What's new

Why gandhi supported kalifah movement and jinnah didnt?

The problem with your analysis is, you're viewing the partition in today's context. The year was 1940s, the rulers were British with whatsoever no regard to both Hindus and Muslims.

Yes the Hindu dominant society was partly true in East Bengal/East Pakistan/Bangladesh, but not in West Pakistan and Northern India, where most land-owners were Muslims.

Noe, Acyually Muslims did suffered, There property looted, There relatives killed in huge numbers...How could such a Huge population migrated to Pakistan for no reason ..?
 
Suffered? How exactly? The British were ruling and were the only ones doing any dominating. This looks like the case of post partition distorted history that makes you believe that. The Muslims having been a dominant group for 800 years feared the loss of that dominance when faced with democracy and if anything there was a fear of suffering Hindu dominance rather than anything real that lead to their demands.




They were and they only had themselves to blame for it. The perceived loss of power depressed them so greatly that they opposed every attempt to learn English (the language of their conquerors) seeing it as an attempt to further strip them of even their culture while the Hindus had no such problem because they were moving from one foreign language(Persian) to another. Actually, in Bengal they even opposed a setting up of a college to teach Sanskrit preferring English instead.

Having contoured them on Multiple Fronts like From Arab , Africa and Europe , Afghanistan, The British had reservation against Muslims.Hindus didnt had any reason nor had any such history to be feared of.There are numerous accounts which state that British Establishment took measures to limit the participation Muslim Population in State Affairs after 1857.Later however Secular Muslims were encouraged to represent Muslims. Hindus being dominated for nearly 1000 years appeared as viable alternative to further the British Raj and colonial imperialism in subcontinent.

The Only way? Maybe true, who knows? It is impossible to sit here in 2010 & understand accurately the fears running around in the minds of men in the late 19th & early & mid 20th century. The world was a different place then, the sub continent certainly was & I for one have come to the conclusion that maybe the partition of India worked out best.

Yes perhaps it might be impossible, But we have only the History to refer to and, Multiple accounts show that Social Devide existed due to which Both Hindus and Muslim Suffered over time and Partition was inevitable even if the British didnt allowed it to happen, Maybe later on the Muslims could have revolted under the Hindu Domination and could have secured larger area which currently India possess.Such a movement could have turned out much more troublesome both for British on the large and Hindus in minor.


Would be careful going down there. All the Muslims who went along with the idea of Pakistan have not exactly had a life of a bed of roses. The experience of Muslims killing Muslims, I am sure you will agree has replaced the fear of being dominated by Hindus. The experiences would vary depending on the community one belongs to but it would be fair to say that everyone fears domination just that the precise nature of the perceived oppressor changes with time.

Wholeheartedly agreed :cheers:
 
Jinnah was a hard-core secularist atleast in the beginning. Hence his stand was obviously against the Khilafat movement. Later in this career he was ambiguous in his stand, the repercussions of which we see even today in Pakistan. But what ibelieve is that Jinnah wanted a Turkey kind of republic for Indian muslims. He did not want them getting mired in their history. Hence he did not get any support from the clerics.

Gandhi on the other hand while still being secular, would let people decide for themselves what they wanted. He thought he should take into consideration the views of all muslims without prejudice to what they want. So he would go with the support for Khilafat movement.

IMO Jinnah wanted to have a secular muslim country without much play of religion but realized that he cannot get what he wanted unless he acted pragmatic and attracted the religious groups as well. In that way he underestimated the power of religion in a big way while envisaging a secular country with muslim majority.

In effect if Jinnah had his way with his dream, all Indian muslims would be in this new country away from radicalism and with a vibrant Turkey like state. After he realized the imperfections of the real world he turned to populist sloganeering once in a while leading to an alternative narrative of his views which is keeping Pakistan in a limbo today.

If Gandhi had his way, there would be a single state, a boring version of today's India including the rest that divided but there would have been pockets of radicals with popular support because Gandhi would have let them survive because he would respect people's thought.

Both leaders had their different ways of thought. Jinnah was more idealistic I would say. That is why his country took the hit of the imperfections in the real world. May be he could have done better if he was not accommodative on at least the single aspect he firmly believed in - role of religion in Pakistan. He gave up this fundamental pillar for the purpose of popular support and things followed.
But Jinnah's vision of sub continent would have stabilised very quickly in the path to modernism. Gandhi's sub-continent would have taken a long long time to adopt modern views but, in hindsight, probably more practical. Now we are stuck midway, where one part is following Gandhi's path with a little delay and the other part is clueless about its future, while the by-product is torn between following the two paths to sketch its own identity.
 
A reasonable assessment. However, parts of it are speculative, and, excluding those parts, I wish to endorse only part of what follows.

Jinnah was a hard-core secularist atleast in the beginning.

I believe that he was throughout his long and illustrious life a pillar of support for secularism. He did not waver, as you seem to imply.

Hence his stand was obviously against the Khilafat movement. Later in this career he was ambiguous in his stand, the repercussions of which we see even today in Pakistan.

You have explained this yourself later in this note, quite satisfactorily. There were political compulsions, and he made statements without qualifying them, which have become the alternative narrative for the unwary.

But what ibelieve is that Jinnah wanted a Turkey kind of republic for Indian muslims. He did not want them getting mired in their history. Hence he did not get any support from the clerics.

There is a lot of support for this among Jinnah scholars. I am inclined to agree with those learned people who have identified his strong inclination towards the great Ataturk's political and social line, but unfortunately, he did not live long enough to institutionalise these facets of his belief system. A huge pity.

Gandhi on the other hand while still being secular, would let people decide for themselves what they wanted. He thought he should take into consideration the views of all muslims without prejudice to what they want. So he would go with the support for Khilafat movement.

What is hurtful and incomprehensible about Gandhi's stand is not that he took into consideration the views of all Muslims. He specifically favoured the views of religious Muslims, of the clergy and theocracy, in preference to the emerging middle class Muslim. This was a gross betrayal, and we are still suffering the consequences.

IMO Jinnah wanted to have a secular muslim country without much play of religion but realized that he cannot get what he wanted unless he acted pragmatic and attracted the religious groups as well. In that way he underestimated the power of religion in a big way while envisaging a secular country with muslim majority.

With a small difference, this reads true. The difference is that Jinnah was not after the 'religious' groups as well, if by that you imply that he was courting the Mullahs. The Mullahs were not having any. Deoband was downright hostile; various others also were. One sect went so far as to try and assassinate him!

What Jinnah was trying to do was to attract the conservative, observant middle-of-the-road Muslim, not merely the liberal sections which turned out for him en masse. Which was perfectly fine, but this very contrived exercise on his part led to terrible consequences in later years, when his attempts to make the AIML programme less of a bogeyman to these sections, less of that fearsome trap for the devout that the Muslim clergy had made it out to be, were readily co-opted by precisely those Mullahs who had so bitterly opposed him.

The struggle that Jinnah faced within the Muslim community never really died away. It resurrected itself after Pakistan was born, and the right wing, the conservative faction steadily became more and more exclusionary in its views. It was this faction that drove the Objectives Resolution, it supported the ghettoisation of the Ahmedis, it obtained the conversion to an Islamic Republic, it brought in sharia law and it opened the doors to the petro-dollar flood which killed secular Pakistan.


In effect if Jinnah had his way with his dream, all Indian muslims would be in this new country away from radicalism and with a vibrant Turkey like state. After he realized the imperfections of the real world he turned to populist sloganeering once in a while leading to an alternative narrative of his views which is keeping Pakistan in a limbo today.

Very well put. While I have insufficient learning in this regard, I believe that some of the learned would endorse this view wholly, without qualification.

If Gandhi had his way, there would be a single state, a boring version of today's India including the rest that divided but there would have been pockets of radicals with popular support because Gandhi would have let them survive because he would respect people's thought.

The irony is that few of us would have liked to live in Gandhi's India. But Gandhi's India is a hypothetical construct. The further, and most bitter irony, is that Jinnah's Pakistan never happened. Instead, what happened was a travesty, a caricature of the great Qaid's vision

Both leaders had their different ways of thought. Jinnah was more idealistic I would say. That is why his country took the hit of the imperfections in the real world. May be he could have done better if he was not accommodative on at least the single aspect he firmly believed in - role of religion in Pakistan. He gave up this fundamental pillar for the purpose of popular support and things followed.

It is up to this point that I find myself warmly in agreement with you. When in your next paragraph, you enter the realm of conjecture, it is time for me to take leave.

But Jinnah's vision of sub continent would have stabilised very quickly in the path to modernism. Gandhi's sub-continent would have taken a long long time to adopt modern views but, in hindsight, probably more practical. Now we are stuck midway, where one part is following Gandhi's path with a little delay and the other part is clueless about its future, while the by-product is torn between following the two paths to sketch its own identity.
 
IMO what I have written is the only possible explanation for Jinnah's staunch secular beliefs allowing his statements on Islam later. How else would a person like him try to woo the right-wing. It is true that he didn't have time. But that shouldn't make anyone give up on their core beliefs(assuming they are people of integrity).

How is Gandhi's support for Khilafat against muslims? It doesn't hurt any Indian. So despite his knowledge that Indians are powerless in this respect, he announced his support. You must understand Gandhi was a religious man. He understood the sentiments of other religions too in the same manner.

About Jinnah's POV, he did not gain popular support until he approved of the ML propaganda that Pakistan is meant for muslims and that muslims cannot live in Hindu India(what Jinnah meant was just that Muslims need to be majority at least in some provinces to wield some power). This essentially meant that his concept of Pakistan is too complex for people to understand. SO he had to embrace the more populist narrative, essentially compromising on his principles. This exactly is Pakistan's problem today.

My interpolation of Gandhi's and Jinnah's subcontinents are, I admit, mere conjectures, just to point out that both versions meant well. But one was conservative and the other was radical and probably, if I may say, impractical.


But I believe Gandhi's Subcontinent could have been just like India today if only with a higher degree of extremism on both sides. But IMO that is more pragmatic and doable. And it would take more time for modernisation, but it would be possible.

And by clerics I din't just mean the strictly orthodox muslims, they also included the baggage of convervatives who would follow or get influenced by their local mosque preacher in deciding whether a social or political event should be encouraged or not. Or those people who judge them by the book.
 
Neither of us, nor those hapless people reading us should permit this discussion to become one to determine how many angels can dance on the point of a pin. Our positions have converged very closely; only one point remains between us, and I have marked it in red in your comment below. With my comments on that passage, in blue, I will have said all that I have to say on this topic. Before signing off, thank you for the valued insights which you have contributed.

IMO what I have written is the only possible explanation for Jinnah's staunch secular beliefs allowing his statements on Islam later. How else would a person like him try to woo the right-wing. It is true that he didn't have time. But that shouldn't make anyone give up on their core beliefs(assuming they are people of integrity).

How is Gandhi's support for Khilafat against muslims? It doesn't hurt any Indian. So despite his knowledge that Indians are powerless in this respect, he announced his support. You must understand Gandhi was a religious man. He understood the sentiments of other religions too in the same manner.

Gandhi's support for Khilafat was against Muslims in the sense that he backed one section of the Muslim community against another, and associated the reputation and honourable position of the Congress party in the minds of all Indians with that section. If you agree that conservative Muslims and progressive Muslims, while both remained observant and loyal to the tenets of their religion, each interpreted these tenets differently, and were in silent but uneasy opposition to each other on the way to cope with the modern world, then Gandhi's choice and its implications becomes apparent.

Progressive Muslims, the Muslims of the AIML, by and large (there were exceptions; Jinnah's protege and friend, the Raja of Mahmudabad, is a classic example), were committed to working their way out of trouble. They were committed to modern education, to modern careers in the professions, in the services, and in business and trade and commerce. I don't wish to name names, which might become controversial, but we all know who they were, and, indeed, who they are in today's India.

The other kind, conservative Muslims, represented a broad point of view, like the progressives, and contained within themselves many grades and nuances of perception, like the progressives. On their extreme right wing were actually the Mullahs. In general, they believed that the way that had been selected for Muslims did not have space for the modern life-styles and the life-choices adopted by the progressive elements, and they sought to curb these choices and those making these choices largely through social pressures and sanctions. The ugliest side of this patriarchal command and control system is what has been seen in Pakistan recently, in the shape of the murder of Taseer.

It is because of the innate religiosity inherent in his own character and imbued in him that Gandhi thought that the way to the heart of the community was through the highly-charged issue of the Khilafat movement, not realising that he was making an irrevocable friend of the Mullahs and a devoted enemy of the progressives.


About Jinnah's POV, he did not gain popular support until he approved of the ML propaganda that Pakistan is meant for muslims and that muslims cannot live in Hindu India(what Jinnah meant was just that Muslims need to be majority at least in some provinces to wield some power). This essentially meant that his concept of Pakistan is too complex for people to understand. SO he had to embrace the more populist narrative, essentially compromising on his principles. This exactly is Pakistan's problem today.

My interpolation of Gandhi's and Jinnah's subcontinents are, I admit, mere conjectures, just to point out that both versions meant well. But one was conservative and the other was radical and probably, if I may say, impractical.


But I believe Gandhi's Subcontinent could have been just like India today if only with a higher degree of extremism on both sides. But IMO that is more pragmatic and doable. And it would take more time for modernisation, but it would be possible.

And by clerics I din't just mean the strictly orthodox muslims, they also included the baggage of convervatives who would follow or get influenced by their local mosque preacher in deciding whether a social or political event should be encouraged or not. Or those people who judge them by the book.
 
by Joe Shearer
It need hardly be said that as a staunch admirer of Jinnah, I disagree with your views completely and irrevocably. As late as the CMP, Jinnah fought to salvage his vision of a constitutional structure allowing Muslims to live in dignity and grow and prosper without being swept away by a brute majority. If he had given such an edge to religion, rather than to the betterment of his people, a section of the population marked off by their religious affiliation, he would have stood out for a clear division years, even decades before 1944.

Jinnah's vision was not, emphatically not Allama Iqbal's vision. YLH on PTH has proved that conclusively. The two great men respected each other; neither borrowed his ideas whole-sale from the other. Jinnah's vision clearly emphasised a homeland for the Muslim, not, emphatically not an Islamic homeland.

Regarding point 1, while I sympathise with the plight that Muslims found themselves in, I feel no need to subscribe to your highly tendentious and wholly misleading description of Muslims being "Damned illTreated and Backward From Hindus in almost every walk of Life". Damned? Ill treated? In what capacity did Hindus do this to Muslims, under a British rule that had no axe to grind on either side? The Muslims claim that they were discriminated against, the Hindus claim (if you read the effusions of Rig Vedic immediately before) that the Muslims were toadies of the British, sabotaged the independence movement and got Pakistan as a reward. With this evidence, we can safely conclude that an administration abused by both sides was in all likelihood an equal and even-handed administration.

If anything, Muslims suffered a lag, of perhaps fifty to a hundred years, in taking to British education. While the Hindus thronged the colleges of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay from their inception, the Muslim hung back and sulked in his dreams of imperial glory until Sir Syed Ahmed dashed a cup of cold water in their collective face. If anything, it was Jinnah's efforts to overcome this collective disadvantage that led to the constitutional experiments which he put forward, and which the CMP endorsed and put forward in their turn, a protection which Ambedkar, for instance, lost no time in claiming in its earlier, humbler form of electoral protection and a quota in education, for his own constituency.

But a plea that the Muslim was actively oppressed and socially pushed around by the Hindu is totally false, and verifiable to be false by the testimony of those who were alive in those days and have left records. It was not a Damned illTreated and Backward From Hindus in almost every walk of Life that fought for its rights, it was an active and aggressive segment of the population that feared an apocalyptic future. It was always a fear of what was to come, never a fear of what was present-day reality that was behind Muslim insecurity during that period.

One of the hall-marks of this division between what you have claimed and what happened was the analysis of the involvement of Muslims by Hamza Alavi, whose brilliant study made it clear that Pakistan was driven by the educated Muslim salariat, not, I repeat not by the down-trodden religious-minded Muslim that you have erected instead, I regret deeply to say, as a wholly fictitious substitute.
'Joe Shearer'
100% agree with bolded part. every member should read this article.
 
Was Jinnah secular?

On the night of March 7, 2011, Justice (retd) Javid Iqbal was interviewed on a TV channel on the nature of the Pakistani state. He held that Pakistan, as envisaged by Jinnah, was to be a secular state. This is the package he has always accepted as the ‘modern Islamic state’ imagined by his father, Allama Iqbal, too.

Javid Iqbal was clear that what Pakistan is now was not what Jinnah had thought of. The word ‘secular’ put off the TV host who insisted that ‘secular’ was the opposite of ‘Islamic’. He even once erroneously equated ‘secular’ with ‘communist’, not knowing that an atheist state cannot be secular. Javid Iqbal said hard Islam was not the project of Jinnah: The Islam of hudood and blasphemy laws was imposed by General Zia.

He even named Dualibi as the Arab scholar who was sent to Pakistan by Saudi Arabia to impose the laws that Pakistan was averse to enforcing. The fact is that the 1980 Zakat & Ushr Ordinance, imposed by General Zia on Sunnis and Shias, was framed by Dualibi in Arabic. Javid Iqbal clearly said that moderate and liberal elements were silent because they feared harm at the hands of extremist forces. He equally despaired of politicians.

He said that only the ibadat (prayer rituals) were unchangeable in Islam; muamilat (affairs) had to change in tune with the times. One reason Islamisation did not improve the Pakistani character was the state’s retrogression towards laws that were no longer compatible with modern times. He referred to an effort made by late MNA MP Bhandara who, as a minority representative, wanted the August 11, 1947 speech of Jinnah incorporated into the Constitution.

The August 11 speech is clearly a secular manifesto issuing out of the mouth of the Father of the Nation. The secularists lean on it; the others think Jinnah still meant a state based on Sharia. One historian even went as far as to say that Jinnah had become ‘infirm of mind’ when he spoke on August 11.

Saleena Karim in her book Secular Jinnah & Pakistan: What the Nation doesn’t Know (Paramount 2010) has probably tackled the case most thoroughly in defence of those who reject the secular label. She has dug up an interview that Jinnah gave to a Reuters’ journalist on May 21, 1947, which was used by chief justice Muhammad Munir in his book From Jinnah to Zia (1979) to infer that Jinnah had wanted a secular state.

She has dug up what Jinnah had really said: ‘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 be the final deciding factor with regard to the policy and programme of the government that may be adopted from time to time’ (p.31).

She writes: “Instead of calling the proposed Pakistan a ‘modem democratic state’”, Jinnah says only that it will have a “democratic form” of government. He was actually averse to imitating “modern” (read: contemporary) democracy as a political system, considering it a failure’. She thinks it contains a presumed reference to a non-secular state. One could also conclude from this that people may democratically decide to have a non-secular Islamic state with a Sharia.

It is up to the reader to decide whether the argument for a non-secular state is convincing or not, on the basis of what Jinnah is supposed to have said.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 20th, 2011.
 
Its from a Blog but quite interesting and chilling..!!!

"The Quaid-i-Azam has a bad cold:" Margaret Bourke-White's piercingly accurate report on 1947 Pakistan and its lessons for today.


Many thanks to the reader who sent a link to excerpts from Margaret Bourke-White's 1949 book, Halfway to Freedom, and which I republish in this post. The book was based on dispatches Bourke-White filed for LIFE magazine on post-Independence India and Pakistan. The excerpts deal with the earliest days of Pakistan and the last days of its founding father (pictured above with Mohandas K. Gandhi), Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948), the Quaid-i-Azam ("great leader").

Margaret Bourke-White (1904-1964) was the first female war correspondent and the first female journalist to report from combat zones in World War Two. Her legacy has been so greatly colored by her photojournalism -- her photographs of the war, American industry, the Depression era, and the horrors of Buchenwald concentration camp and India's partition -- that it can be hard to remember she was also a great reporter.

She was also an extraordinarily lucky person, who often found herself at the right place at the right time to report on events that would be of historical importance. She interviewed Gandhi just a few hours before his assassination, and learned of Jinnah's mental state shortly before his own death simply because she'd been waiting around his official residence to make a photographic portrait of him for a LIFE cover. Yet she always shored her luck with careful observations. It is downright eerie to read her reporting about 1947 Pakistan and its founding father in light of today's Pakistan.

The excerpts from her book will also educate readers who've bought the fiction that Pakistan's religious extremism is rooted in the 1980s policies of General Mohammad Zia ul-Haq. Pakistan was born in religious extremism that was nurtured and exploited by Jinnah and the ruling families he served. Zia simply painted a Saudi face on the extremism.

Bourke-White couldn't see around history's corners, however. By the time Halfway to Freedom was published Pakistan's leaders had already been granted the wish they'd expressed to her to receive support from the U.S. government.

Jinnah and the other Indian Muslims who wanted a separate state couldn't see around corners, either -- a point I made in The Ghost. Bourke-White's reportage makes clear just how short-sighted the decision was to break with India. It's all very well and good to ask, What were they thinking? But in 1936, when Jinnah revived the Muslim League, no one could imagine the collapse of the British Empire, the seeming suddenness of the collapse and how imminent it was. At the time all the problems that an imagined Islamic nation would face were to be smoothed over by the might of the British Empire.

By the time Margaret Bourke-White took her last photographs of Pakistan's founder it was clear that he'd staked the lives of many millions of people on an illusion. But that was seen only with hindsight, in the harsh dawn of the post-World War Two era.

The excerpts from Halfway to Freedom are provided by the Indian Relief and Education Fund website along with their introduction:

The Messiah and The Promised Land

Margaret Bourke-White was a correspondent and photographer for LIFE magazine during the WW II years. In September 1947, White went to Pakistan. She met Jinnah and wrote about what she found and heard in her book "Halfway to Freedom: A Report on the New India," Simon and Schuster, New York, 1949. The following are the excerpts:

Pakistan was one month old. Karachi was its mushrooming capital. On the sandy fringes of the city an enormous tent colony had grown up to house the influx of minor government officials. There was only one major government official, Mahomed Ali Jinnah, and there was no need for Jinnah to take to a tent. The huge marble and sandstone Government House, vacated by British officialdom, was waiting. The Quaid-i-Azam ["Great Leader"] moved in, with his sister, Fatima, as hostess.

Mr. Jinnah had put on what his critics called his "triple crown": he had made himself Governor-General; he was retaining the presidency of the Muslim League -- now Pakistan's only political party; and he was president of the country's lawmaking body, the Constituent Assembly.

"We never expected to get it so soon," Miss Fatima said when I called. "We never expected to get it in our lifetimes."

If Fatima's reaction was a glow of family pride, her brother's was a fever of ecstasy. Jinnah's deep-sunk eyes were pinpoints of excitement. His whole manner indicated that an almost overwhelming exaltation was racing through his veins. I had murmured some words of congratulation on his achievement in creating the world's largest Islamic nation.

"Oh, it's not just the largest Islamic nation. Pakistan is the fifth-largest nation in the world!"

The note of personal triumph was so unmistakable that I wondered how much thought he gave to the human cost: more Muslim lives had been sacrificed to create the new Muslim homeland than America, for example, had lost during the entire second World War. I hoped he had a constructive plan for the seventy million citizens of Pakistan. What kind of constitution did he intend to draw up?

Of course it will be a democratic constitution; Islam is a democratic religion."

I ventured to suggest that the term "democracy" was often loosely used these days. Could he define what he had in mind?

"Democracy is not just a new thing we are learning," said Jinnah. "It is in our blood. We have always had our system of zakat -- our obligation to the poor."

This confusion of democracy with charity troubled me. I begged him to be more specific.

"Our Islamic ideas have been based on democracy and social justice since the thirteenth century."

This mention of the thirteenth century troubled me still more. Pakistan has other relics of the Middle Ages besides "social justice" -- the remnants of a feudal land system, for one. What would the new constitution do about that? ...

"The land belongs to the God," says the Koran.

This would need clarification in the constitution. Presumably Jinnah, the lawyer, would be just the person to correlate the "true Islamic principles" one heard so much about in Pakistan with the new nation's laws. But all he would tell me was that the constitution would be democratic because "the soil is perfectly fertile for democracy."

What plans did he have for the industrial development of the country? Did he hope to enlist technical or financial assistance from America?

"America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America," was Jinnah's reply. "Pakistan is the pivot of the world, as we are placed" -- he revolved his long forefinger in bony circles -- "the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves."

He leaned toward me, dropping his voice to a confidential note. "Russia," confided Mr. Jinnah, "is not so very far away."

This had a familiar ring. In Jinnah's mind this brave new nation had no other claim on American friendship than this -- that across a wild tumble of roadless mountain ranges lay the land of the Bolsheviks.

I wondered whether the Quaid-i-Azam considered his new state only as an armored buffer between opposing major powers. He was stressing America's military interest in other parts of the world.

"America is now awakened," he said with a satisfied smile. Since the United States was now bolstering up Greece and Turkey, she should be much more interested in pouring money and arms into Pakistan.

"If Russia walks in here," he concluded, "the whole world is menaced."

In the weeks to come I was to hear the Quaid-i-Azam's thesis echoed by government officials throughout Pakistan.

"Surely America will build up our army," they would say to me. "Surely America will give us loans to keep Russia from walking in."

But when I asked whether there were any signs of Russian infiltration, they would reply almost sadly, as though sorry not to be able to make more of the argument, "No, Russia has shown no signs of being interested in Pakistan."

This hope of tapping the U. S. Treasury was voiced so persistently that one wondered whether the purpose was to bolster the world against Bolshevism or to bolster Pakistan's own uncertain position as a new political entity.

Actually, I think, it was more nearly related to the even more significant bankruptcy of ideas in the new Muslim state -- a nation drawing its spurious warmth from the embers of an antique religious fanaticism, fanned into a new blaze.

Jinnah's most frequently used technique in the struggle for his new nation had been the playing of opponent against opponent. Evidently this technique was now to be extended into foreign policy. ....

No one would have been more astonished than Jinnah if he could have foreseen thirty or forty years earlier that anyone would ever speak of him as a "savior of Islam."

In those days any talk of religion brought a cynical smile. He condemned those who talked in terms of religious rivalries, and in the stirring period when the crusade for freedom began sweeping the country he was hailed as "the embodied symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity."

The gifted Congresswoman, Mrs. Naidu, one of Jinnah's closest friends, wrote poems extolling his role as the great unifier in the fight for independence.

"Perchance it is written in the book of the future," ran one of her tributes, "that he, in some terrible crisis of our national struggle, will pass into immortality" as the hero of "the Indian liberation."

In the "terrible crisis," Mahomed Ali Jinnah was to pass into immortality, not as the ambassador of unity, but as the deliberate apostle of discord. What caused this spectacular renunciation of the concept of a united India, to which he had dedicated the greater part of his life? No one knows exactly.

The immediate occasion for the break, in the mid-thirties, was his opposition to Gandhi's civil disobedience program. Nehru says that Jinnah "disliked the crowds of ill-dressed people who filled the Congress" and was not at home with the new spirit rising among the common people under Gandhi's magnetic leadership.

Others say it was against his legal conscience to accept Gandhi's program. One thing is certain: the break with Gandhi, Nehru, and the other Congress leaders was not caused by any Hindu-Muslim issue.

In any case, Jinnah revived the moribund Muslim League in 1936 after it had dragged through an anemic thirty years' existence, and took to the religious soapbox. He began dinning into the ears of millions of Muslims the claim that they were downtrodden solely because of Hindu domination.

During the years directly preceding this move on his part, an unprecedented degree of unity had developed between Muslims and Hindus in their struggle for independence from the British Raj. The British feared this unity, and used their divide-and-rule tactics to disrupt it. Certain highly-placed Indians also feared unity, dreading a popular movement which would threaten their special position.

Then another decisive factor arose. Although Hindus had always been ahead of Muslims in the industrial sphere, the great Muslim feudal landlords now had aspirations toward industry. From these wealthy Muslims, who resented the well-established Hindu competition, Jinnah drew his powerful supporters.

One wonders whether Jinnah was fighting to free downtrodden Muslims from domination or merely to gain an earmarked area, free from competition, for this small and wealthy clan.

The trend of events in Pakistan would support the theory that Jinnah carried the banner of the Muslim landed aristocracy, rather than that of the Muslim masses he claimed to champion. There was no hint of personal material gain in this. Jinnah was known to be personally incorruptible, a virtue which gave him a great strength with both poor and rich. The drive for personal wealth played no part in his politics. It was a drive for power. ...

Less than three months after Pakistan became a nation, Jinnah's Olympian assurance had strangely withered. His altered condition was not made public.

"The Quaid-i-Azam has a bad cold" was the answer given to inquiries.

Only those closest to him knew that the "cold" was accompanied by paralyzing inability to make even the smallest decisions, by sullen silences striped with outbursts of irritation, by a spiritual numbness concealing something close to panic underneath. I knew it only because I spent most of this trying period at Government House, attempting to take a new portrait of Jinnah for a Life cover.

The Quaid-i-Azam was still revered as a messiah and deliverer by most of his people. But the "Great Leader" himself could not fail to know that all was not well in his new creation, the nation; the nation that his critics referred to as the "House that Jinnah built."

The separation from the main body of India had been in many ways an unrealistic one. Pakistan raised 75 per cent of the world's jute supply; the processing mills were all in India. Pakistan raised one third of the cotton of India, but it had only one thirtieth of the cotton mills. Although it produced the bulk of Indian skins and hides, all the leather tanneries were in South India. The new state had no paper mills, few iron foundries. Rail and road facilities, insufficient at best, were still choked with refugees.

Pakistan has a superbly fertile soil, and its outstanding advantage is self-sufficiency in food, but this was threatened by the never-ending flood of refugees who continued pouring in long after the peak of the religious wars had passed.

With his burning devotion to his separate Islamic nation, Jinnah had taken all these formidable obstacles in his stride. But the blow that finally broke his spirit struck at the very name of Pakistan. While the literal meaning of the name is "Land of the Pure," the word is a compound of initial letters of the Muslim majority provinces which Jinnah had expected to incorporate: P for the Punjab, A for the Afghans' area on the Northwest Frontier, S for Sind, -tan for Baluchistan. But the K was missing.

Kashmir, India's largest princely state, despite its 77 per cent Muslim population, had not fallen into the arms of Pakistan by the sheer weight of religious majority. Kashmir had acceded to India, and although it was now the scene of an undeclared war between the two nations, the fitting of the K into Pakistan was left in doubt. With the beginning of this torturing anxiety over Kashmir, the Quaid-i-Azam's siege of bad colds began, and then his dismaying withdrawal into himself. ....

Later, reflecting on what I had seen, I decided that this desperation was due to causes far deeper than anxiety over Pakistan's territorial and economic difficulties. I think that the tortured appearance of Mr. Jinnah was an indication that, in these final months of his life, he was adding up his own balance sheet.

Analytical, brilliant, and no bigot, he knew what he had done. Like Doctor Faustus, he had made a bargain from which he could never be free. During the heat of the struggle he had been willing to call on all the devilish forces of superstition, and now that his new nation had been achieved the bigots were in the position of authority. The leaders of orthodoxy and a few "old families" had the final word and to perpetuate their power, were seeing to it that the people were held in the deadening grip of religious superstition.

Pundita: "The Quaid-i-Azam has a bad cold:" Margaret Bourke-White's piercingly accurate report on 1947 Pakistan and its lessons for today.
 
"Why gandhi supported kalifah movement and jinnah didnt? "

Maybe thats why we hate Gandhi even more than we do to Jinnah.
 
History has been framed by COngress Party over its continious rule for 40+ years. That has made us to believe that Gandhi/Nehru and all were very noble creatures. The very same Congress does not glorify sardar patel, Netaji subhash chandra Bose, for he was more valiant than any congressi ever.

We have been brain washed by the deformed history that we have learned while growing up. Its same like a pakistani radical guy brougt up under madrassa training believing Jihad is good. Similarly, our generation has been made to believe that Gandhi was super super guy who made us win our independence. Where as truth is Gandhi is the one who was the reason for Bhagat Singhs death. He was the one responsible for Partition.

And do you even know why gandhi was shot in his rear? He was on an indefinate hunger strike and wanted Indian government to give pakistan 50 crore rupees. The very pakistan that immediately attacked Kashmir after independence and the very Muslim league that caused partition and deaths of millions. Good riddance.

No I am not any RSSian
 
And do you even know why gandhi was shot in his rear? He was on an indefinate hunger strike and wanted Indian government to give pakistan 50 crore rupees. The very pakistan that immediately attacked Kashmir after independence and the very Muslim league that caused partition and deaths of millions. Good riddance.

Qui Bono? Who benefited from Gandhi's death?
 
Where as truth is Gandhi is the one who was the reason for Bhagat Singhs death

Bhagat Singh died because he chose to throw bombs in the Parliament and killing a British officer. I dont see how Gandhiji was responsible for his actions.

He was the one responsible for Partition.

The partition took place because the muslims wanted a separate nation. The hindus were not too sad to see it happening either. As the conditions stood at the time, there was a lot of religious enemity. No one could have single handedly turned the tide either way.

And do you even know why gandhi was shot in his rear? He was on an indefinate hunger strike and wanted Indian government to give pakistan 50 crore rupees. The very pakistan that immediately attacked Kashmir after independence and the very Muslim league that caused partition and deaths of millions.

He was doing what he believed was necessary for the two countries to have an amiable relationship. I dont know if you realize it but there was a lot of resentment in Pakistan because that money was withheld. Not a good way to make friends. You are looking at it from a coloured perspective where Pakistan was alrady he enemy. At the time there was still a chance for the two countries to stay friendly.
 
Back
Top Bottom