M.A Jinnah on weeky time magazine cover April 22 1946

[M. Sarmad]

..but nowhere he introduced hinduism into politics

In an article, entitled, ‘The Doctrine of the Sword’, written in 1920, Gandhi proudly proclaimed:
‘I have therefore ventured to place before India the ancient law of self-sacrifice. For Satyagraha and its off-shoots, non-co-operation and civil resistance, are nothing but new names for the law of suffering. The Rishis who discovered the law of non-violence in the midst of violence were greater geniuses than Newton. They were themselves greater warriors than Wellington’[Mahatma Gandhi, Young India 1919-1922, Madras, 1922, p. 261.]

In the words of Subhas Chandra Bose, ‘when the Mahatma speaks, he does so in a language…of the Bhagvat Gita and the Ramayana. When he talks to them about Swaraj…he reminds them of the glories of Ramarajya (the Kingdom of King Rama of old) and they understand. And when he talks of conquering through love and ahinsa (non-violence) they are reminded of Buddha and Mahavira and they accept him[Subhas Chandra Bose, The Indian Struggle 1920-1942, Bombay, 1964, p. 293.]

In the words of Jawaharlal Nehru ‘Gandhi was essentially a man of religion, a Hindu to the inner-most depths of his being [Jawahar Lal Nehru, The Discovery of India, 7th ed. Lahore, 1968, p. 307]

In the words of Jinnah : Gandhi was the one man responsible for turning the Congress into an instrument for the revival of Hinduism’ [Jamil-ud-Din Ahmad, ed., Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah Vol. I, p. 77.]

Gandhi played cleverly on the religious superstitions of the ignorant and poverty-stricken millions of India and got away with it [Kanji Dwarkadas, India’s Fight for Freedom 1913-1937 An Eye-witness Story, Bombay, 1966, p. 103]

You just wrote down the Pakistan's sarkari school version of history.

 

[user1]

Faujihistorian i agree with you when you say gandhi was the first major national leader who brought religion into independence struggle, but tell me one thing.What other choice did he have....muslims at that time(after 1857) were not involved in independence struggle, british divide and rule policy led to serious damage in trust deficit between muslims and hindus and independence movement was largely looked upon as an hindu movement.Gandhi's only option was to bring muslim communities into the fold of independence movement was to play the khilafat card.That served two purposes :

1) It brought gandhi as a leader of muslims (some) as in he was seen being symphathetic to muslim cause and their sentiments.He was suprisingly also seen as a leader for the movement demonstrated by when he decided to end it after chouri chaura incident, even muslims obliged his request and ended their protest.

2) It gave way to greater anti british sentiments among muslim communities and greater participation in subsequent national movements like non-cooperation, quit india movement.

Unfortunately, what Gandhi was envisioning was Ram Rajya - and not a secular India - a return to fictional age of Lord Ram. How could this be acceptable to Muslims?

Then, there is this statement from Gandhi: He said to his confidant Mahadev Desai privately in 1918: 'Though we do say that Hindus and Muslims are brothers, I can not conceive of their being brothers right today... Not all religious distinctions will be wiped out in future, but Hinduism will captivate Muslims by the power of it's compassion.' Jinnah was right to suspect that Gandhi was not interested in giving Muslims of India their rights.

 

[FaujHistorian]

But was their involvement as great as after khilafat movement, when muslims (majority) who never identified with congress ......

So now you are a fan of vote bank politics.

I thought most of the Indian educated elite hated it.

 

[scorpionx]

@queerbait

1) It brought gandhi as a leader of muslims (some) as in he was seen being symphathetic to muslim cause and their sentiments.He was suprisingly also seen as a leader for the movement demonstrated by when he decided to end it after chouri chaura incident, even muslims obliged his request and ended their protest.

Yes, There were no reason to blame Mr.Gandhi if he had tried honestly to bring the Muslims of this subcontinent under one flag. But what followed the Khilafat immediately? The Non cooperation movement. Should I assume that the former was preceding the later just to gain sympathy? Isn't it quite similar today when Mullahs try to enrage the religious sentiments of illiterate as well as educated muslims?

2) It gave way to greater anti british sentiments among muslim communities and greater participation in subsequent national movements like non-cooperation, quit india movement.

Anti-British sentiments? How funny does it sounds when the British were enjoying this circus and arranged five first class return tickets for the Khilafat leaders to detour England!!!! This had to be a Turkish nationalist movement which the progressive Turks had rejected themselves and we, Indians were jumping ups and downs for a lost cause.

 

[INDIC]

In an article, entitled, ‘The Doctrine of the Sword’, written in 1920, Gandhi proudly proclaimed:
‘I have therefore ventured to place before India the ancient law of self-sacrifice. For Satyagraha and its off-shoots, non-co-operation and civil resistance, are nothing but new names for the law of suffering. The Rishis who discovered the law of non-violence in the midst of violence were greater geniuses than Newton. They were themselves greater warriors than Wellington’[Mahatma Gandhi, Young India 1919-1922, Madras, 1922, p. 261.]

In the words of Subhas Chandra Bose, ‘when the Mahatma speaks, he does so in a language…of the Bhagvat Gita and the Ramayana. When he talks to them about Swaraj…he reminds them of the glories of Ramarajya (the Kingdom of King Rama of old) and they understand. And when he talks of conquering through love and ahinsa (non-violence) they are reminded of Buddha and Mahavira and they accept him[Subhas Chandra Bose, The Indian Struggle 1920-1942, Bombay, 1964, p. 293.]

In the words of Jawaharlal Nehru ‘Gandhi was essentially a man of religion, a Hindu to the inner-most depths of his being [Jawahar Lal Nehru, The Discovery of India, 7th ed. Lahore, 1968, p. 307]

In the words of Jinnah : Gandhi was the one man responsible for turning the Congress into an instrument for the revival of Hinduism’ [Jamil-ud-Din Ahmad, ed., Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah Vol. I, p. 77.]

Gandhi played cleverly on the religious superstitions of the ignorant and poverty-stricken millions of India and got away with it [Kanji Dwarkadas, India’s Fight for Freedom 1913-1937 An Eye-witness Story, Bombay, 1966, p. 103]

None of it proved that Gandhi was propagating disunity unlike the two nation theory, you are expecting him some sort of communist. Gandhi was pro-Muslim and if remained so even after partition for that he was killed by Nathuram Godse and now you guys are bringing up your own fake theories that how Gandhi was going to discriminate Muslims because he talked about some Hindu, Buddhist or Jain principle. BTW Ramrajya is synonym of good governance, not the Hindu theocracy as you guys are pretending to believe.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Yes, There were no reason to blame Mr.Gandhi if he had tried honestly to bring the Muslims of this subcontinent under one flag

True . The Khilafat movement actually divided the Muslims further . What most of the people do not realize is the fact that Khilafat Movement was started on sectarian basis basically , later on supported by different politicians for political purposes . Maulana Abdul Bari founded "Bazm e Sufiya e Hind" in 1913 which was active against the Wahabis , who were demolishing holy shrines in Hijaz (Mecca/Medina) , and supported the Sunni Ottoman caliphate against Wahabis . Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar and Maulana Shaukat Ali , the leading figures of Khilafat movement , came from his Madrassah e Nizami . Sir Agha Khan and Sir Ibrahim Harun Jafar joined the Movement later for political gains .

Gandhi`s support of Khilafat movement led it to gain much popularity . But it was a dangerous political move as Gandhi and Congress were directly supporting "Pan Islamism" and thus indirectly supporting future "Pakistan Movement"; Indian Muslims supported Turkish Muslims on the basis of same religion only i.e Islam . When Gandiji withdrew his support ,The leaders of Tehreek e Khilafat saw it as "Congress betraying Muslims " , so they joined Muslim League and later on played a very important role in Pakistan Movement .

And the views of Iqbal on Khilafat movement (which they dont tell us in Pak studies) were very negative . Allama Muhammad Iqbal came to know that his nephew(Sheikh Ijaz) was willing to join Khilafat Movement , He wrote to his brother , Sheikh Ata Muhammad (father of Ijaz), on Dec 14 1921 :

"........ Members of Khilafat committee are not trustworthy always , they might appear to be passionate Muslims , but in reality are "brothers of Satan(devil)" . That is why I resigned from the post of secretary Punjab of khilafat movement . The reasons behind my resignation should not be made public , if I did that , people would be really shocked ."

None of it proved that Gandhi was propagating disunity unlike the two nation theory, you are expecting him some sort of communist. Gandhi was pro-Muslim and if remained so even after partition for that he was killed by Nathuram Godse and now you guys are bringing up your own fake theories that how Gandhi was going to discriminate Muslims because he talked about some Hindu, Buddhist or Jain principle. BTW Ramrajya is synonym of good governance, not the Hindu theocracy as you guys are pretending to believe.

Gandhi was a great man and no one is saying here that he promoted "dis unity" by his words , What we are saying is that he was the first to mix "religion" and "politics" what ultimately led to partition of India . He was a Hindu , and his priority was Hindu prosperity "before" anything else (and there is nothing wrong in it). Read the posts again and you may understand what is actually being said

 

[INDIC]

Jinnah was right to suspect that Gandhi was not interested in giving Muslims of India their rights.

You mean asking for 33% seats for Muslims in every provinces, you mean 10% Muslims of Madras and Bombay or 20% Muslims of UP-Bihar were going to get 33% of these seats in the provinces and Hindus will make easily big sacrifice it for some weird demand made by Jinnah which he knew won't be agreed by anyone.

Gandhi was a great man and no one is saying here that he promoted "dis unity" by his words , What we are saying is that he was the first to mix "religion" and "politics" what ultimately led to partition of India . He was a Hindu , and his priority was Hindu prosperity and then anything else (and there is nothing wrong in it). Read the posts again and you may understand what is actually being said

You are making wrong assumption, Gandhi had same concerns for Muslims, that was the reason Nathuram Godse assassinated Gandhi.

 

[M. Sarmad]

You are making wrong assumption, Gandhi had same concerns for Muslims, that was the reason Nathuram Godse assassinated Gandhi.

I am not making any assumptions dear , I have given my pov which is strongly supported by facts and logic . If Gandhi had "same" concerns about Muslims , there would have been no need for demanding Pakistan .

Gandhi did not like Jinnah from day 1 . Jinnah welcomed Gandhi when he came to India in 1915 . Below is an excerpt from Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence; by Jaswant Singh; one of the founder members, of BJP.



Although the families of both Jinnah and Gandhi had once lived just about 40 miles or so apart in Kathiawar (Gujarat), this adjacency of their places of origin did nothing to bring their politics close together. At their very first meeting, at the Gurjar Sabha in January 1915, convened to felicitate Gandhi upon his return from South Africa, in response to a welcome speech, with Jinnah presiding, Gandhi had somewhat accommodatingly said he was 'glad to find a Muslim not only belonging to his own region's sabha but chairing it.' Gandhi had singled out Jinnah as a Muslim, though, neither in appearance or in conduct was Jinnah anywhere near to being any of the stereotypes of the religious identity ascribed by Gandhi. Jinnah, on the other hand, was far more fulsome in his praise.

Gandhi had reached India by boat in January 1915 when many leaders, including Jinnah and Gokhale, went to Bombay to give him an ovatious welcome. By this date Jinnah had already engaged as an all India leader and was committed to attaining his stated goals of unity, not just between the Muslims and the Hindus, Extremists and Moderates, but also among various classes of India. To receive Gandhi, Jinnah had forsaken attending the Madras Congress meet of 1914. Gandhi, upon reaching Bombay, had been warmly welcomed by Jinnah who wanted to enlist his services for the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity. It was because of his popularity and standing that Jinnah had been invited to preside over a garden party given by the Gurjar Sabha, an association of the Gurjar (Gujar) community, arranged to welcome Mr and Mrs Gandhi, on his arrival on 13 January 1915.

In his presidential address, Jinnah 'welcomed... Mr and Mrs Gandhi, not only on behalf of Bombay but on behalf of the whole of India.' He impressed upon Gandhi that the greatest problem was 'to bring about unanimity and co-operation between the two communities so that the demands of India (from Imperial Britain) may be made absolutely unanimously.' For this he desired 'that frame of mind, that state, that condition which they had to bring about between the two communities, when most of their problems, he had no doubt, would easily be solved.' Jinnah went to the extent of saying: 'Undoubtedly he [Gandhi] would not only become a worthy ornament but also a real worker whose equals there were very few.' This remark was greatly applauded by a largely Hindu audience, accounts of that meeting report. Gandhi, however, was cautious and somewhat circuitous in his response. He took the plea that he would study all the Indian questions from 'his own point of view,' a reasonable enough assertion; also because Gokhale had advised him to study the situation for at least a year before entering politics. This, too, was all right but then, needlessly, he thanked Jinnah for presiding over a Hindu gathering. This was an ungracious and discouraging response to Jinnah's warm welcome and had a dampening effect.

Gandhi, somewhat hesitant at first, could, in that early phase, see no other route but of following Gokhale, Jinnah and some of the other moderate leaders. This was also because (Bal Gangadhar) Tilak had also, by then, come around to the moderate line. Gandhi did cooperate with all of them, but only until about 1920, after which he clearly became the prominent voice and position. Besides, by then (1920) Gandhi had won acceptance from the British government too, even though that was through the good offices of Gokhale, who 'exerted the full weight of his prestige and influence upon the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, to bring the Government of India solidly behind Gandhi.' This was the period when the British government, very concerned about Jinnah, his Hindu-Muslim unity moves, was endeavouring hard to keep the All India Muslim League away from the Indian National Congress

 

[INDIC]

I am not making any assumptions dear , I have given my pov which is strongly supported by facts and logic . If Gandhi had "same" concerns about Muslims , there would have been no need for demanding Pakistan .

Gandhi did not like Jinnah from day 1 . Jinnah welcomed Gandhi when he came to India in 1915 . Below is an excerpt from Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence; by Jaswant Singh; one of the founder members, of BJP.



Although the families of both Jinnah and Gandhi had once lived just about 40 miles or so apart in Kathiawar (Gujarat), this adjacency of their places of origin did nothing to bring their politics close together. At their very first meeting, at the Gurjar Sabha in January 1915, convened to felicitate Gandhi upon his return from South Africa, in response to a welcome speech, with Jinnah presiding, Gandhi had somewhat accommodatingly said he was 'glad to find a Muslim not only belonging to his own region's sabha but chairing it.' Gandhi had singled out Jinnah as a Muslim, though, neither in appearance or in conduct was Jinnah anywhere near to being any of the stereotypes of the religious identity ascribed by Gandhi. Jinnah, on the other hand, was far more fulsome in his praise.

Gandhi had reached India by boat in January 1915 when many leaders, including Jinnah and Gokhale, went to Bombay to give him an ovatious welcome. By this date Jinnah had already engaged as an all India leader and was committed to attaining his stated goals of unity, not just between the Muslims and the Hindus, Extremists and Moderates, but also among various classes of India. To receive Gandhi, Jinnah had forsaken attending the Madras Congress meet of 1914. Gandhi, upon reaching Bombay, had been warmly welcomed by Jinnah who wanted to enlist his services for the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity. It was because of his popularity and standing that Jinnah had been invited to preside over a garden party given by the Gurjar Sabha, an association of the Gurjar (Gujar) community, arranged to welcome Mr and Mrs Gandhi, on his arrival on 13 January 1915.

In his presidential address, Jinnah 'welcomed... Mr and Mrs Gandhi, not only on behalf of Bombay but on behalf of the whole of India.' He impressed upon Gandhi that the greatest problem was 'to bring about unanimity and co-operation between the two communities so that the demands of India (from Imperial Britain) may be made absolutely unanimously.' For this he desired 'that frame of mind, that state, that condition which they had to bring about between the two communities, when most of their problems, he had no doubt, would easily be solved.' Jinnah went to the extent of saying: 'Undoubtedly he [Gandhi] would not only become a worthy ornament but also a real worker whose equals there were very few.' This remark was greatly applauded by a largely Hindu audience, accounts of that meeting report. Gandhi, however, was cautious and somewhat circuitous in his response. He took the plea that he would study all the Indian questions from 'his own point of view,' a reasonable enough assertion; also because Gokhale had advised him to study the situation for at least a year before entering politics. This, too, was all right but then, needlessly, he thanked Jinnah for presiding over a Hindu gathering. This was an ungracious and discouraging response to Jinnah's warm welcome and had a dampening effect.

Gandhi, somewhat hesitant at first, could, in that early phase, see no other route but of following Gokhale, Jinnah and some of the other moderate leaders. This was also because (Bal Gangadhar) Tilak had also, by then, come around to the moderate line. Gandhi did cooperate with all of them, but only until about 1920, after which he clearly became the prominent voice and position. Besides, by then (1920) Gandhi had won acceptance from the British government too, even though that was through the good offices of Gokhale, who 'exerted the full weight of his prestige and influence upon the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, to bring the Government of India solidly behind Gandhi.' This was the period when the British government, very concerned about Jinnah, his Hindu-Muslim unity moves, was endeavouring hard to keep the All India Muslim League away from the Indian National Congress

if most of the Muslims supported Jinnah doesn't prove that Gandhi didn't cared for Muslims. Some of Jiinah's demands were certainly were asking for more and expecting Hindus to make big sacrifice. When Razakars were massacring Hindus in Hyderabad, the government of Pakistan was more concerned about preserving Muslim rule in Hyderabad. Now all sarkari educated Pakistani is seen telling how Hyderabad was the land of milk and honey before integration with India.

 

[FaujHistorian]

I am not making any assumptions dear , I have given my pov which is strongly supported by facts and logic . If Gandhi had "same" concerns about Muslims , there would have been no need for demanding Pakistan .

Gandhi did not like Jinnah from day 1 . Jinnah welcomed Gandhi when he came to India in 1915 . Below is an excerpt from Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence; by Jaswant Singh; one of the founder members, of BJP.



Although the families of both Jinnah and Gandhi had once lived just about 40 miles or so apart in Kathiawar (Gujarat), this adjacency of their places of origin did nothing to bring their politics close together. At their very first meeting, at the Gurjar Sabha in January 1915, convened to felicitate Gandhi upon his return from South Africa, in response to a welcome speech, with Jinnah presiding, Gandhi had somewhat accommodatingly said he was 'glad to find a Muslim not only belonging to his own region's sabha but chairing it.' Gandhi had singled out Jinnah as a Muslim, though, neither in appearance or in conduct was Jinnah anywhere near to being any of the stereotypes of the religious identity ascribed by Gandhi. Jinnah, on the other hand, was far more fulsome in his praise.





Gandhi had reached India by boat in January 1915 when many leaders, including Jinnah and Gokhale, went to Bombay to give him an ovatious welcome. By this date Jinnah had already engaged as an all India leader and was committed to attaining his stated goals of unity, not just between the Muslims and the Hindus, Extremists and Moderates, but also among various classes of India. To receive Gandhi, Jinnah had forsaken attending the Madras Congress meet of 1914. Gandhi, upon reaching Bombay, had been warmly welcomed by Jinnah who wanted to enlist his services for the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity. It was because of his popularity and standing that Jinnah had been invited to preside over a garden party given by the Gurjar Sabha, an association of the Gurjar (Gujar) community, arranged to welcome Mr and Mrs Gandhi, on his arrival on 13 January 1915.

In his presidential address, Jinnah 'welcomed... Mr and Mrs Gandhi, not only on behalf of Bombay but on behalf of the whole of India.' He impressed upon Gandhi that the greatest problem was 'to bring about unanimity and co-operation between the two communities so that the demands of India (from Imperial Britain) may be made absolutely unanimously.' For this he desired 'that frame of mind, that state, that condition which they had to bring about between the two communities, when most of their problems, he had no doubt, would easily be solved.' Jinnah went to the extent of saying: 'Undoubtedly he [Gandhi] would not only become a worthy ornament but also a real worker whose equals there were very few.' This remark was greatly applauded by a largely Hindu audience, accounts of that meeting report. Gandhi, however, was cautious and somewhat circuitous in his response. He took the plea that he would study all the Indian questions from 'his own point of view,' a reasonable enough assertion; also because Gokhale had advised him to study the situation for at least a year before entering politics. This, too, was all right but then, needlessly, he thanked Jinnah for presiding over a Hindu gathering. This was an ungracious and discouraging response to Jinnah's warm welcome and had a dampening effect.

Gandhi, somewhat hesitant at first, could, in that early phase, see no other route but of following Gokhale, Jinnah and some of the other moderate leaders. This was also because (Bal Gangadhar) Tilak had also, by then, come around to the moderate line. Gandhi did cooperate with all of them, but only until about 1920, after which he clearly became the prominent voice and position. Besides, by then (1920) Gandhi had won acceptance from the British government too, even though that was through the good offices of Gokhale, who 'exerted the full weight of his prestige and influence upon the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, to bring the Government of India solidly behind Gandhi.' This was the period when the British government, very concerned about Jinnah, his Hindu-Muslim unity moves, was endeavouring hard to keep the All India Muslim League away from the Indian National Congress

Excellent rebuttal Azlan bhai


Ignoring the school level arguments from Indic,


I have a question for you.



Did you ever see the impact of money and those who funded Congress and Muslim League.

Many a times we concentrate too much on Gandhi and Jinnah and tend to ignore how their rich backers aka king makers impacted the big name leaders.

These are the rich guys like modern day Soros support for Dems and Koch brothers for republicans in US politics.

Thank you

.....by then (1920) Gandhi had won acceptance from the British government too, even though that was through the good offices of Gokhale, who 'exerted the full weight of his prestige and influence upon the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, to bring the Government of India solidly behind Gandhi.' ...

Wasn't just Gokhale who married Brits and Gandhi

There were two unique moves by Gandhi that had started love affair between British lords and Gandhi

1. 1900's Gandhi's volunteer for British army support (ambulance corps) in S Africa
2. Post 1914, Gandhi's volunteer role to acquire commission as laftain (Lieutenant I believe or perhaps second Lt.) during WW-1


#1 was the reason for Gandhi's "acquisition" from S Africa
#2 played big part in the start of love affair of Brits for he little skinny Mahatama (I am using skinny term from the time article connected to the subject line of this thread).


peace

 

[scorpionx]

True . The Khilafat movement actually divided the Muslims further . What most of the people do not realize is the fact that Khilafat Movement was started on sectarian basis basically , later on supported by different politicians for political purposes . Maulana Abdul Bari founded "Bazm e Sufiya e Hind" in 1913 which was active against the Wahabis , who were demolishing holy shrines in Hijaz (Mecca/Medina) , and supported the Sunni Ottoman caliphate against Wahabis . Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar and Maulana Shaukat Ali , the leading figures of Khilafat movement , came from his Madrassah e Nizami . Sir Agha Khan and Sir Ibrahim Harun Jafar joined the Movement later for political gains .

Excellent piece of information,Azlan Bhai. I did not know this in that detailed manner. By the way, if possible I would like to know if you have any such detailed description about C R Dash and his Bengal pact which received massive opposition from the Congress party itself and in the 40's, its reverberations in Subhash Chandra Bose's attempt to reconcile with ML which again created a big hue and cry in the AICC.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Excellent piece of information,Azlan Bhai. I did not know this in that detailed manner. By the way, if possible I would like to know if you have any such detailed description about C R Dash and his Bengal pact which received massive opposition from the Congress party itself and in the 40's, its reverberations in Subhash Chandra Bose's attempt to reconcile with ML which again created a big hue and cry in the AICC.

Azlan bhai is a gem. Isn't he? We are fortunate to have him on the forum


On CR Das,

I just have little quips (and not much details)

CR Das's reconciliatory stance was opposed by Congressis for sure.

One Lala Lajpat Rai worte long letters to him in 20s (if my memory serves me).

In these letters Rai was trying to convince Das, that Hindu majority provinces (HMP) cannot live with Muslim Majority Provinces (MMP).

And thus

as per Rai, Muslim majority provinces should be cut off and chopped up from the HMPs.


..

 

[scorpionx]

Azlan bhai is a gem. Isn't he? We are fortunate to have him on the forum
.

Definitely he is an asset in this forum. A person with a huge reliable database with capacity of logical reasoning is a rare quality here and it's always a pleasure to have discussions with men like him.

On C R Dash:

This great leader in Bengal died an untimely death when Congress needed leaders more and more like him. What he did in Bengal was a small and ideal example for the national leaders of Congress to apply on a larger platform. Historically, Bengal was a Muslim majority province but the Muslims were in a deplorable condition due to the economic policies of the Company. They held hardly 25-30 % of the Government posts when they consisted of 50% of the whole population. C R Dash declared that Bengal congress would reserve 60% of the posts in the government and 80% in the Calcutta corporation. And he specifically said when Muslims would be able to compete on equal terms with other communities there will be no need for further reservations. ( This is the time when Lalaji wrote the letter.)

Looking at the events from today's perspective the reaction from the Congress then never matches itself with the policy that Congress adopted after the Independence for the SC/STs. For 67 years we have been giving them privileges with quotas in jobs, fees relaxations and all. Today when they are much prosperous than the general Hindus the Congress still does not want to acknowledge it and refuses to remove the quota for vote bank politics.And what we get after refusing C R's proposal? The Sachar Committee report in "shining India"!! 90 years ago, these men accused C R Dash for playing vote bank politics when he came up with Bengal Hindu Muslim pact. How ironic it is!!!

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

One advice for @INDIC, you are only good to discuss with trolls like me because you are one yourself. When senior members are discussing then don't embarrass yourself and just read like me.

 

[M. Sarmad]

@FaujHistorian , @scorpionx Thanks a lot brothers its always good to have discussion with knowledgeable people like you who are unbiased !!

About C R Das , He was a great man , A true patriotic socialist who believed in "swaraj for the masses , not for the classes" . He was a "uncrowned king" whose untimely death was a very big loss . @scorpionx thanks for sharing this info about him bro , would like to know more ..