Nehru divided India, not Jinnah: Jaswant Singh
- Thread starter Khalids
- Start date
So what do u want to say... !!! have autonomous regions with in a country and nobody is answerable to federal rule ???? ok gud luck with that system... u have northern front and waziristan... gud for u.... what ever is in India sud be controlled by federal system with support from different states.....
I firmly belive a country is as strong as its weakest link, u can't have different autonomous regions and a weaker federal rule, it creates havoc, every head of a state or region will behave as though he/she is the supreme commander....
From the back of my head, let me give you this bit of Info. Apologize for lack of dates n other needless formalities. Asim was correct in pointing out, that there was no divided India till 1945, not even in theory. The idea was autonomous provinces in East and West
Nehru, as soon as he became the top dog in Congress gave an interview where he kinda hinted that the Centre will intervene in the autonomous states, if there is a need. This kinda irked Jinnah, who took this as an affront(i believe that is the word). The rest, as they is, history.
Proclamation of Direct aCtion Day and its horrible consequences did not help in reconcilation either.
Net result is what we see today and the eventual formation of Defence.pk, instead of Defence.in
Yep I do remeber sth on these lines... there was this proposal of autonomous regions with in India, which wasn't favorable to top congress leaders including Gandhi... They believed , and rightly so, that creating India with autonomous govts is as gud as dividing a nation... A nation has got to have a strong central govt, esp when we talk abt sooo much diversity interms of religion, laguage, customs and ethnics..... else just for the name sake u have India, but it will be again a Nation with MANY NATIONS WITHIN.....
Last edited:
@Omar
These people were so God-fearing that even a hint of negligence in their mind was for them sinful. I'm sure you know about the hadith where the Prophet SAW said more a less:
I suggest you read his articles and lectures and you will realize how devout he was.
My Grand father (a congress member during freedom struggle) on my mum's side personally met Maulana Azad when he fondly remembers how he attended his ectures and speeches in Osmania university in present day Hyderabad, and he has said that about how he would make ijtemai dua at the end and give lectures in Urdu with quotes from Hadith and Quran. He along with many ulema (e.g. deoband, jamiat-ulema-e-hind, e.t.c) were on the same page because of his theological underpinnings about nationalism.
These people were so God-fearing that even a hint of negligence in their mind was for them sinful. I'm sure you know about the hadith where the Prophet SAW said more a less:
I suggest you read his articles and lectures and you will realize how devout he was.
My Grand father (a congress member during freedom struggle) on my mum's side personally met Maulana Azad when he fondly remembers how he attended his ectures and speeches in Osmania university in present day Hyderabad, and he has said that about how he would make ijtemai dua at the end and give lectures in Urdu with quotes from Hadith and Quran. He along with many ulema (e.g. deoband, jamiat-ulema-e-hind, e.t.c) were on the same page because of his theological underpinnings about nationalism.
Well ets not forget about the British Colonialists. As Asghar said: We Indians and Pakistanis while holding our own leaders as responsible we have completely exonerated the British rulers of their responsibility for partition.
The British overtly and covertly involved and Viceroy Wavell (in 1942) had already documented the partition borders long before Mounbatten came on the scene. It was this partition document that was implemented to the letter which had minute details such as giving Gurdaspur distirct to India and reasons for that.
An excellent collection of Primary sources and British documents is here
India's Constitutional Question - The Cabinet Mission Plan 1946 (CabinetMissionPlan)
nwmalik
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2008
- Messages
- 611
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
we continue to make mistakes due to narrow vision.
Congress caused Pakistan.
WE caused Bangladash.
what more?
i dont want to think or mention anything, it is to painful.
we will continue to suffer and suffer........................................
Congress caused Pakistan.
WE caused Bangladash.
what more?
i dont want to think or mention anything, it is to painful.
we will continue to suffer and suffer........................................
s90
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,313
- Reaction score
- 1
Book on Jinnah likely to change discourse in India
If I were not drawn to the personality I wouldn’t have written the book. It’s an intricate, complex personality, of great character and determination, Jaswant Singh said.
NEW DELHI: Conventional wisdom in India that holds Mohammed Ali Jinnah as a communal leader who caused the bloody partition of the subcontinent is expected to receive a body blow when a new book on the Quaid-i-Azam by former Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh is released here on Monday.
‘If I were not drawn to the personality I wouldn’t have written the book. It’s an intricate, complex personality, of great character, determination,’ Mr Jaswant Singh told an Indian TV channel ahead of the release of the book, ‘Jinnah: India – Partition – Independence.’ It took five years to research.
By all accounts Mr Singh’s narrative is being seen by those who have seen glimpses of the book as the most important statement, verging on adulation, by a leading Indian public figure of a man otherwise seen as a villain by the Indian middle classes.
It was historically not tenable to see Mr Jinnah as the villain of 1947, Mr Singh said. ‘It is not borne out of the facts… we need to correct it… Muslims saw that unless they had a voice in their own economic, political and social destiny they will be obliterated.’
Mr Singh said the 1946 election was a good example to show the fear held by Muslims. That year, he said: ‘Jinnah’s Muslim League wins all the Muslim seats and yet they don’t have sufficient numbers to be in office because the Congress Party has, without even a single Muslim, enough to form a government and they are outside of the government.
‘So it was realised that simply contesting elections was not enough… All of this was a search for some kind of autonomy of decision making in their own social and economy destiny.’
Mr Jinnah was a great man because he created something out of nothing, Mr Singh said of his newfound hero.
‘He single-handedly stood against the might of the Congress Party and against the British who didn’t really like him ... Gandhi himself called Jinnah a great Indian. Why don’t we recognise that? Why don’t we see (and try to understand) why he called him that?’
Mr Jinnah was as much a nationalist as any leader in India.
‘He fought the British for an independent India but also fought resolutely and relentlessly for the interest of the Muslims of India … the acme of his nationalistic achievement was the 1916 Lucknow Pact of Hindu-Muslim unity.’
Among the aspects of Mr Jinnah’s personality Mr Singh said he admired his determination and will to rise. ‘He was a self-made man. Mahatma Gandhi was the son of a Diwan. All these (people) — Nehru and others — were born to wealth and position. Jinnah created for himself a position. He carved in Bombay, a metropolitan city, a position for himself.
‘He was so poor he had to walk to work … he told one of his biographers there was always room at the top but there’s no lift. And he never sought a lift.’
Demolishing the belief that Mr Jinnah hated or disliked Hindus, Mr Singh said the claim was totally wrong. ‘His principal disagreement was with the Congress Party.’
Going by his interview shown on CNN-IBN on Sunday, Mr Singh holds Mr Jawaharlal Nehru as more culpable than anyone else for the division of the country.
© Dawn Media Group
If I were not drawn to the personality I wouldn’t have written the book. It’s an intricate, complex personality, of great character and determination, Jaswant Singh said.
NEW DELHI: Conventional wisdom in India that holds Mohammed Ali Jinnah as a communal leader who caused the bloody partition of the subcontinent is expected to receive a body blow when a new book on the Quaid-i-Azam by former Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh is released here on Monday.
‘If I were not drawn to the personality I wouldn’t have written the book. It’s an intricate, complex personality, of great character, determination,’ Mr Jaswant Singh told an Indian TV channel ahead of the release of the book, ‘Jinnah: India – Partition – Independence.’ It took five years to research.
By all accounts Mr Singh’s narrative is being seen by those who have seen glimpses of the book as the most important statement, verging on adulation, by a leading Indian public figure of a man otherwise seen as a villain by the Indian middle classes.
It was historically not tenable to see Mr Jinnah as the villain of 1947, Mr Singh said. ‘It is not borne out of the facts… we need to correct it… Muslims saw that unless they had a voice in their own economic, political and social destiny they will be obliterated.’
Mr Singh said the 1946 election was a good example to show the fear held by Muslims. That year, he said: ‘Jinnah’s Muslim League wins all the Muslim seats and yet they don’t have sufficient numbers to be in office because the Congress Party has, without even a single Muslim, enough to form a government and they are outside of the government.
‘So it was realised that simply contesting elections was not enough… All of this was a search for some kind of autonomy of decision making in their own social and economy destiny.’
Mr Jinnah was a great man because he created something out of nothing, Mr Singh said of his newfound hero.
‘He single-handedly stood against the might of the Congress Party and against the British who didn’t really like him ... Gandhi himself called Jinnah a great Indian. Why don’t we recognise that? Why don’t we see (and try to understand) why he called him that?’
Mr Jinnah was as much a nationalist as any leader in India.
‘He fought the British for an independent India but also fought resolutely and relentlessly for the interest of the Muslims of India … the acme of his nationalistic achievement was the 1916 Lucknow Pact of Hindu-Muslim unity.’
Among the aspects of Mr Jinnah’s personality Mr Singh said he admired his determination and will to rise. ‘He was a self-made man. Mahatma Gandhi was the son of a Diwan. All these (people) — Nehru and others — were born to wealth and position. Jinnah created for himself a position. He carved in Bombay, a metropolitan city, a position for himself.
‘He was so poor he had to walk to work … he told one of his biographers there was always room at the top but there’s no lift. And he never sought a lift.’
Demolishing the belief that Mr Jinnah hated or disliked Hindus, Mr Singh said the claim was totally wrong. ‘His principal disagreement was with the Congress Party.’
Going by his interview shown on CNN-IBN on Sunday, Mr Singh holds Mr Jawaharlal Nehru as more culpable than anyone else for the division of the country.
© Dawn Media Group
rubyjackass
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,610
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
True. I dont see anything wrong with what Jaswant Singh told before the media. The book may border on adulation which is generally the case with all biographies. But the basic point against Nehru was true.
I learned about the federal- unionist conflict for the first time in
Partition, The day India burned[BBC] 14th Aug 2007
a documentary.
We Indians were taught half truths about this matter, which I believe was because Congress was in power for too long and so shaped our academic teaching. It is not the only sin of Congress and Nehru-Gandhi family that was covered up. In fact many Indians today blame Gandhi instead for accepting partition. It was just Nehru's blind fancy with the Soviet structure and Jinnah's paranoia. Nothing more that reflection of this in people around them.
Unfortunately even today there are people in India especially the elderly who still associate Congress with freedom movement and feel it is their duty to vote for Congress. Today's Congress is a political party just as opportunistic as any other. God bless my fellow Indians with power to see beyond the blinds.
arihant
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,815
- Reaction score
- 0
SABRE
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,058
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
Allow me few quick interjections.
1. It is true that Pakistan was created by Nehru and not Jinnah. Hence Jinnah is mainly referred to as "Founder" not "Creator" by many scholars not only in Pakistan but around the world.
Had Nehru been flexible you would either have had united India or Muslim India Autonomous Region within India. For long Jinnah had despised the idea of both Muslim league and Pakistan. In fact he had scolded Chaudhry Rehmat Ali in front of his fellow students at Cambridge University for bringing forth the name and idea of Pakistan. Jinnah had always been referred to as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity and was good friends with Motilal Nehru (Jawahar's father). It was Gandhi's introduction of Hindu ideologies and Nehru's uncompromising attitude that turned this secular man with strong Indian nationalism into a Muslim leader.
2. What ever Jaswant Singh's intentions the book will definitely make Congress Party look bad.
3. Not only the book will be well sold inside India but also Pakistan. Hence Singh in future will have better prospects of becoming FM again to have friendly relations with Pakistan - if that is what India and BJP want - or even become a potential prime minister.
It is interesting to note that BJP has had more success in attempting to make friends with Pakistan than Congress. But what is also true is BJP has had more conflict with Pakistan than Congress.
garibnawaz
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,088
- Reaction score
- 0
When it suits them (Pakistanis) they will trust Advani and Jaswant Singh.
An article from TOI about Indian poverty is a truth accepted by Indians.
When the same TOI reports about Pakistan it becomes a propaganda and TOI becomes a tool of Indian Government.
Jana is quite a master in playing these games.
U-571
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,747
- Reaction score
- -19
- Country
- Location
Jinnah was, to my mind, fundamentally in error proposing Muslims as a separate nation, writes Jaswant Singh, which is why he was so profoundly wrong when he simultaneously spoke of lasting peace, amity and accord with India after the emergence of Pakistan; that simply could not be. But Jinnah alone was not to blame. The West played a devious role to create a perch for itself in the sub-continent. And, Nehru did not oppose the two-nation theory vigorously enough.
It is in the false minority syndrome that the dry rot of partition first set in, and then unstoppably it afflicted the entire structure, the magnificent edifice of a united India. The answer (cure?), Jinnah asserted, lay only in parting, and Nehru and Patel and others of the Congress also finally agreed, writes Jaswant Singh.
this is a lie.
pakistan was not a western conspiracy. it was indeed the hindu extremism just from the beginning of english rule that made pakistan into a concrete reality in 1947. muslims didnt feel safe at the hands of hindu majority. things just got worse and worst when congress become hindu monopoly and it started to reject muslims representation, rights etc.
the hindu movement to expel muslims from india, or to purify muslims by their forced conversions to a hindu were the consequences of the creation of pakistan.
the most hilarious thing is, this garbage is coming from india after 62 years of creation and existance.
It is in the false minority syndrome that the dry rot of partition first set in, and then unstoppably it afflicted the entire structure, the magnificent edifice of a united India. The answer (cure?), Jinnah asserted, lay only in parting, and Nehru and Patel and others of the Congress also finally agreed, writes Jaswant Singh.
this is a lie.
pakistan was not a western conspiracy. it was indeed the hindu extremism just from the beginning of english rule that made pakistan into a concrete reality in 1947. muslims didnt feel safe at the hands of hindu majority. things just got worse and worst when congress become hindu monopoly and it started to reject muslims representation, rights etc.
the hindu movement to expel muslims from india, or to purify muslims by their forced conversions to a hindu were the consequences of the creation of pakistan.
the most hilarious thing is, this garbage is coming from india after 62 years of creation and existance.
sensenreason
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 0
Im confused. Was Pakistan created to allow Muslims a homeland or was it the identity more ethnic in nature (ie roots from Middle East eg Turkey, Iran etc)?
Kashmir is claimed by Pakistan on religious grounds and not ethnicity or cultural affinity.Further, Pakistan is a islamic state.
This means lot of threads on this forum are a result of Pakistanis trying to find a new identity apart from their religion - a difference it can find from India....trace roots to Persia etc.
Jinnah clearly wanted Pakistan to have a 'Muslim' homeland and it included Eastern side that ethnically were different from the West...However, lot of folks here would argue that Pakistan has more difference than India than just religion...well, it might be incidental but the history of partition does not support it.
Its funny that BJP has to treat Jinnah as a hero to diffrentiate from Congress. ..I do think Nehru and his team made a strategic mistake in aligning with Russians and not throwing their weight with the Britishers during WW2. We are all suffering due to that, still.
The whole partition thing might have been avoided and maybe a united India would have added 1-2% growth to what was achieved. That would have meant a land equal or greater than China today in economic terms.
They not only made the mistake of partition, continued making them by leading India to war with China due to stupid diplomacy.A united India but with Muslim autonomy would play well with BJP (Akhand Bharat etc), so their love for Jinnah is not surprising.
Ofcourse, the Pakistani elite would have been quite unhappy under a Hindu majority United India and who knows what would have happened.
Nehru's thoughts were good in theory just like USSR, which failed becoz people arent yet ready for an utopia like communism...real equality.
Politics and policies of Congress are idealistic mumbo-jumbo of socialism that they can only exist in theory but have no real foundation. They have also govered India for 50 years, only in theory...in reality its been chaos.
Kashmir is claimed by Pakistan on religious grounds and not ethnicity or cultural affinity.Further, Pakistan is a islamic state.
This means lot of threads on this forum are a result of Pakistanis trying to find a new identity apart from their religion - a difference it can find from India....trace roots to Persia etc.
Jinnah clearly wanted Pakistan to have a 'Muslim' homeland and it included Eastern side that ethnically were different from the West...However, lot of folks here would argue that Pakistan has more difference than India than just religion...well, it might be incidental but the history of partition does not support it.
Its funny that BJP has to treat Jinnah as a hero to diffrentiate from Congress. ..I do think Nehru and his team made a strategic mistake in aligning with Russians and not throwing their weight with the Britishers during WW2. We are all suffering due to that, still.
The whole partition thing might have been avoided and maybe a united India would have added 1-2% growth to what was achieved. That would have meant a land equal or greater than China today in economic terms.
They not only made the mistake of partition, continued making them by leading India to war with China due to stupid diplomacy.A united India but with Muslim autonomy would play well with BJP (Akhand Bharat etc), so their love for Jinnah is not surprising.
Ofcourse, the Pakistani elite would have been quite unhappy under a Hindu majority United India and who knows what would have happened.
Nehru's thoughts were good in theory just like USSR, which failed becoz people arent yet ready for an utopia like communism...real equality.
Politics and policies of Congress are idealistic mumbo-jumbo of socialism that they can only exist in theory but have no real foundation. They have also govered India for 50 years, only in theory...in reality its been chaos.
Similar threads
