Articles Comments

Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan

Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan

In clear concise and consistent terms, Mr Jinnah laid down his vision for Pakistan. After this, there is no room for discussion in my view. Popular sovereignty with equal rights regardless of religion – this is the essence of a modern democratic state.  No vague notions of sovereignty being vested in a deity etc. -YLH

Document No: 01472105

Interview with Mr. Doon Campbell, Reuters’ Correspondent, New Delhi, 21st May 1947

Q. What sort of relationship do you envisage between Pakistan and Hindustan?

Ans. Friendly and reciprocal in the mutual interest of both. That is why I have been urging: let us separate in a friendly way and remain friends thereafter.

Q. How would you divide the armed forces? Do you envisage a defence pact or any other kind of military alliance between Pakistan and Hindustan?

Ans. All the armed forces must be divided completely, but I do envisage an alliance, pact or treaty between Pakistan and Hindustan again in the mutual interest of both and against any aggressive outsider.

Q. Do you favour a federation of Pakistan states even if there is to be partition of Punjab and Bengal?

Ans. The new clamour for partition that is stated is by the vocal section of the caste Hindus in Bengal and the Sikhs in particular in the Punjab will have disastrous results if those two provinces are partitioned and the Sikhs in the Punjab will be the greatest sufferers; and Muslims under contemplated Western Punjab will no doubt be hit, but it certainly will deal the greatest blow to those, particularly the Sikhs, for whose benefit the new stunt has been started. Similarly in Western Bengal, caste Hindus will suffer the most and so will the caste Hindus in Eastern Punjab.

This idea of partition is not only thoughtless and reckless, but if unfortunately His Majesty’s Government favour it, in my opinion it will be a grave error and will prove dangerous immediately and far more so in the future. Immediately it will lead to bitterness and unfriendly attitude between Eastern Bengal and Western Bengal and same will the case with torn Punjab, between Western Punjab and Eastern Punjab.

Partition of Punjab and Bengal, if effected, will no doubt weaken Pakistan to a certain extent. Weak Pakistan and a strong Hindustan will be a temptation the strong Hindustan to try to dictate. I have always said that Pakistan must be sufficiently strong as a balance vis-à-vis Hindustan. I am therefore, deadly against the partition of Bengal and the Punjab and we shall fight every inch against it.

Q. Will you demand a corridor through Hindustan connecting the Eastern and Western Pakistan States?

Ans. Yes.

Q. Do you envisage the formation of a Pan-Islamic state stretching from the Far and Middle East to the Far East after the establishment of Pakistan?

Ans. The theory of Pan-Islamism has long ago exploded, but we shall certainly establish friendly relations and cooperate for mutual good and world peace and we shall always stretch our hand of friendship to the near and Middle East and Far East after the establishment of Pakistan.

Q. On what basis will the central administration of Pakistan be set up? What will be the attitude of this Government to the Indian States?

Ans. The basis of the central administration of Pakistan and that of the units to be set up will be decided no doubt, by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. But the Government of Pakistan can only be a popular representative and democratic form of Government. Its Parliament and Cabinet responsible to the Parliament will both be finally responsible to the electorate and the people in general without any distinction of caste, creed or sect, which will the final deciding factor with regard to the policy and programme of the Government that may be adopted from time to time.

As regards our attitude towards Indian States I may make it clear once more that the policy of the Muslim League has been and is not to interfere with the Indian States with regard to their internal affairs. But while we expect as rapid a progress as possible in the various states towards the establishment of full responsible government, it is primarily the concern of the ruler and his people.

As regards the position of the states in the light of the announcement made by His Majesty’s Government embodied in the White Paper of the 20th of February, I wish to make it clear that the states are at liberty to form a confederation as one solid group or confederate into more than one groups, or stand as individual states. It is a matter entirely for them to decide. And it is clear, as I can understand, that paramountcy is going to terminate and, therefore, they are completely independent and free. It is for them to adjust such a matter as there may be by virtue of their treaties and agreements with the paramount power. They must consider as completely independent and free states, free from any paramountcy, as to what is best in their interest and it will be open to them to decide whether they should join the Pakistan Constituent Assembly or the Hindustan Constituent Assembly – Constituent Assemblies must be and will be two sovereign Constituent Assemblies of Pakistan and Hindustan.

Q. In general terms what will be the foreign policy of Pakistan? Will it apply for membership of the United Nations?

Ans. The foreign policy of Pakistan can only be for peace and friendly relations with all other nations and we shall certainly play our part in the membership of the United Nations.

Q. On which major power is Pakistan most likely to lean?

Ans. The one that will be in our best interests. It will not be a case of leaning to any power, but we shall certainly establish friendship and alliances which will be for the benefit of all those who may enter into such an alliance.

Q. What sort of relationship do you envisage between Pakistan and Britain?

Ans. The question can only be decided by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan and as I understand the situation, a relationship between Pakistan and British can be established which will be really beneficial for both. Pakistan cannot live in isolation, nor can any other nation do so today. We shall have choose our friends and I trust, wisely.

Q. What are your views in regard to the protection of minorities in Pakistan territories?

Ans. There is only one answer: The minorities must be protected and safeguarded. The minorities in Pakistan will be the citizens of Pakistan and enjoy all the rights, privileges and obligations of citizenship without any distinction of caste creed or sect.


They will be treated justly and fairly. The Government will run the administration and control the legislative measures by its Parliament, and the collective conscience of the Parliament itself will be a guarantee that the minorities need not have any apprehension of any injustice being done to them. Over and above that there will be provisions for the protection and safeguard of the minorities which in my opinion must be embodied in the constitution itself. And this will leave no doubt as to the fundamental rights of the citizens, protection of religion and faith of every section, freedom of thought and protection of their cultural and social life. – API


Q & A text sourced from photocopy of original: Dawn, 22nd May 1947 (with thanks to Mr. Inamullah Khawaja). See also copy in Zaidi, Z.H. (ed) (1993) Jinnah Papers: Prelude to Pakistan, Vol. I Part I. Lahore: Quaid-i-Azam Papers Project, p.845, which was obtained from an original typewritten document containing corrections in Jinnah’s own handwriting as well as his signature.

Courtesy Jinnah ArchivesEmphasis is mine. 

Written by

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: , , ,

396 Responses to "Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan"

  1. notabene Germany Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    to kaal

    The real question, the haunting question is and will be:

    Who brought how much violence and when in the hindu-muslim problem?

    The muslims say: islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood – so it was not us.

    The hindus say: we never went to Makkah to tell muslims what to do, it is the muslims/arabs/turks who came here uninvited and slashed at us, robbed and raped us, established their imperialism over us. Our violence, if any, was/is defensive only.

    Who can cut this gordian knot justly, fairly, sincerely?

  2. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    Sindhis are original Hindus and the origin of word Hindu.

  3. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:


    You will again accuse me, may be rightly this time, of maligning Hindus, but that question is truly the product of the quintessential Hindu confusion. You (and that includes me) imagine that justice, fairness, and sincerity all exist independent of any frame of reference.

    That delusion is absolutely necessary in order to maintain the ever greater delusion that everything and all is the same, but it a delusion nevertheless.

    To answer your question you will need to first define the frame of reference – of cognition, morality, logic – that you wish to use. Once you do that, then answers may not be that difficult to find. The answers will be very very different, complete opposites of each other, but IMO that is the best human beings can do, and anybody claiming to do otherwise is simply leading us up the garden path.

  4. Mohan United Arab Emirates Safari iPad says:

    Everyone suffered during partition. Punjabis and Bengalis suffered mass killing and most of them stayed in their own state among their own folks. Killing in Sindh was not at the same scale as in Punjab and Bengal but the Hindus from there had to leave their state and were scattered all over India and started their life among ‘strangers’. Sometime back Sindhis had thought of making an appeal to GOI for the state for Sindhis. Kutch in Gujarat was chosen as new Sindh. Don’t know what happened to that.

  5. Hayyer India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    It wasn’t the fault of Bengalis it seems, or Sindhis, Biharis may be the bad lot, or not depending upon your perspective. I have heard the UP excused by the legend of the Ganga Jumna tehzib despite its wandering mullahs. That leaves only the bloody Punjabis to blame. Is there no one on PTH to proclaim their innocence?

  6. no-communal United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Hayyer Sb.,
    It wasn’t the fault of the Punjabis. They lived happily before the Muslims League overpowered them. We can discount the south from this. Then it’s back to the heartland again, UP, CP, and Bihar. My message to BM was a fake palliative, it seems!
    Sorry, I meant to say Beliaghata. It was really late in the night, morning actually, and I was dog tired. Even some of the language was broken, it seems.
    There was absolutely no hatred in my posts. May be you heard something you didn’t like to hear (such as failure in Noakhali) but I can assure you there was no hatred. (S. P. Mukherjee resigned from Hindu Maha Sabha after the latter was suspected for conspiracy to kill Gandhi, remember?). But more importantly, what was it in my posts you didn’t agree with?

  7. notabene Germany Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    to kaal

    You will obvously use your intelligence to obfuscate the issue (any issue whatsoever) if that can help you find favour in the eyes of the muslims and flatter them (just see how rex is pleased with you, and that is surely a disqualification to be praised by someone like rex).

    Such tricks are not new in debates. We have grown old facing them.

    Don’t try to be a trickster on this forum, since this forum does not constitute only of dumbheads (there are some but not all are like that).

    So formulate your answers sincerely. Don’t try to measure up with your thumb and speculate that someone will fall for your tricks.

  8. Syed United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    @ Dark Knight
    Thank you indeed for posting the text of Jinnah’s 11th August 1947 address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. I fully endorse your view that this speech embodies “Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan”, which also happens to the topic of discussion on this thread. I agree with Tilsim, that today’s Pakistan and the message of Jinnah’s 11th August speech are literally poles apart. I also fully agree with the idea that there is any text that deserves to be the Preamble of Pakistan’s constitution, it is this historic address of the founder of Pakistan. But what good would would a new Preamble do without a new constitution? Pakistan, now desperately needs a new constitution – a secular and just constitution. Close to 50,000 Pakistanis have, in very recent times lost their lives in this theocracy, rather at the altar of this theocracy, where the Mullah is the power behind the throne. If Pakistanis want Pakistan to survive, they will have to bring Pakistan in line with Jinnah’s vision of a secular state.

  9. Fingolfin United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    No no NC i was not talking about hatred in your posts. I was referring to your inveterate hatred towards Gandhi. Not saying you do not have any justification. He has done enough for people to be against him. Indeed a man that powerful cannot help it.
    I agree with you that DAD violence was started by the Muslims. I also agree that Gandhi did not succeed in Noakhali but that is because he did not go there to stop anything nor resettle people considering the contours of partition.
    What he did in Calcutta was prophylactic. Noakhali was an attempt to put into perspective and bring to the fore what had happened there. Where he goes, there media coverage will be greatest and people will speak about it the most. By going and staying there, he was just trying to make sure that Noakhali was not swept under the carpet given the almost non-existent coverage that reaches the people. At least if the country knew what had happened, the information would act as a warning and as a reminder.
    You question what he achieved. That is why he went. That he went is courageous enough. It took guts. The area was just swept clean of Hindus and here was the so called quintessential Hindu striding into the heart of Muslim communal India to disseminate information, to apply a soothing balm if he could and to douse raging tempers. Nobody else had the guts. He took with him no security and no fanfare. Just him and a few others. I promise you that i would not have gone into Noakhali then for any love or money. I can also safely say the same for most. Going there was then also a symbolic act of courage of the secular people against the barbaric people that the times had thrown up. That i will still fight you. That more importantly, your agenda of spreading fear among the rest has not worked. Because here i am. I think it was an extraordinary statement.
    Nobody else went in there in that manner.
    I brought in Sugata’s views about Gandhi and Bose because in that article, he says something very interesting. He says that had Bose lived( he is of the opinion that his grand uncle dies when they say he did), Gandhi and Bose together, the saint and the warrior, could have stopped Noakhali. They could have made a difference. Both had what it took, the courage more importantly. I wanted to know what you thought about it.
    I also wanted to know what you thought about Sugata’s views on the Bose Gandhi relationship in general. but like you mention, you said nothing about that and you can tell me what you think anytime later.

  10. Fingolfin United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Hayyer Sb
    every community has their narratives of secularism without which survival in India is impossible. You can be sure that it exists even in the heartland of Akhand Bharat, in the dark and fertile fields of the Chitpavan Brahmins of Maharastra.
    If the UP belt has the Ganga Jamuna Tehzeeb, then the Punjabis have one of the richest traditions of Sufism in the world. I am sure you can take away any amount of secularism you want from a narrative that rich in inclusiveness.

  11. Fingolfin United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    as far as his statement of ‘a rape woman should kill herself’ is concerned, can you tell me when and where he said it?

  12. no-communal United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    There was no hatred for Gandhi in my posts. Please read them again, show me where you see hatred. I only stated facts that you did not like to hear. Those facts you interpreted as hatred. This is a problem with us, any criticism of Gandhi, however valid, must be hatred. The person must be a re-incarnation of Godse. Fingolfin, other than bringing media attention Gandhi’s Noakhali mission was useless. Read my post again, not only could he not bring any Hindu back, he also could not give them assurance of a dignified new life. Those lives were shattered, animal-like, because of rapes and forced conversions. Because of forced cow killings and beef eating. It was beyond Gandhi to give them back their humanity as he himself did not believe in religious rehabilitation. His views on raped women and what should be done with them were/are well-known. My stating these in plain language may sound like hatred to you, but I have none of it.
    “What he did in Calcutta was prophylactic.”
    CM Suhrawardy chauffered Gandhi on some of the streets. He showed up a few times a day on the windows of the Hydari Manzil. He also fasted on one occasion. Leading up to Aug. 15, Calcutta was quietening down anyway. If you ask me, the effects of DAD a year earlier probably did more than anything else in quietening Calcutta. Still I won’t deny that Gandhi’s fast may have had an effect, at least on the Hindus and Sikhs. But let me ask you this, why did he not camp at Amritsar or Ferozepore, or Lahore or Montgomery, where the situation was a million times worse than at Calcutta? Just because Suhrawardy asked him to come did not mean that he had to abandon Punjab. In Punjab the Pakistanis were sending down trainloads of Hindu and Sikh corpses, and the Hindus and Sikhs were retaliating with similar gestures. Did Gandhi think that he stood a much better chance of influencing the “mild/sentimental” Bengalis rather than the “martial/hardheaded” Punjabis? If he really had the power he should have done that prophylactic work in Amritsar. Believe me they needed it much much more than the Bengalis did. After the DAD, after the quietening down for the most part of the Muslims, violence in Calcutta was sporadic. In Punjab it was rivers of blood everywhere. The ultimate reason for Calcutta could have been that Gandhi knew he stood no chance of succeeding in Punjab.
    “That he went is courageous enough. It took guts. The area was just swept clean of Hindus and here was the so called quintessential Hindu striding into the heart of Muslim communal India to disseminate information, to apply a soothing balm if he could and to douse raging tempers. Nobody else had the guts. He took with him no security and no fanfare. Just him and a few others. I promise you that i would not have gone into Noakhali then for any love or money. I can also safely say the same for most. Going there was then also a symbolic act of courage of the secular people against the barbaric people that the times had thrown up. That i will still fight you. That more importantly, your agenda of spreading fear among the rest has not worked. Because here i am. I think it was an extraordinary statement.”
    There you go again. You really need to eschew hero-worship to have a complex composite understanding of anything. Gandhi arrived in the area on November 7, 1946, almost a month after the carnage began. Even before this, long before in fact, as information about the atrocities trickled out, well-meaning people from all over Bengal flocked to the district. Of these I already discussed the most practical handling of the distressed by Syama Prasad (read my post). By far he did the most for Noakhali. Then there were Mrs. Ashoka Gupta, Saibal Gupta the ICS, Nellie Sengupta (the former Indian National Congress President) Sucheta Kripalani (herself a Bengali), Sarat Chandra Bose, Surendra Mohan Ghosh, Muriel Lister, A.V.Thakkarbapa, and many others. Most or all of them arrived before Gandhi and toured the area.

    “He says that had Bose lived( he is of the opinion that his grand uncle dies when they say he did), Gandhi and Bose together, the saint and the warrior, could have stopped Noakhali. They could have made a difference. Both had what it took, the courage more importantly.”
    No one could have stopped Noakhali. The area was far away from Calcutta, in remote East Bengal, even the news travelled slowly. Bose would have done what S. P. Mukherjee did, would have sent armed patrol, would have pressured the govt to send the military (which they ultimately did), would have organized relief and rehabilitation efforts (he was a good organizer), and would have made religious rehabilitation, the principal problem in the area, morally and socially acceptable. But I think S. P. Mukherjee did much of it anyway. Contrary to perception after Bose Bengal did not suffer much on the leadership front. The problem was Mukherjee was young and in Hindu Maha Sabha and thus did not have much influence in the Congress Party.

  13. no-communal United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    as far as his statement of ‘a rape woman should kill herself’ is concerned, can you tell me when and where he said it?”
    Fingolfin, it’s in the Louis Fischer biography. You can also read about it in the following Guardian article (
    But FF, let’s give the old man some rest considering today is Oct. 2.

  14. Dr Mishra, Yorkshire United Kingdom Internet Explorer Windows says:

    come on no- communal, this is getting ridiculous. You expect Gandhi to be superman- flying to a riot in his cape in 48 hours! Listen he did what he could.

    He was also concious of WHAT HE COULD NOT- and dousing these murderous fires was something no body could do completely. Somewhere he was also concious of the safety of his entourage- when Pakistanis are on a rampage- a wise man takes cover and bides his time.

    I respect Gandhi for what he DID achieve- voted by Time magazine along with Einstein as the ‘men of the last century’

  15. Mohan United Arab Emirates Safari iPad says:

    NC, Fingolfin,

    One event in Gandhi,s life – Noakhali vist – and two contrasting opinions. Interesting, very interesting.
    Whenever I will get a chance of discussing Gandhi with anyone I will use views of NC if I want to say something against Gandhi and will use views of Fingolfin if I have to praise Gandhi. Thanks gentlement, loved reading your posts.
    Like him, dislike him, love him,hate him but definitely we cannot ignore Gandhi.

  16. Dr Mishra, Yorkshire United Kingdom Internet Explorer Windows says:

    “On 13 October, Kamini Kumar Dutta, the leader of the Indian National Congress undertook a visit of inquiry to Noakhali where he interviewed Abdullah, the District Superintendent of Police. On his return he communicated to the Home Department stating that it was impossible for anyone from outside to enter the disturbed areas without the risk of life”

    but we want Gandhi to fly to Noakhali at the earliest !! Like an NSG commando, but without the guns, wow !!

  17. Dr Mishra, Yorkshire United Kingdom Internet Explorer Windows says:

    ;On 18 October, Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy personally communicated to Mohandas Gandhi, appraising him of the Hindu massacre in Noakhali and the plight of the Hindu women in particular. At the evening prayer Mohandas mentioned the events in Noakhali in a concerned note. He said, if one half of India’s mankind was paralysed, India could never really feel free. I would far rather see India’s women trained to wield arms than that they should feel helpless. On 19 October, Mohandas Gandhi decided to visit Noakhali.[49]

  18. Rahul Ghosh India Google Chrome Windows says:

    Jinnah was a liberal and secular till the mid 1930′s. He then became victim to bitterness and a debilitating communalism as a result of his inability to become an All India “mass” leader. He was a good advocate and like all good advocates a good confidence trickster. He had the temerity to demand the entire provinces of Bengal and Punjab in his silly little Pakistan. He also had the gall to demand a corridor between E and W Pakistan. People blame Congress for the breakdown of the Cabinet mission Plan. In fact the Muslim League’s qualified acceptance on June 6 1946 shows that they were actually angling for a BIG Pakistan within 10 years. The following excerpt taken from Transfer of Power. This puts paid to all FALSE and clumsy obfuscations made by AYESHA JALAL and Jinnah Lovers like Yasser Latif Hamadani
    (Transfer of Power, volume VII, page 586). The Cabinet Mission Plan made the following main recommendations:

    A Union of India, embracing both British India and the princely states, which should deal with foreign affairs, defence and communications and have the power to raise finances required for those three areas of government activity.

    All other areas of policy would be delegated to the provinces.

    The princely states would retain all powers other than those ceded to the union.

    THANK GOD for Nehru’s statement on 10th July 1946 which brought and end to this suicidal stupid CMP. Patel & Nehru saw through JINNAH’s trickery and gave him a MOTH Eaten Pakistan. This was further broken into two in 1971. The current situation in HALF MOTH Eaten Pakistan is tantamount to the fact that the mills of GOD grind slowly but they GRIND exceeding small. A country made on the cursed 2 nation theory which divides man from man, brother from brother and sister from sister is bound to be CURSED TILL ETERNITY unless it rejects this poisonous theory intoto. It is indeed strange how Ayesha Jalal remains a popular historian despite her considered obfuscation and misrepresentation of facts. Also it is downright funny how dummies like Yasser Latif Hamadani dance to her tune.

  19. Rahul Ghosh India Google Chrome Windows says:

    The part from the Transfer of power document missed from my earlier comment was
    The constitutions of the Union and of the Groups should contain a provision whereby any Province could, by a majority vote of its Legislative Assembly, call for reconsideration of the terms of the constitution after an initial period of 10 years and at 10 years intervals thereafter (Transfer of Power, volume VII, page 587).

    SO in 10 years we would have seen a BIG PAKISTAN.

  20. Fingolfin United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    why would you believe hearsay like that? why would you believe some guy writing an article or some guy writing a book? when and where did Gandhi say that was the question. I am sure he did not.
    Again, i am not saying that there is any hatred towards him in your posts per se but you do have an inveterate hatred towards Gandhi in general which obviously decides the manner in which you chose glean events pertaining to his life.
    The hero worship is something that is a matter of perspective. To me it means not seeing anything but great in a person. I have on the other hand been severely critical of the Khilafat movement. But if you are still not convinced, i really do not have a problem with your reference of ‘hero worship’. have not hidden from anyone the fact that i find him to be an incredible leader and individual. Perhaps the most incredible India produced in those times. He carried the burden of the expectations of four hundred million people on his shoulders for more than 30 years an that did no wane in a time when India produced the men it did. That is remarkable. And it just occurred to me that his biggest contribution was not in freeing India but in creating a mass movement out of the Congress without which the Congress would not have been able to talk to the Empire on behalf of the people and without which, a Britain weakened by WWII, would have handed over the reign of power to the peurile and pathetic princes. India would never have been what it is today. I am thankful for that and that is why he is truly the father of the nation.
    As far as Calcutta is concerned, you can take credit away from him by saying that Calcutta was quietening down anyway but that will remain untrue. Suhrwardy went to Gandhi as the last resort for a reason. If Calcutta was quietening down, there would be no overpowering motive for him to do so.
    Calcutta was by no means quietening down, it was in fact heading towards worse disaster than any other city. What had been done a year earlier was a warning and it was that in mind more than anything else that convinced Gandhi that Calcutta needed him.
    You have to remember that the Punjab riots were a surprise and that nobody was expecting them. While they expected some friction, nobody expected what did happen. Calcutta on the other hand was already known as a volatile city. In fact the worst in India at that point. It is generally accepted that Gandhi’s absence would have meant Calcutta seeing really difficult times.
    Also questions Gandhi’s supposed lack of appeal in Bengal does it not?
    If he could use his powers in Bengal, he could do it anywhere. He did not go to the Punjab because he was already in Bengal saving Calcutta and the Punjab riots were more spread out. To expect one man to handle the communal passions of a city are crazy enough. but to expect him to do the same in a landmass the size of the Punjab is worse. Also, going to the Punjab would mean leaving Calcutta, something he did not wish to do at that point.
    I already told you, he did not go to Noakhali with the intent to stop anything or to resettle. I already told you why he went. But to expect Gandhi to resettle Hindus there is ridiculous. Firstly, which Hindu would want to resettle in a place where all that has just happened? And especially considering that by that time, the Pakistan factr had come into the picture.
    I always get the feeling that most critics of Gandhi criticize him because they have such unbelievably crazy expectation from him ( which itself is actually a tacit praise) and then when he does not meet them the tirade starts.
    Why did he not save Bhagat Singh( like as if a man condemned to die had been saved in British India before), why did he not prevent partition, why did he not save the burning Punjab, why did he not free India in 1922, why did he not have a crystal ball to know that Jinnah and all the other Muslims leaders would do what they did etc etc.
    In many ways, the fact that the critics even ask these questions is testimony to his place in Indian though at the time and cements his place as ‘the leader’ as Bose( it was Gandhi who made him Congress president out of thin air when Bose was not even a member of the party) always referred to him.

  21. no-communal United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    I have decided not to respond to your posts on Gandhi any further (meaning, after this one). You have started behaving like the wise Japanese monkeys (no disrespect to your person) that will see and hear nothing they don’t like.
    ” why would you believe some guy writing an article or some guy writing a book? when and where did Gandhi say that was the question. I am sure he did not.”
    A perfect example of the allegory of the wise threesome. I gave the date and place on my very first post on Noakhali. Do go back and check if you wish. No Louis Fischer was not just “some guy writing a book”. Wish you had researched the name before making such outlandish comments. Fischer was a Jewish American who stayed with Gandhi for a long time and also accompanied him to Noakhali. His biography of him in 1950 was the first major complete Gandhi biography. Fischer’s biography was also the basis for Richard Attenborough’s famous film. The other source I referred to, just so it’s easier for you to access, was an article in the Guardian. The Guardian is a premier paper (not some wild tabloid) and is expected to exercise editorial control on momentous claims on a figure like Gandhi. Besides Gandhi’s views on sex, rape, purity of the body etc are not so secret anyway and this view is not inconsistent with his general disposition of a strict ritualistic casteist Hindu. This description may bother your sensitivity if you are are hearing it for the first time (especially because in India no one talks about it) but learning to accept facts even if they are bitter will eventually do you good.
    “Again, i am not saying that there is any hatred towards him in your posts per se but you do have an inveterate hatred towards Gandhi in general which obviously decides the manner in which you chose glean events pertaining to his life.”
    The subjects of my posts were not of my own choosing. They came in the way of discussions with others like BM. It is however true that I don’t like Gandhi’s handling of our independence movement which, in his own words, he took as his 36 year long “yagna”. I am within my rights to not like the affairs of my country to be treated as one man’s individual spiritual quest and salvation. I have no problem with the methods of non-violence, non-cooperation etc but only so far as they help advance political goals and not as religious principles in themselves. I didn’t like Gandhi’s advice to the Jews to “bravely” face the Nazis and commit suicide en masse rather than building underground resistance. To me that was complete lunacy and it was the same advice he gave to the Noakhali Hindus which, obviously, didn’t work. While other countries like USA Britain etc were fortunate enough to deify him from a distance without having to actually suffer through the lunacy in reality I feel Indians were not that lucky.
    “As far as Calcutta is concerned…”
    You obviously have little idea about the partition riots and/or Calcutta and/or Punjab. While in Calcutta the death toll was in the thousands (including the DAD and up until Gandhi’s arrival), in Punjab it was in the hundreds of thousands (although no one knows for sure). The violence in Punjab did not come as a surprise, the state was on boil since March ’47 thousand times more than Bengal. I wish you had read up a little bit before making such sweeping comments.
    “I already told you, he did not go to Noakhali with the intent to stop anything or to resettle. I already told you why he went. But to expect Gandhi to resettle Hindus there is ridiculous. Firstly, which Hindu would want to resettle in a place where all that has just happened?”
    It was not that he could not resettle the homeless but that he was not able to give them a new dignified life as Hindus. I thought I emphasized that time and again, wish you had paid more attention. Gandhi was a strict vegetarian ritualistic scriptural patriarchal casteist Hindu. (This is part of the reason that reduces his appeal to me). Religious rehabilitation after beef eating cow killing etc, even forced, was unthinkable for him. Women lost their purity as human beings if they were raped. As you should know this view is widespread in India even today and Gandhi was no exception. When Shyama Prasad rehabilitated thousands and thousands of forced converts to Hindusim with help from the Ramakrisna Mission monks he lifted them from their mental agony and animal-like existence in the relief camps. Gandhi’s extreme puritanical outlook prevented him from doing so. His mission was thus a failure on all counts, not only could he resettle the homeless to their homes he also could not give them back their dignity. You should be old enough to understand how important religion is to an average rural Indian. Gandhi failed in giving the Noakhali Hindus their religion back or the raped women their dignity, but the reason for that failure was the man himself.
    “as Bose( it was Gandhi who made him Congress president out of thin air when Bose was not even a member of the party) ”
    If you ask me this statement should be given its rightful place in the PTH Hall of Fame.
    Fingolfin, you want to blindly hero-worship someone, go ahead, just don’t bring me into it. I started this discussion with BM and you may have noticed that he has kept quiet for some time.

  22. Hindu United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    “Gandhi was a strict vegetarian ritualistic scriptural patriarchal casteist Hindu.”

    Strict vegetarian, yes. The rest – you have absolutely no clue about Gandhi. He never was ritualistic; he was not scriptural – e.g., he first read the Bhagavad Gita when a student in England. He started off patriarchal & casteist, but he really grew. A lovely treatment of that is in Feroz Khan’s play “Mahatma vs. Gandhi”. I think you really have zero clue about Gandhi.

  23. no-communal United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Bhai Hindu, when did he “really grew”, at the age of 70? Was it not a bit late for “growing”? Bhagwat Geeta was not Gandhi’s scripture. That little book advocates Dharmayuddya, as in the Mahabharata, very non non-violent! Gandhi was all about Patanjali, have you heard of him? In Noakhali he was claiming if he could “vanquish his sexual urges” (at the age of 77) he could finally “conquer the wave of violence around him”. That one “obstacle” stood in the way of his fulfilling the “eleven vows” taken 36 years ago. Do you call that superstitious, scriptural? Now, please, I would be truly delighted to take off from this discussion. All I request for that is not be addressed with “I think you really have zero clue about Gandhi”.

  24. Bade Miyan United States Safari Mac OS says:

    Is there a definitive interpretation of Gita? At least, most of us are not aware of that. If you are privy to some such interpretation, please enlighten us.

  25. Hindu United States Mozilla Firefox Mac OS says:

    No-communal (no bhai to me!), Gandhi was growing at 20, 30, 40, 50, even weeks before his assassination. Read the works of people who lived close to him. It is that really which is the most inspiring thing about him, that a person could be true to himself and yet change and grow, all through his life. It is very much the Vedic “from lesser truth, to greater truth”. Unlike your prophets and your heroes, who come out of the womb perfect, specially touched by god, and are different from the rest of us. This “ritualistic scriptural patriarchal casteist Hindu” as you call him, is the example for all of us.

    I will also add, you seem to know zilch about the Gita.

  26. no-communal United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Geeta is the only supposedly divine book that was revealed in a war field. There was a stated purpose for Krishna’s lectures to Arjuna. Arjuna was incapacitated with grief and wanted to reject war forgoing their legitimate claims. Geeta was revealed to him by Krishna to stand him on his feet and fight. What more interpretation do you want? I know many important slokas of Geeta by heart by the way, it was part of my education.

  27. no-communal United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Hindu bhai, the problem is Gandhi held those casteist and patriarchal views even when he was past 65. Is that what you call “growing out of”, when someone is nearing 70, and when most of the damage with Ambedkar has already been done? Gandhi even advocated seularism in the year 1946, at the age of 77. That you can again call “growing out of” but the damage was already done. You are really fighting a losing fight here by this growing out of argument. He may be inspiring to you, I have no problem with that, why do you want to tell me that that is the problem. You really do not want me to continue writing about Gandhi. So I request you to just let it go.

  28. no-communal United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Hindu here knows much more about Geeta than I can ever manage. After all he is a Hindu and proudly tells me I know zilch about it. I suggest you ask him if he knows a definite interpretation of the little book. My guess is you will be rewarded.

  29. Dr Mishra, Yorkshire United Kingdom Internet Explorer Windows says:

    no communal- the man Gandhi had his flaws as everyone knows, but his positive qualities and message of ahimsa were so fantastic and enormous that the whole world voted him and Einstein as the 2 men of the last century in the millenial poll conducted by Times in 2000.

    Celebrate that nc- poor, colonised brutalised India has something to give to the whole world- remember Gandhi went to Noakhali, he went to all the troubled spots, he loved muslims- CANT SAY ALL THAT ABOUT JINNAH CAN YOU?

    Jinnag lived in luxury in UK from 1930-35 while India was burning

  30. Bade Miyan United States Safari Mac OS says:

    If it’s a revealed book, as you say, then in line with other revealed books, it should have multiple interpretations. If a Gita could be learned by memorizing slokas then I am sure there are a lot of contenders. From what I know, and I can confirm later, Gandhi took Gita message of “violence” as a metaphysical statement, not to be taken literally. We can quibble with that but I guess that is an essence of Hinduism, is it not?

    More than a few scholars have interpreted the celebrated Mahabharata fight as a fight for within.

  31. Bade Miyan United States Safari Mac OS says:


  32. no-communal United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    I don’t say it’s a revealed book. All Hindus view Lord Krishna as God himself. Of course “revealed” here has a slightly different meaning than in Islam and Christianity. BM, you can interpret everything in any which way you want. Mahabharata war as a fight for within, sure, why not, but obviously it’s a spin when there’s so much detailed description of every phase, every day, every detail of the war. I think a much more straightforward interpretation is that it’s a real war.

  33. no-communal United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Dr. Misra
    “that the whole world voted him and Einstein as the 2 men of the last century in the millenial poll conducted by Times in 2000.”
    For some reason you keep referring to that. First, Einstein was voted the top man of the millennium. Gandhi and Roosevelt came joint second. I had that copy of the Time Magazine until some days ago. Second I see no obvious reason to be elated at that result. But that’s a difference in perspective. I would have been elated had an Indian scientist/engineer/architect/doctor been voted the best in the world. Third Gandhi doesn’t have to judged with reference to Jinnah. He was voted the second best man of the century, remember, he has his own yardstick. All these arguments, Time poll, Jinnah, etc are a bit shallow. Fourth you may not have noticed but I have been imploring Hindu and all and sundry to close Gandhi on this thread. I am aware that he is the 11th Avatar of Vishnu and India will pass a blasphemy law if it could.

  34. notabene Germany Internet Explorer Windows says:

    useless discussions among people who do not care what pakistanis really suffers from. it is islam.

    PTH conquered by rex and saad type of islamofascist people.

  35. Hindu United States Mozilla Firefox Mac OS says:

    1. Gita is not a revealed book/work.

    2. You keep claiming “Gandhi did damage” – please specify the damage which arose from his “scriptural, patriarchal Hindu casteism”.

  36. Hindu United States Mozilla Firefox Mac OS says:

    Do you understand this from Swami Vivekananda:

    Every one of the great religions in the world excepting our own, is built upon such historical characters; but ours rests upon principles. There is no man or woman who can claim to have created the Vedas. They are the embodiment of eternal principles; sages discovered them; and now and then the names of these sages are mentioned — just their names; we do not even know who or what they were. In many cases we do not know who their fathers were, and almost in every case we do not know when and where they were born. But what cared they, these sages, for their names? They were the preachers of principles, and they themselves, so far as they went, tried to become illustrations of the principles they preached. At the same time, just as our God is an Impersonal and yet a Personal God, so is our religion a most intensely impersonal one — a religion based upon principles — and yet with an infinite scope for the play of persons; for what religion gives you more Incarnations, more prophets and seers, and still waits for infinitely more? The Bhâgavata says that Incarnations are infinite, leaving ample scope for as many as you like to come. Therefore if any one or more of these persons in India’s religious history, any one or more of these Incarnations, and any one or more of our prophets proved not to have been historical, it does not injure our religion at all; even then it remains firm as ever, because it is based upon principles, and not upon persons. It is in vain we try to gather all the peoples of the world around a single personality. It is difficult to make them gather together even round eternal and universal principles. If it ever becomes possible to bring the largest portion of humanity to one way of thinking in regard to religion, mark you, it must be always through principles and not through persons. Yet as I have said, our religion has ample scope for the authority and influence of persons. There is that most wonderful theory of Ishta which gives you the fullest and the freest choice possible among these great religious personalities. You may take up any one of the prophets or teachers as your guide and the object of your special adoration; you are even allowed to think that he whom you have chosen is the greatest of the prophets, greatest of all the Avatâras; there is no harm in that, but you must keep to a firm background of eternally true principles. The strange fact here is that the power of our Incarnations has been holding good with us only so far as they are illustrations of the principles in the Vedas. The glory of Shri Krishna is that he has been the best preacher of our eternal religion of principles and the best commentator on the Vedanta that ever lived in India.

  37. Dronacharya Saudi Arabia Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    To : Hindu ! Atee Sundar ! (Wonderfully beautiful). You write with sincerety. How you pray, how you connect to the Creator is your personal domain.. but you sound to be a reasonable, positive receptacle of truth. You have capacity to grow infinitely (spiritually). You can take any of the Prophets as your guide. For reasons of language.. you can take Sri Krishna.. but if you want to reach the Pinnacle of the Principle.. You have to reach the desert of Arabia. Take the Journey. That is the Pinnacle or the Final Stop. Read KP Ramakrishna (University of Mysore)’s Autobiography of Prophet Muhammad… Fact is that every enlightened Hindu knows THE TRUTH.. in his heart.. but is it very hard.. to break the wall of the system around him. They have turned HInduism into Goonda-ism today. Raping / Looting / Killing Muslims has become the hallmark of HInduism. Violence and Murder cannot be allowed in the name of religion.

    Justification for Murder/Pogroms/Genocide/Encounters : Gandhiji was a great leader.. a fine thinker.. a nutritionist.. a fine musician and a fines dancer.. a great weaver.. a fine walker.. India’s political freedom is not Gandhiji’s main contribution. He wanted to change the Hindu MIND. I am afraid the people were not of the desired level.. So honestly Gandhiji was “encountered” by assasins with Sardar Patel’s blessings ! (He looked the other way). Gandhiji used to bathe naked in full public view.. as the inmates of his ashram passed by doing their chores. The intent was : To de-sensitize sex. To change the SIGHT.. the viewpoint.. the mind. When he took bath in the nude @ Marina Beach in Madras.. in front of 3 million people.. and came out of the bath.. and stood naked b4 3 million indians.. in a moment the crowd was transformed. The earlier rishis never wore clothes. They moved around nude confidently. SInce it was a hot country, it worked in the summers… but for winters.. they rubbed ash (RAAKH) over their bodies.. to block the skin (thereby maintaining body-heat). So Gandhiji bathing nude., or sleeping nude with girls.. is to be taken from a different view. Of course during his “Experiments” or “Sexperiments” he faltered many a time.. and many women were victims of those experiments (for instance his Secretary Pyarelal’s sister.. Susila Nayar herself).. but if he faltered once.. he succeeded 9 times. So while he faltered, we must realise that he was “experimenting”.. He was experimenting the DE-SENSITISATION of sex. Changing the mind.

    India of yore : The Rishis were nude.. and the average man was also nude upto the torso.. Indians wore un-stitched garments.. until the advent of Muslim culture in India. The men wore saris of 3 metres.. (now known as Dhoti.. or Half-Saree because of its length). The women wore saris of 6 metres.. so that they cover their modesty (of the upper part of those bodies).

    Hindu kingdoms were so brutal.. that a mother was taxed.. when she fed her baby ! So once a women cut her breasts.. when the Tax collector came to collect MILK-TAX.. and fell on the ground and died. These fellas kept money in the temples. (Have you ever heard money in mosques.. churches ?). These temples were like the BANK LOCKERS or STRONG ROOMS.. with a God/idol placed ! The Brahmins were Chowkidars of the LOCKER ROOM below. It is because of the money that these temples were plundered. Even today.. there is a temple in Kerala that has R 100,000 crore worth of jewels/gold coins ! in the underground chamber !

    I say take the money out.. and utilise it.. to alleviate atleast HINDU POVERTY. There are a lot of Hindus. Distribute the money among poor hindus.. or BUILD ASSETS.. INSTITUTIONS.. ROADS.. Homes.. Schools.. Hospitals.. etc. etc. with the money.. so that atleast you wipe off the tear of a poor hindu.

    The suffering of a Hindu doesnt comfort me. But money must be utilised.. instead of lying in a strong room. Take the money out from the temple.. and utilise it to alleviate poverty among Hindus. What is wrong with this ?

    We have to take some things out from Gandhi. One is Gram Panchayati Raj.. The least one could do is that every village must have a FCI Godown.. which must be well maintained.. so that every village has a GRAIN BANK.. of rice.. wheat.. dals (millets).. sugar.. jaggery.. and some other basic grains.. which can be protected from weather.. and mice. At the moment.. 20% of our grains are lost.. to rats.. and vagaries of nature.. as they lie open on the ground. So a proper tribute to Gandhi ji.. the fine leader of Hindus, atleast.. and there should be no shame to acknowledge that fact.. Yes.. he was a gr8 leader of the Hindus.. because he couldnt take the whole of India together. He or the HIndu Congress never came out with a Program on how to tackle the Muslim Community of United India. There was total silence… which was deafening. So a proper tribute to his memory would be to have a GRAIN-BANK (Godown/Warehouse) in every village. Gram Panchayati Raj to be strengthened.. and R.T.F. (RIGHT TO FOOD) a great Legislation due in 2013.. will help in eliminating hunger from Indian soil.

    We had a famine as late as 1940s.. in which 5 million people (99% of whom were Muslims of Bengal.. presently Bangla Desh). Amartya Sen has written a Book on the Famine.

    So we must ensure that there is never a famine again in India. We have the food. BUT WE HAVE A HUGE.. IMMENSE FLAW.. IN OUR SUPPLY CHAIN.. which we must improve. That would be a fine tribute to Gandhi.. a gr8 leader.. a gr8 musician.. a gr8 dancer.. a gr8 nutritionist.. and a great walker.

  38. maggu India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Drona: A million thanks to you for writing the manifesto for the alleviation of the Hindu quaum. What would we do without prophetic people like you. I propose we make you a bhagwan too. We have 33 crores, one more wouldn’t harm us. Please publish your photo so we can get some statues made and start worshiping you. Please accept my grateful thanks on behalf of all the Hindus for your great guidance. If you are also hearing a book from god please bless us by giving it to us.
    Jai Drona Maharaj!!

  39. notabene Germany Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    to drona

    Muslim sufferings are primarily due to islam and its lies and not due to anything done or not done by hindus. You should stop slandering or vilifying hindus. Hindus are not perfect human beings, but you should not make false accusation against them.

  40. Dronacharya Saudi Arabia Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    A naked Gandhi completely out-shadowed well dressed Governors and Viceroys. India did not understand the depth of the Gandhian thought. Yes, his poverty was like a “Movie Set” financed by Banias (Birlas / Bajaj / Dalmias / Ruias / Seth Shriram of DCM / Rajahs of various vassal states / Seths of Mumbai and Gujerat / Marwaris of Kolkata etc).. but.. in due fairness.. one must stand up and say.. and say it aloud.. that GANDHI removed the shame that came associated with ECONOMIC POVERTY. THAT singularly was his greatest contribution.

    Gandhi had read about the life of the 3rd Caliph of Islam “OMAR”.. who lived in a tent.. his robe had 70 patches.. and he slept under a tree with the hand as his pillow. Gandhi drew upon a lot of past.. Christ.. Prophet Muhammad.. Omar.. The Hindu Classics.. Literature.. Gujerati poet NARSI MEHTA (who passed away 700 yrs br him).. BHARTARI HARI (The Oriya genius).. So his grasp or canvas was vast.. People called him cluttered.. cuz his interests were extremely varied..

    Whenever he had a Congress session.. he constructed a city of HUTS.. where the Leaders stayed. A whole city of huts like MINA (City of Tents) would come up instantly. He made Nehru and Nan Pundit live in HUTS ! He himself lived in huts.. (of course with due comforts).. nevertheless.. he removed.. or atleast tried his best to remove the STAIN that is attached to economic poverty.

    But human greed was a very stronger force.. i guess. Gandhi.. thru his living.. walking.. singing.. dancing.. writing.. GAVE confidence to Indians.. His core constituency was HINDU.. and he was sincere to his client… until the end.

  41. Pankaj India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    I JUST Love to see to Whining and CRYING
    It makes me VERY HAPPY

  42. Pankaj India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    That is why you MUSLIMS Are JEALOUS of Gandhiji
    Gandhiji UNITED the Hindus
    And this SCARED the Muslims WHO THEN RAN

  43. Skeptic India Safari iPad says:

    What do you think of Deendar Anjuman?

  44. sheikh zaki Pakistan Google Chrome Windows says:

    Our Indian friends have their own views and are entitled to their own point of view. We Pakistanis, should in any case, show courtesy to Gandhi when interacting with our Indian friends. This is what is expected from any decent person. As a Pakistani, and inspite of the courtesy I am committed to show to my neighbours, my view is that Jinnah was a much greater statesman and political leader. I do not say this because of my nationality, but because of the fact that it was Jinnah who stuck to the principle of political secularism, to the principle of protecting the rights of the minority and to the principle of keeping the clergy as away from politics as possible. On these three principal counts, Jinnah stands head and shoulders above Gandhi. Most of our Indian friends like to ask: if Jinnah was so secular, why did he emerge as the spokesman of the the Muslims? The answer is simple: because nobody else was prepared to work as the spokesman of the Indian Muslims. Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan, nevertheless was a secular one. What eventually became of Pakistan, is not because of following Jinnah’s vision, but because of abandoning Jinnah’s vision. Pakistanis! Wake up.

  45. In the men’s division also many interesting things: for example, jeans from Of japan designer Takeshi Kurosawa or stylish clothing fire-brand of english the80thebuilding. From the well-known: gucci, prada, d

  46. I need to to thank you for this good read!!

    I definitely enjoyed every bit of it. I have got you saved as a favorite to look at new stuff you post…

Leave a Reply


− six = 2

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