criticism of the cabinet mission plan … please listen to the interview again.
” in your article, you do not mention that you disagree with the Wyatt’s account.”
No I don’t disagree. On the contrary Woodrow Wyatt’s account proves my contention. It shows that the resolution of 6 June was a face saving device. That Jinnah was happy to work the federation. The 10-year out clause does not figure in the Cabinet Mission Plan. That was a demand that was not finally placed in those terms. There was absolutely no mention of the 10-year secession in the Cabinet Mission Plan. Ayesha Jalal confirms this view on page 196 of The Sole Spokesman: “But there was no mention of the right of secession from the union. All in all the 16th of May statement contained evidence of greater deference to Congress standpoint, hinting to Jinnah that perhaps he had missed the bus.”
Given that Congress would dominate the constituent assembly, Jinnah, as a constitutional lawyer, also knew that once he accepted the CMP, any secession would become impossible. Therefore if you read the Wyatt account carefully, you will realise that it was a done deal for the Congress. So no communal and you can go on arguing about the intent behind the 6 June resolution but the point is that the League would not have the numbers to alter the constitution so as to allow secession. When one reads the discussion b/w Wyatt and Jinnah in this light, it becomes obvious that the proposed solution was a face saving device.
The issue of Dr. Khan sb’s ministry etc has been addressed in my articles. Not only did Khan sb did not have a majority after partition, but Muslim League government proceeded constitutionally by the letter of the law and achieved its majority within the constitutionally mandated period. New elections were neither necessary nor possible so soon after partition especially when League could achieve a majority. Urdu – Bengali issue has also been addressed in my Daily Times’ articles “Was Jinnah Democratic”. Try and read them.
You write:
“you say his election is justified by the 1946 government. you know as well as i do that that is not constitutional.”
Not true. What I said was that Jinnah held office because the party that held the majority in Pakistan nominated him to that office. This is a perfectly democratic process and while in form Jinnah was a representative of the crown, in substance he enjoyed the office by virtue of the ruling party’s concurrence.
“that is just not the way democracy works.”
No this is precisely how democracy works. Direct elections do not take place in parliamentary democracy for either the head of state or the head of government.
“in every other case YLH, the people knew full well WHAT exact powers they were giving to the leader in an election. but in the absence of an existing constitution, EVEN if an election had been conducted, how are the people to know what powers will be vested with the leader?”
What do you think Government of India Act, 1935 was? Was it not the constitution of Pakistan? The Governor General’s powers were well defined. Are we to assume that you think presidents in parliamentary democracies are not “elected”? I am sorry but I cannot accept this as an argument?
YLH:
.
Under the CMP:
.
1. Did the Union have a legislature? What was it’s make up to be?
2. How was the Union funded?
3. What power did one group (say A or B) have within its territory princely states , say to bring land reforms or human rights within any princely state?
4. What happened if Group A voted for oneway on a Foreign policy issue (friends with Taliban) and group B voted another (enemies with Taliban) how was this to be resolved?
When will ylh leave the years 1930-47 and come live in the year 2012? Jinnah worshippers will also end up doing a lot of damage to Pakistan. every praise of islam and muslims (even of half-hearted opportunist muslims like Jinnah) will do damage to Pakistan.
Why can’t an intelligent man like ylh not comprehend this? Does it not show the tragedy of Pakistan all the more that even a ylh is caught in typical muslim self-glorification?
Jinnah is now a useful tool for islamic fascists and you can’t rescue him out of it. His end-biography (last 5-6 years of his life) is all petroleum in the fires of islamofascism.
Dear YLH
I did not want to say this but you leave me NO CHOICE
.
Jinnah was trying to be Over smart Just as YOU are doing it today
.
The whole idea Of CMP was to gain TIME so that Bengal Assam Kashmir
and Punjab could be ETHNICALLY cleansed of Hindus by Muslim
Razakars and Pathans and other MARTIAL RACES
YLH
Partition was INEVEITABLE
.
It would have happened
.
IF NOT in 1947 then DEFINITELY in 1947 .
.
WHY because Muslims had ONLY One Agenda
To OPPOSE Everything and Anything that Congress said
.
YLH do you really believe that a HUGE thing
like the CONSTITUTION could have been
agreed upon in such an environment
when Hindus and Muslims COULD NOT agree on simple things
like Transfer of Power and WHO should be PM ie either
Jinnah or Nehru
^^^ Correction
Partition was inevitable
If not in 1947 then DEFINITELY in 1957
By HASTENING the PARTITION
Patel and Nehru PRE EMPTED the EVIL DESIGNS of Muslims
.
In the SO CALLED ” 10 year waiting period ”
Muslims would have CLEANED up and Swallowed up
the ENTIRE Provinces of Punjab ,Bengal Assam and Kashmir
.
Therefore when Bengal and Punjab were partitioned
Jinnah FELT CHEATED and said that he got a MOTH EATEN PAKISTAN
Myth buster mian,
1. Yes there was a legislature. The legislature would retain the same numbers as GOIA 1935 (390 members). If your question is that if this gave parity to Muslim groups, the answer is No, it did not.
2. Since this is a loaded question – how is the European Union funded?
3. This would depend on the group constitution which would be drafted for each group really. So in principle group A – i.e. Hindu majority group- could have full power if need be to carry out land reforms.
4. Ha ha. Sounds like you’ve been hanging out with the Gupta clan because that is precisely the kind of unimaginative question one Sadhna Gupta used to come up with. Anyway … Defence and foreign policy were central subjects so the question does not arise. When the Guptas first raised this question and I exploded their argument, their fall back position was that foreign policy would be a communal issue. Again this is inaccurate .. but even if we were to accept that pathetic line, the resolution of the issue would require 3/4ths concurrence in group legislatures… which would be impossible to be secured in Group B even let alone Group A and Group C. Therefore you can tell the Guptas over there at “Observing Liberal Pakistan” that they need to get a life.
Maulana Azad was SAD ONLY ABOUT the
DIVISION of Muslim Strength that is all
.
He was looking at the issue from MUSLIM VIEWPOINT only
YLH
Suppose Even if A government was formed under CMP
EVEN THEN Muslim League would have Continued to INDULGE
in Ethnic Cleansing so that in 1957 they could CLAIM ENTIRE
Provinces of Punjab and Bengal
.
YLH You should Give credit to Nehru and Patel
they were REALLY SMART as compared to Jinnah
who was DEFEATED in this High stakes GAME OF CHESS
that JINNAH had Started
YLH:
Let me clarify up front. I am not trying to score points here so to me your arguments are as valid as anyone else’s provided they make sense.
I am only trying to see how these things would have worked (or not) in real life. So let me assume that there was a difference of opinion in the Taliban issue but I will concede for the moment that you are right, so remove this issue off the table.
.
The issue of princely states is still there since those states too conceded only FP, defense and communications to the Union. Group C could not make any laws superceding their Princely state laws regarding land redistribution. etc.
Am I wrong?
.
My next problem with the CMP is more important, perhaps critical. What about the rights of the Sikhs of Punjab for self determination?
Should they not have the same leeway as the AIML?
.
Please see the letter below:
.
……………………………..TARA SINGH LETTER……………………………………………………
.
The Sikh leader Master Tara Singh sent a letter dated May 25, 1946 to Secretary of State for India, Pethick-Lawrence in which he said:
“The Sikhs have been entirely thrown at the mercy of the Muslims. Group B comprises Punjab, the NWFP, Sind and Balochistan…The Cabinet Mission recognises ‘the very genuine and acute anxiety of the Muslims lest they should find themselves subjected to a perpetual Hindu majority rule’. But is there no ‘genuine and acute anxiety’ among the Sikhs lest they should find themselves subjected to a perpetual Muslim majority rule? If the British government is not aware of the Sikh feelings, the Sikhs will have to resort to some measures in order to convince everybody of the Sikh anxiety, in case they are subjected to a perpetual Muslim domination”
We should try cmp with Taliban and prove it once and for all that it works.
Ahmedis also deserve a home land within Pakistan – Pakistan has the opportunity to show how to do a partition nicely – like they did in 1971…
May be later liberals will need a separate homeland – we will have plenty of opportunities – unless everybody converts to true Islam voluntarily – which has been happening since bin Quasim – it’s really a miracle…
Mythbuster
.
Hindu Bengalis had exactly the same feeling as the Sikhs. By the time of CMP/partition deliberations the undisputed leader of Hindu Bengalis was Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. In that communally charged period Sarat Bose didn’t even come close. S. P. Mukherjee came to Delhi to deliver a message that CMP or no CMP Bengal had to be partitioned first as there was no question Hindu Bengalis would live with a Muslim majority after a horrendous Nazimuddin-Suhrawardy rule (’43-’46). The experience of Hindu Bengalis post 1947 in East Pakistan amply proved that they were right.
.
The claim that Congress already decided to partition Bengal much earlier is made by those really without a grasp of Bengal. The fact is that, as always, Congress had no clue about Bengal what with the sudden Sarat Bose-Abul Hashim-Suhrawardy proposal of sovereign independent Bengal in April 1947. It was only in late June that year Bengal’s partition was finally accepted by Mountbatten. It was S. P. Mukherjee’s personal triumph as he had been indefatigably campaigning for it. The treatment that the Hindus got in the hands of the Muslims in East Pakistan after partition amply demonstrated his foresight.
Even the dead are duly converting voluntarily and willingly…god bless Allah.
Sometimes it feels that Muslims are complaining that they have been pushed into Islam – by Indians , by zia – it’s wierdly funny-
“Hindus pushed us towards Islamic Pakistan otherwise we could have been a secular Pakistan – now we can’t because secularism is haram and Quran can not be changed because Allah is protecting it”
“zia made us more Islamic otherwise we were better of being somewhat Islamic – now we can’t go back because punishment for apostasy Is very painful and also because we want to be more Islamic”
Muslims know that islam has failed and islam will become more and fascistic. So they have to invent/construct/concoct arguments to blame non-muslims.
No matter which answer the non-muslims give, no matter how corrcet that answer is – the muslims wil not budge from their position of blaming the non-muslims.
What a debate going on here!
A share-holder on the shares market keeps thinking should I sell/buy now or wait a little more…
Similarly muslims in 1940′s were groping about whether to get a partition right away (soon) or 10 years later (after ethnically cleansing some regions of hindus). That is all that we learn in this “debate”.
But why does ylh want to live in the year 1940-47? Why not live in the year 2012?
Pakistan exists, it is as a mayhem due to islam. The point is proved. It will become worse due to islam.