• Monday, June 25, 2018

Jawaharlal Nehru-led Congress, not Muhammad Ali Jinnah was responsible for Partition: Farooq Abdulla

Discussion in 'Social & Current Events' started by Iqbal Ali, Mar 6, 2018.

  1. Iqbal Ali

    Iqbal Ali SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    7,109
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2017
    Ratings:
    +4 / 6,113 / -3
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Canada
    Jawaharlal Nehru-led Congress, not Muhammad Ali Jinnah was responsible for Partition: Farooq Abdullah
    India FP Staff Mar 04, 2018 11:31:59 IST

    Tweet upload_2018-3-6_12-24-20.png
    In a statement which may once again open the contentious debate over the Partition of India, National Conference chief and former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah on Saturday claimed that it was Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel and Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad who were responsible for the Partition of India and not Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan.

    Speaking at a function at Sher-e-Kashmir Bhavan in Jammu, Abdullah said that it was the refusal of the three Congress leaders to accept minority status for the Muslims which led to the Partition of India.

    Jinnah Sahab **** banane waale nahi theyy. Commission aaya, usmein faisla kiya gaya Hindustan ko divide nahi karenge. Hum special representation rakhenge Musalmanon ke liye. Minorities, Sikh ke liye special dispensation rakhenge, magar mulq ko divide nahi karenge: Farooq Abdullah pic.twitter.com/5sM0OZLvxI

    — ANI (@ani) March 3, 2018

    Abdullah added that Jinnah did not want Pakistan in the first place. But Congress' refusal to a special representation for Muslims and Sikhs, Abdullah believed, forced Jinnah to seek a separate nation for Muslims.

    "Or else there would have been no separation. There would have been no Bangladesh, no Pakistan; there would have been one India," ANI quoted Abdullah as saying.

    Jinnah ne maana magar Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad aur Sardar Patel ne nahi maana. Jab ye nahi hua to Jinnah ne phir se Pakistan maangne ki baat kar di. Nahi to aisa mulq kahin nahi hota. Aaj na Bangladesh hota, na Pakistan hota, ek Bharat hota: Farooq Abdullah in Jammu pic.twitter.com/aIURqKUk6I — ANI (@ani) March 3, 2018

    [​IMG]
    File image of former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah. Firstpost/Sameer Yasir

    Abdullah decries use of religion in politics

    Abdullah also expressed grave concern over the "communalisation of politics" ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, and cautioned BJP to desist from "dividing the nation on religious lines".

    “A polarised India is detrimental to its growth, progress, unity, and peace,” he said.


    The former chief minister decried the misuse of religion for political and electoral gains. Cautioning the audience about divisive forces in the state, Abdullah said that Jammu and Kashmir has to flourish and progress as a single entity.

    The debate over Partition


    The debate over who exactly were responsible for the Partition, which led to the creation of the dominions of India and Pakistan, has been raging on for many years now.

    In a 2017 book on the events preceding the event, "Partition: The Story of Indian Independence And The Creation of Pakistan in 1947", noted military historian Barney White-Spunner, while taking a holistic view of the historic event, believed that it was Congress' inability to get along with the Jinnah-led Muslim League that led to the eventual Partition of British India.

    "It was Nehru and Patel who decided to get on with it quickly. It may be stunning to know that Nehru, with Mahatma Gandhi’s support, even tried in May (1947) to get the British to (conclude the) hand over (of India) in June. Congress was impatient for power," a The Times of India book review noted.

    The partition debate took a political turn in 2009, when Bharatiya Janata Party leader and former Union minister Jaswant Singh wrote in his book, "Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence" that it was Nehru's centralised policy which forced Jinnah to seek a separate homeland for Indian Muslims.

    For his views, Jaswant was expelled from BJP, whose parent organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, had opposed the Partition of India.

    With inputs from PTI


    Published Date: Mar 04, 2018 11:31 AM | Updated Date: Mar 04, 2018 11:31 AM

    http://www.firstpost.com/india/jawa...le-for-partition-farooq-abdullah-4375275.html

    I disagree with Farooq Abdullah though, Jinnah did want partition. Partition was the right thing to do.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. Kaptaan

    Kaptaan PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Messages:
    9,116
    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Ratings:
    +153 / 23,472 / -5
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I think I have said that 999th time. Thank you Nehru.
     
  3. TheLahoriGuy

    TheLahoriGuy BANNED

    Messages:
    1,055
    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,177 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    You are about to get nuked for saying that so be ready.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. XDescendantX

    XDescendantX FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    584
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2016
    Ratings:
    +0 / 723 / -1
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    Pakistan
    11:30 Nehru's centralized policy: Hindu party ignored Jinnah's proposal for Muslim majority provinces to govern themselves.

    12:08 Jinnah wrote letters (documented proof) to the British government about Nehru's centralized policy

    The documentary states: Jinnah & Gandhi wanted British India to remain unified after the British left & to share power between Muslims & Hindus. But Nehru fooked it all up with his plan for an extremist Hindu dominated government. Jinnah realized the Muslims of the Subcontinent would never be treated as equals thus leading to the creation of Pakistan. :pakistan:

     
    • Thanks Thanks x 6
  5. Arsalan 345

    Arsalan 345 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,362
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2016
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,132 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    hahaha.joke of the century.
     
  6. ProphetX

    ProphetX BANNED

    Messages:
    126
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2017
    Ratings:
    +0 / 67 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United States
    Meh 70 so years on, smart people still fooling the sheep on religion partition etc etc.

    Smart up people, its done for good. Vote for fucking jobs, economy, life etc etc
     
  7. itsanufy

    itsanufy FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    275
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    Ratings:
    +1 / 176 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    What has happened has happened for good, Think of a country having a blody civil war.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  8. ziaulislam

    ziaulislam SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,833
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Ratings:
    +9 / 3,906 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    nehru was very confident that help with mount batten and redcliff he will not allow Pakistan on note of practicality the plan was simple
    1. divide Muslim provinces(not originally in plan)
    2. finish Kashmir by giving acess to india(not possible without 1)
    3. make sure northern NWFP and Baluchistan doesn't join Pakistan
    4. axe majority cities like calcutta

    nehru failed in 4 and no 2 partially otherwise Pakistan would have been a small Punjab which would have collapsed by itself
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  9. ziaulislam

    ziaulislam SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,833
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Ratings:
    +9 / 3,906 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    he wanted unity but wanted that option to be opened so he accepted cabinet mission which was that provinces will govern them selves in three groups and if they want can leave the federation in the future with 1/3rd central majority

    congress didnt wanted this so refused

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_Cabinet_Mission_to_India
     
  10. Iqbal Ali

    Iqbal Ali SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    7,109
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2017
    Ratings:
    +4 / 6,113 / -3
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Canada
    But in the end
    Jinnah had to accept Partition. So Jinnah pushed for partition at the last minute.

    Besides that, partition was the right thing to do.

    We have nothing to do with those Indians.
     
  11. Moonlight

    Moonlight PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    4,939
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Ratings:
    +42 / 8,847 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    @saiyan0321 would love to know your thoughts on it.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  12. saiyan0321

    saiyan0321 SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,006
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Ratings:
    +52 / 7,987 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    What can one say at this point. i think its time indians accept the partition and not let it be some political blame game.

    The thing is that in india and pakistan the story is that those who take responsibility for partition are instantly demonized ( in case of india) and made hero ( in case of Pakistan). You see if you look at his statement then its as if he is absolving jinnah of a great sin and placing the sin on nehru which highlights how the populace see the partition in India and a new ( often politically backed) thought process is that its all nehru's and congress's fault.

    The reality ofcourse is a bit different. Both jinnah and nehru played a role in this however we must understand how this role came to be in the first place.

    Long before jinnah and nehru became the central orbit of all subcontinental politics, a concept came to be which echoed and resonated slowly amongst the populace. This was the concept that muslims are different and distinct from the rest of the subcontinent. It mentioned no caste nor ethnicity but a simple notion that muslims are different and this different group must forge a separate path in the subcontinental politics. This was sir syed ahmed khan and with the wheels came into motion that created the political tussle of unprecedented proportion in British india. Congress ofcourse came with a different concept. That india is one nation. all things be it caste, religion and ethnicity are subservient and secondary to this fact that indians are one. Nothing is divisible amongst them and these indians reside in all of the british india and with it the congress party and its leaders brought forward a concept to the populace that this one nation is under the colonization of british and they must fight for their independence together. The muslim league ( at that time without jinnah) worked with the concept that muslims a distinct and separate minority needed their rights secured and the securing of these rights required certain steps by the crown to make sure muslim rights are secured. This was ofcourse vehemently opposed by congress. Do you know why? not bcz congress was born evil but bcz the political ideology of congress was the exact opposite of this. You see granting muslims special concessions was basically accepting that muslims were indeed a distinct nation from the rest of indians and due to this distinction they needed their rights secured. Thats the two nation theory something which was against the congress belief and political concept and ideology and men fight for what they believe in and would lay down their lives for their believes. It is simply human nature to protect your ideology an belief and the congress simply did that. They found the notion of separate identity absolutely ridiculous but as we know this stubbornness only makes things worse.

    The thing is you must understand that when somebody asks for their rights or safeguarding of their rights and are not satisfied or ignored then those cries of rights within a union as one become rights as separate entities. This is the natural evolution of such things and this is what happened in Pakistan.

    Our history course books highlight that Jinnah believed in rights within union and he did. What is argued is when did that rights within union became rights as separate entities and this is where all the theories come to pass.

    The muslim league and congress tussled over this as the muslim league shouted for muslim rights and congress shouted louder for greater autonomy under the crown for indians which are one. This ofcourse came in the form of 1935 act and the 1937 elections where congress won. You see the party which advocated loudly that indians were one nation had just won the elections and formed their own government. obviously from nehru's and congress's point of view it became apparent that the people of the subcontinent had rejected the two nation theory and the sole party that propagated it and the notion of two separate identity was so unpopular and the notion of one nation identity so popular that the people voted for us. In their eyes the matter lay settled and this is simply ten years before partition. Ten years is the same generation that voted in 1937. Now you see how the psych of congress was being made and how they saw their ideology strengthened and it would be this that would lead to the events of 1947.

    Now let me make it clear. The muslim league was fighting for muslim rights. It was not fighting for modern day pakistan with these boundaries. Their concept was entirely to safeguard muslim interests and rights and this was entirely the battle. Infact although Rehmat ali did coin the name Pakistan but if you look at his map then you would see exactly the thought process prevalent amongst the muslims fighting for their rights. The map basically has enclaves where muslims are a majority or the ruling class and it has three areas marked which were pakistan, bangistan ( east Pakistan) and osmanistan ( hyderabad) so you see it was not just the battle for punjab, sindh, NWFP and baluchistan but for every muslim and the safeguarding of their rights and rehmat ali basically presented to the the subcontinent a picture of what would happen if muslim rights were not safeguarded.


    So you have two political parties that have the ideology that differs from each other like day and night however one of them has won an open election where the other lost. The party that has won is assured that it is the sole representative of Indians and indians believe that there are no two identities and they have the 1937 elections to back their claim. They have muslims in their parties and a very famous muslim leader in NWFP who calls himself indian ( a fact ignored by afghans of afghanistan but thats a story for another time).

    The events of 1937-1947 are what the turn the tide in the subcontinental play. The decade may be the most crucial decade in subcontinental history.

    in 1940 a resolution was passed to a sea of people which threw the gauntlet. It called as it stated

    That geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North Western and Eastern Zones of (British) India should be grouped to constitute ‘independent states’ in which the constituent units should be autonomous and sovereign.

    That no constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary

    That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in the units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights of the minorities.


    The question that is argued is whether this was a threat or not. A threat is defined " a statement of an intention" so yes it was a threat but was it an empty threat. Thats where the discussion comes in. An empty threat is defined as "no intention for fulfillment" so was it an empty threat? No it was not. It was a man who was using his insight to openly declare that if rights are not safeguarded, if provisions are not made which will satisfy the muslims then the muslims be separated from the rest of british india. Although statements had been said before like in the 1930 presidential address of allama iqbal which spoke of independent separation for muslims or autonomous rights safeguarded within the british union. It was the first time it was spoken so loudly as a mission. It was indeed the throwing of the gauntlet.

    The mission was and always remained safeguarding of muslim rights be it as separate entity or as united entity.

    Now we will look at things from Congress perspective especially nehru's. A party that won in 1937 and willfully resigned in 1939 was hearing this demand from a party that basically had shown nothing. They obviously vehemently denied it.

    Now ofcourse comes the question. Why didnt the stubborn congress just accept their demand? The question is simply wrong. It meant the end of congress and the political ideology which was to hold india together. India was being moved under the concept of one nation above all else. Accepting that muslims needed special treatment was akin to accepting that muslims were distinct and different from the rest of indians. That meant killing the ideology of indian above all else bcz if you accept that muslims are different then you have to accept other differences as well for if muslims are so different then why not parsis, why not christians, why not bengalis, why not other ethnicities.

    Congress could not accept that. The two parties had two very different ideologies. Accepting the other's demand meant accepting their ideology which would ruin everything those parties had worked their entire existence for. Nobody was going to do that.


    This was perhaps most true in the cabinet mission plan of 1946 but before we must highlight another important event. in 1945 elections were held in india. The general elections on 102 seats were held of which Muslim league won 30 and congress 59. The more important ones were the provincial elections which highlighted and perhaps shocked congress.

    The elections of 1945-46 highlighted the thought process of people. You had one party that propagated one india for one nation called indians and a party which continuously spoke about muslim separate identity and separatism due to non safeguarding of rights. The muslim league campaigned endlessly and it was here in the provincial elections of 1945-46 that we witnessed the choice of the muslims.

    The muslim league won 425 seats and the congress won 923 seats. The muslim league won amongst the muslim reserved seats and the congress amongst the remaining hindu majority. The thing is that the muslims of the subcontinent. You see separate electorates were that a muslim candidate would be standing against another muslim candidate rather than a non muslim one and the muslim community would decide and this is what basically shook the foundations of the subcontinent. The muslims had voted for a party that advocated the concept of separate identity against the muslim candidate of a party that advocated one identity.

    To say that muslims did not see themselves as separate would be wrong bcz the election itself is evidence that they saw themselves as separate and ofcourse the mass migration showcases that they left everything behind believing in this concept.

    You see with these elections the british were left in a conundrum. The muslims were agitating and there was now ample evidence that the muslim league was the representative of muslims and the muslims support the concepts of the muslim league.

    This is where the cabinet mission plan of 1946 came and its here discussions reach their heights.

    The plan basically divided india into three entities which would remain largely in very very loose federation and any entity if dissatisfied could leave the union after 10 years. The entities would be largely autonomous with defense foreign under central which would be delhi.

    Now here is the question. Why was this plan rejected by the congress and accepted by the muslim league? In our books even those in bachelor or higher you would read that it was some clever move ( which was highly unexplained and circular and quite frankly made no sense) by muslim league to fool the british and the congress. Amongst the recent anti-congress indians the concept ofcourse would be that nehru was so power hungry and foolish and if netaji or patel was there it wouldnt have happened.

    Reality ofcourse is a bit different and it is here that their political ideologies came to be. Their entire political concept and their believes laid bare.

    the 1946 cabinet plan basically divided india. three entities which could leave the union which was extremely decentralized. This decentralized structure was basically looked to congress as the division of what they saw as one india for one nation called indians. Nehru could not be expected to accept this bcz it was against their ideology. This is not being stubborn but guarding the only thing that could hold india together. In the end history will ofcourse judge him harshly but quite frankly modern day india has much to thank him for. His rigid stand that one india for one nation of indians was perhaps what has to this day continuously held india together something in history never happening if you discount forcible annexations of great conquerors whose empires and these annexation barely lasted their lifetime.

    At the other end you had muslim league. The muslim league got what they wanted. Muslim rights were safeguarded in a very very loose union. The center had zero powers basically and ten years ( we formed our constitution in 1956, 9 years from 1947. The government of india act was run till then) from now the entities could leave the union. So both rights and the option for separatism if the center meddles then they could simply invoke their right to separate. So ofcourse they would accept and nowhere does it point that had both parties accepted the cabinet plan that there wouldnt have been partition. quite frankly all three entities would have separated and india would have been alot smaller and there would have been communal hell in the entity which comprised of bengal and assam. so its basically a "what if" day dream scenario which even for day dream standards is pretty unrealistic.

    The plan was basically the british saying you sort your mess out with the tools we are giving you and there was one party saying there is no mess to sort out and the other saying oh there is a big one.

    Leaders are differentiated from the populace bcz they have the ability to see what others dont see. They have this vision that others dont get and right now there were two great leaders who were seeing what others could not see. who were seeing what others to this day do not see. This is what was so remarkable. They both saw a future that they did not want and they both had a vision which they saw as the only path for salvation. History books are marred as black and white. Right or wrong. There is not right or wrong here.

    the british came to the conclusion that they would have to end this themselves and so they did. The concept of creating two entities from british india. The muslim league agreed since this is where all rights movement which are ignored or not properly attended to lead and the congress agreed bcz in their eyes it was a better option than to loose their ideology of one india for one nation called indians....... the rest is history.



    The fact is that the people of pakistan see themselves to this day as different from the indians of india and it is here amongst the 221 million that the two nation theory resides and as long as we stand with this concept that we are separate from the indians of india and that we wish to forge our own destiny wherever it may lead us as separate and independent nations, the theory on solid grounds unblemished.

    I dont go into what could have beens or what ifs. they are a waste of time. We must look into the now and work our way from here.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  13. SmartGeek

    SmartGeek SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,656
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,766 / -0
    Considering Indian Muslims are being slaughtered left and right in the name of beef laws based on Hindu political ideology, Pakistan as nation is relief for Muslims who can practice their faiths unopposed and sacrifice cows during the Eid days.

    # On topic, Nehru was the best thing happened to Pakistan. First, Jinnah (R.A) learned the truth, then Pakistan did. Somewhere from 2001 to 2007, people forgot the historical lesson as they were getting caught up with Aman Ki Asha while people in Pakistan were being killed by Indian-funded Afghan-based Terrorist-outfit aka TTP for years amount up to 100,000 and beyond.

    Then, Modi happened. People in Pakistan is reminded of the history and why Pakistan exists and now they are grateful for Pakistan more than they have ever been in their life.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  14. naveen mishra

    naveen mishra FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,460
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Ratings:
    +3 / 1,513 / -10
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    Indonesia
    lol jinnah ask for special representation of Muslim ?
    Pakistan created in the name of Muslim representation than there should not by any reason for the separation of Bengali
     
  15. ProphetX

    ProphetX BANNED

    Messages:
    126
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2017
    Ratings:
    +0 / 67 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United States
    Yup, 70 so years on, more muslims get slaughtered In the land for Muslims , you better know what to say, mod or no modi buddy