Pakistanis have failed so see the latest Indians psychological gimmickry

[vsdoc]

The only hope is the growing Pakistani middle class, it is only this group that can help Pakistan become stable and strong by rejecting domination of both orders. They should use the democratic setup and the numbers game to provide leadership to bring the poor masses with them and constitutinally draw up a new path for Pakistan.

Exactly my views in the Big Brother thread.

And we Indians are rooting for the pakistani middle class to find their collective feet and take charge of their country ...... to the betterment of both our nations.

Cheers, Doc

 

[All-Green]

That's a fact, he only used Islam to achieve political aims. He was never a practicing muslim. He changed his secular stance because he was power hungry like Nehru. If Nehru's dad and Gandhi had realised how important power was for the middle-aged Jinnah in the 1930s, he would never have turned communal to achieve politcal gains

The Quaid e Azam never claimed to be a religious leader and forbade people from attributing him as a religious figurehead.


Despite all your proclaimed facts, you choose to ignore the undisputed fact that Muhammad Ali Jinnah was amongst the most popular leaders in India and had he chosen to stay with Congress, he would have been more than just a match for Nehru.
On the contrary this alleged power was more important for Nehru who did not accept the initial cabinet mission plan of Separate Muslim Majority States which would be part of an Indian Federation.
If Nehru believed Congress to be the representatives of Muslims then why did he hesitate to agree to this plan?
Certainly it would have made no difference to him if this was the true case since Congress would still have more votes than Muslim League.

The main reason seems to be the political threat that Nehru faced from someone of Jinnah's caliber and the assurance that in such provinces it would be Muslim League and not Congress that would be in power.
Despite this if he had accepted the cabinet mission plan in its initial form, most likely India would still be intact as a federation.

If Jinnah was just looking to grab power in an independent country as its leader why did Jinnah accept this formula whereas Nehru was rejecting it?

He wanted a stronger position for only the Muslim League political party NOT the muslims of India as some people believe. He kept insisting that to keep India united, ML had to be the only party that could appoint muslims to the central cabinet. Even though there were many other parties including the Congress themselves that had significantly more muslim support in India.

Iqbal never advocated for independent Muslim state. He only wanted a muslim majority province within India. Read his speeches in his entirety and his communication on the Pakistan scheme. He was even opposed to the word Pakistan even to the late 1930s. Had he been alive, maybe partition would not have happened.

You could not be more wrong, throughout the 1930s it was Jinnah who was still engaging congress in dialogue and trying to work out a formula whereby both Congress and Muslim League can exist. From the onset Jinnah was not asking for an independent country, he wanted true representation of Muslims in India since he was not satisfied with Congress in this role.

The word Pakistan was made around the time of the third round table conference and Jinnah had left by that time and was in london in isolation.

It was Iqbal who envisioned the Muslims as a separate geographical entity in his famous speech in 1930

I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Provinces, Sind and Baluchistan into a single State. Self-Government within the British Empire or without the British Empire. The formation of the consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of the North-West India.

later on when Jinnah was absolutely disillusioned with the political harmony he wanted to achieve after the failure of round table conferences, It was Iqbal more than anyone who convinced Quaid e Azam to come out of isolation and lead the Muslim League.
Iqbal implored Jinnah to do this for the sake of the Muslims and Iqbal openly declared that only Jinnah was capable of leading the Muslims of India.

No one can deny Iqbal's stature as a great Muslim figure...his vehement support for Jinnah and his requests to Jinnah should therefore serve as ample proof as to Jinnah's importance for the Muslims.
Iqbal was a hugely popular and respected Muslim figure in India and his asking Jinnah to lead the Muslims of India is not something we can casually ignore and instead follow the empty half cooked theory of Jinnah manipulating Islam to gain power.
Jinnah led the Muslims because the Muslims wanted him to lead them.
This was not a manipulation!

This blind ambition and hunger for power is an allegation which is absolutely baseless when we examine Jinnah's nature and all his past attempts to reach an understanding with Congress
The Lukhnow Pact.
The All India Home Rule movement.
The 14 points proposal
The acceptance of Cabinet Mission Plan with Separate Muslim Majority States under the same federation of India.

Quaid e Azam's only demand was the empowerment of the Muslims in India and their secure political future...the road towards Pakistan was an evolution of political thought after countless interactions with numerous Leaders of Congress and Muslim League and the realization that Congress would not ensure what Muslim League wanted to achieve for the Muslims.

To say that Quaid e Azam wanted to split India from the onset is rubbish...however when all options had failed to guarantee what he perceived as emancipation of the Muslim community, he chose the best path available and fought for it with all his heart and soul and eventually made possible the creation of Pakistan.

 

[Patriot]

In fact Jinnah knew very well that he had very little time to live (due to his bad health) before partition but he still worked hard to get Pakistan and died only a year later.

 

[rubyjackass]

Despite this if he had accepted the cabinet mission plan in its initial form, most likely India would still be intact as a federation.

OK either you are really missing the point or are in such a fit to make Nehru a fool that you are ignoring a lot of 'thens' of the ifs.

This 'if' is a very big one. And I believe that India would have broken up into a hundred pieces if the plan was accepted. Even with the two nation formula, there were about 600 provinces rulers of which are trying to gain independence, each lobbying with the British directly, they would not have given up their kingdoms so easily. There would have been n direct action days and so much of ethnic, casteist and religious cleansing in each of these kingdoms that India would have turned into an Africa. And each European country would have gotten one base in India(To remind you the French and Portueguese had Pondicherry and Goa etc., already). Each of those princes would have offered bases for whatever country they find. And if US got one they would not have left it for ever. For that India would have been kept divided by outside forces forever.

 

[praveen]

OK either you are really missing the point or are in such a fit to make Nehru a fool that you are ignoring a lot of 'thens' of the ifs.

This 'if' is a very big one. And I believe that India would have broken up into a hundred pieces if the plan was accepted. Even with the two nation formula, there were about 600 provinces rulers of which are trying to gain independence, each lobbying with the British directly, they would not have given up their kingdoms so easily. There would have been n direct action days and so much of ethnic, casteist and religious cleansing in each of these kingdoms that India would have turned into an Africa. And each European country would have gotten one base in India(To remind you the French and Portueguese had Pondicherry and Goa etc., already). Each of those princes would have offered bases for whatever country they find. And if US got one they would not have left it for ever. For that India would have been kept divided by outside forces forever.

Very true ,Excellent post brother.This is where Sardar Vallabhai Patel came into the picture

 

[EjazR]

The Quaid e Azam never claimed to be a religious leader and forbade people from attributing him as a religious figurehead.


Despite all your proclaimed facts, you choose to ignore the undisputed fact that Muhammad Ali Jinnah was amongst the most popular leaders in India and had he chosen to stay with Congress, he would have been more than just a match for Nehru.
On the contrary this alleged power was more important for Nehru who did not accept the initial cabinet mission plan of Separate Muslim Majority States which would be part of an Indian Federation.
If Nehru believed Congress to be the representatives of Muslims then why did he hesitate to agree to this plan?
Certainly it would have made no difference to him if this was the true case since Congress would still have more votes than Muslim League.

The main reason seems to be the political threat that Nehru faced from someone of Jinnah's caliber and the assurance that in such provinces it would be Muslim League and not Congress that would be in power.
Despite this if he had accepted the cabinet mission plan in its initial form, most likely India would still be intact as a federation.

If Jinnah was just looking to grab power in an independent country as its leader why did Jinnah accept this formula whereas Nehru was rejecting it?

With due respect All-Green, I think you missed the main thrust of my posts. The main reason were the British, not Jinnah. Jinnah and ML were probably equally and minor players in the partition decision as the RSS/Hindu Mahasabha propaganda. This is also the theme of Jaswants Book.

Jinnah was no doubt a brilliant and talented man. But in his earlier life he did not have the grass roots appeal like other muslim leaders like Gaffar Khan and Azad, or Gandhi and Nehru. IMO this was because he was just to westernized for the people to relate to him, especially as he could not speak Urdu or Gujrati and spoke only in English. This led to these Congress leaders marginalizing him.

Only later did he use the "Islam in danger" to become grass roots leader with due help from British civil servants and ML student wings.

Jinnah did not have majority support in the Muslim majority provinces of pre-71 Pakistan even upto 1946 except in the Bengal. So you can hardly consider him as the most popular leader. In the NWFP and Punjab, most of the perception was that ML was a British tool given the history of pro-Raj leaders in the ML.

The cabinet mission plan as made out by the British was NOT the same plan suggested by Maulana Azad. The British wanted things that was unacceptable and if it was accepted would have led the entire sub-continent to end up like Punjab.

*Muslim members in the cabinet can ONLY be a Muslim League member. No Muslim from other political party can be in the cabinet

* Muslim only electorate and communal veto to the Muslim League i.e. the Muslim league could veto any legislation as long 75% did not approve it

* Compulsory grouping of provinces in west (NWFP, Sindh, PUnjab) and east (BEngal, Assam) India

* Possibility of secession of these two groups after 10 years.

The cabinet mission was a PR trick by the British to show the world that they tried their utmost to prevent partition. In reality no sane person could accept it.

I suggest you go through the link on cabinet mission plan posted earlier to go through the details.

You could not be more wrong, throughout the 1930s it was Jinnah who was still engaging congress in dialogue and trying to work out a formula whereby both Congress and Muslim League can exist. From the onset Jinnah was not asking for an independent country, he wanted true representation of Muslims in India since he was not satisfied with Congress in this role.

The word Pakistan was made around the time of the third round table conference and Jinnah had left by that time and was in london in isolation.

It was Iqbal who envisioned the Muslims as a separate geographical entity in his famous speech in 1930

I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Provinces, Sind and Baluchistan into a single State. Self-Government within the British Empire or without the British Empire. The formation of the consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of the North-West India.

later on when Jinnah was absolutely disillusioned with the political harmony he wanted to achieve after the failure of round table conferences, It was Iqbal more than anyone who convinced Quaid e Azam to come out of isolation and lead the Muslim League.
Iqbal implored Jinnah to do this for the sake of the Muslims and Iqbal openly declared that only Jinnah was capable of leading the Muslims of India.

No one can deny Iqbal's stature as a great Muslim figure...his vehement support for Jinnah and his requests to Jinnah should therefore serve as ample proof as to Jinnah's importance for the Muslims.
Iqbal was a hugely popular and respected Muslim figure in India and his asking Jinnah to lead the Muslims of India is not something we can casually ignore and instead follow the empty half cooked theory of Jinnah manipulating Islam to gain power.
Jinnah led the Muslims because the Muslims wanted him to lead them.
This was not a manipulation!

I suggest you read the entire speech of Iqbal, what you quoted is only a part of the speech. It clearly shows that he wanted a wholly Muslim majority province WITHIN India. At the time of his speech, there was none except Punjab and Bengal with slim muslim majorities.
Presidential Address, annual session of the All-India Muslim League, Allahabad, December 1930, by Sir Muhammad Iqbal


I will only quote a telegram he sent to a British journalist who (slyly) said Iqbal was advocating a separate state for muslims. Iqbal was present on the Third round table conference and it is important to see how he perceived his Allahbad address

My Dear Mr. Thompson,

I have just received your review of my book. It is excellent and I am grateful to you for the very kind things you have said of me. But you have made one mistake which I hasten to point as I consider it rather serious. You call me a protagonist of the scheme called “Pakistan”. Now Pakistan is not my scheme. The one that I suggested in my address is the creation of a Muslim Province – i.e; a province having an overwhelming population of Muslims in the North-West of India. This new province will be, according to my scheme, a part of the proposed Indian Federation. Pakistan scheme proposes a separate federation of Muslim Provinces directly related to England as a separate dominion. This scheme originated in Cambridge. The authors of this scheme believe that we Muslim Round Tablers have sacrificed the Muslim nation on the altar of Hindu or the so called Indian Nationalism.

Yours Sincerely,

Mohammed Iqbal

To say that Quaid e Azam wanted to split India from the onset is rubbish...however when all options had failed to guarantee what he perceived as emancipation of the Muslim community, he chose the best path available and fought for it with all his heart and soul and eventually made possible the creation of Pakistan.

I never said he wanted to split India from the onset. I think Jaswant is right to say that Jinnah is wrongly assigned wholly for the partition. And he is wrongly given full credit for creation of Pakistan as well. I think anyone who reads the declassified documents of the British and Americans would not fail to see the British efforts for partition.

In the 1937 elections, Jinnah and ML were able to secure less than 4% of popular muslim only vote. This was with only 13-14% franchise. Now the Congress leaders should have understood the importance of sharing power and giving some berths to ML representatives, but they didnt thinking that ML represented a very small percentage and instead partnered with other Muslim groups. This was based on recommendations of Congress leaders (some of whom were Muslim) and Rafiq Ahmed Kidwai who was UP Congress party chief.

Infact many ML ticket winners switched sides and joined the Congress after the elections which further angered Jinnah on Kidwais' insistence. This led to Jinnah becoming uncompromising in the future. Its not that muslims didn't have power in the Congress government, it was the "Muslim League" that didn't, that was the tussle.

 

[qsaark]

Ruby,

I tend to agree with All-Green. It was more of the mistrust (due to the alleged ways of Liaquat Ali Khan as the Finance Minister) between the INC and the AIML than was it about the fear of 600 plus states breaking away that forced Nehru and Patel to appose the Cabinet plan.

 

[All-Green]

OK either you are really missing the point or are in such a fit to make Nehru a fool that you are ignoring a lot of 'thens' of the ifs.

I am in no fit to make Nehru look like a fool, so do not take that tone with me my friend.

You would do better to understand that Jinnah was no fool either and in both the ideas there were ifs and buts...a federation could have worked as well and maybe it could not have...we never did try the other option so does that make Jinnah a fool for accepting it instead of demanding a totally separate country?
I do not think so...

The point i am trying to make is that on this thread most of people are portraying Jinnah as a British agent and one with an agenda to divide India...this conclusion contradicts a lot of Quaid e Azam's past actions and if we see more closely, Jinnah worked a lot for the unity of Muslim League and Congress.

EjazR

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was actually very much in agreement with congress on many matters and as a result there were two groups in Muslim League by 1928, one was known as the highly Pro British group under Sir Muhammad Shafi and the other more centralist group was supporting Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
By 1931 Muhammad Ali Jinnah left the Muslim League when he was disillusioned with the lack of political agreement between Congress and Muslim League and all other political entities.
With his exit the Muslim League ceased to exist.

When he was forced by the Leaguers to come back he returned and was finally given a complete free hand and from 1935 to 1937 he not only reorganized the Muslim League but also made sure that Muslim League supported Congress inside and outside the legislative body to achieve common goals.
In this he was certainly no friend of the British.

In 1937 the Congress won 711 out of 1585 seats and had majority to form government in 5/11 provinces and you know how many of these were Muslim seats?
Only 26...so Jinnah's concern that Congress was eventually going the Hindu way was not without reason since the Hindu leaders would impose their selves on the party mandate.

Whereas Muslim League did not do well in Muslim Majority areas it actually did reasonably well in the Hindu Majority provinces and won 29/35 seats in UP.
Jinnah wanted Congress and Muslim League to share power but was
snubbed and Congress despite having good working relationship with Muslim League chose Azad and his Jamiat-Ulema-Hind for partnership.
This was the first turning point as Jinnah had made great changes in Muslim League and was pro congress (as opposed to Muhammad Shafi) and was expecting harmony between Congress and the Muslim League.

Jinnah was from a minority community in India and wanted absolute guarantees on a lot of things to ensure that in future the future of his community would not be jeopardized by Hindu dominated congress.
Nehru just did not give it a serious thought and dismissed Jinnah's point of view as exaggeration.
To him Congress was the sole representative of India and that was the belief that he stuck to till it was too late for all of them to turn back.

Nehru wrote to Jinnah in 1937 asking him to depend on Muslim League's inherent strength, Jinnah responded in same tone that in the future he would only depend on the league's inherent strength, this was the falling out which resulted in the concept of a separate grouping of Muslim majority states.

This was the last straw and Jinnah finally became resolved to mobilize the Muslim masses and not to rely on Congress for support in future political scenario...

To me this was an inescapable situation...Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah were all great leaders in their own rights.
The problem was that being from minority community Jinnah did indeed have valid concerns but being in minority and having less support he was too readily dismissed by Nehru on the validity of these concerns.

By the time Jinnah gained tremendous support he and Nehru had become too distant and could not come to terms with each other.

By the time the cabinet Mission plan was conceived Jinnah had proven his inner strength and was not ready to compromise on anything, had there been a harmony in 1937 this may not have come to pass...

The ifs and buts will always remain in such discussions, especially when we discuss the decisions of great leaders....this is something we have to agree

However to paint Muhamamd Ali Jinnah as a Pro British politician on an agenda to split India is unsubstantiated, uncalled for and in contradiction with his life, his principles and his politics.

 

[MastanKhan]

Ejazr,

Some very interesting posts----what I see is a pattern of----" I am right about my assessment of the hindu perspective---and on top of that I am also right about my assessment of the pakistani perspective as well ". " I know both isdes of the story---and I know my version and analysis is the final word ".


Guy----isn't that the problem between the indian and pakistani relationship for all these many years----your version is the ultimate version---and that is it---and my truth holds no value.

To my indian and pakistani colleagues---it is time to grow out of it---the train has already left the platform---and while standing at the station, we are still bickering about who is going to sit where.

In this pis-sing match---we are standing against the wind---the wet spots that you and I see on our clothings is not rain water---but our own excreta---.

What Jinnah---Nehru---Gandhi---Iqbal did was to the best of their abilities and they understood the scenario----because they didnot have much to go about----you think that you and I are better than them----then let us find a better way to discuss our disagreements so that we can be more accomodating to each other.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Jinnah gave muslim league on a platter to the congress---the fools became arrogant and snubbed Jinnah and insulted his position on the formation of the govt----we became a seperate nation---congress has not been able to come to terms and has not been able to accept their blunder even after 70 plus years---.

Everytime india snubs pakistan's position and finds ways to keep us down---the thing backfires---every single time.

We are your brothers---we are your equals---just because we chose to live in a seperate house, is no reason for you to look down upon us and create problems in our lives.

We are happy either way---we will be happier if we live like a family---together but in our own enclosures---or if in war---then be it so. We are not asking for trouble---but we won't run from aggression either.

 

[muse]

Everytime india snubs pakistan's position and finds ways to keep us down---the thing backfires---every single time

I am persuaded that this bothers them even more - every time think they have our measure, they find that they really don't - this "relentless" hostilty in truth has continued to make india more and more insecure, now to the point of extinction.

As I read the responses of Indian interlocutors, any number of obfuscations and tangents have been created, yet the central idea of responsibility for partition is not fully acknowledged, responsibility for the kinds of attitudes that led to partition are not dealt with openly, there is the ever present attempt to avoid facing that reality by drowning ideas and events in minutae --- all for what?? Which Pakistani is going to think that partiton was a bad idea?? After relentless efforts to undo Pakistan, after the war s, the blood - Nehru good, Jinnah bad? Nehru bad, Patel good? Whatever floats your boat, Pakistan is here to stay.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

The only hope is the growing Pakistani middle class, it is only this group that can help Pakistan become stable and strong by rejecting domination of both orders. They should use the democratic setup and the numbers game to provide leadership to bring the poor masses with them and constitutinally draw up a new path for Pakistan.

yes true this is very necessary because it is the middle class that form's the back bone of any strong nation of the 21 'st century

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was amongst the most popular leaders in India and had he chosen to stay with Congress, he would have been more than just a match for Nehru.
On the contrary this alleged power was more important for Nehru who did not accept the initial cabinet mission plan of Separate Muslim Majority States which would be part of an Indian Federation.
If Nehru believed Congress to be the representatives of Muslims then why did he hesitate to agree to this plan?
Certainly it would have made no difference to him if this was the true case since Congress would still have more votes than Muslim League.

The main reason seems to be the political threat that Nehru faced from someone of Jinnah's caliber and the assurance that in such provinces it would be Muslim League and not Congress that would be in power.
Despite this if he had accepted the cabinet mission plan in its initial form, most likely India would still be intact as a federation.

If Jinnah was just looking to grab power in an independent country as its leader why did Jinnah accept this formula whereas Nehru was rejecting it?

.

well said i agree

 

[EjazR]

Just to clarify, I have never said Jinnah was responsible solely for the partition. I have always highlighted again and again that it was British strategic needs that were the primary driver. You can't appreciate this without going through the recent declassified documents. Neither am I saying that partition now should be undone and all should reunite.

As far as I know, "In the shadow of the great game" is the only book which draws from this. The speeches, internal memos and policy papers, indifference when communal riots occurred, but suppressing anti-British protests with enthusiasm, intelligence assesments by the British officers all point to how strategic and important the NW part of India is to counter the red threat.

It is only secondary that differences between Jinnah-Nehru and much later riots between Muslims-Non muslims happened. But it was a result of the active but hidden policy adopted by the British.

I'm in no way advocating the popular Indian view point. Most prefer to believe that British had a small role but the main role was Jinnah and Muslim League. While the Hindu extremist perspective is that it was a fundamental proof of two nation theory. however, the historical records proove that this was not the case. Understanding this is IMO becuase I (and many Pakistanis I know) can't believe that having a concept like TNT and what it implies is healthy for the future of Pakistan.

When Jinnah was asked why he hated Hindus by a journalist, he said "How can I hate Hindus, we came from the same stock as them". He was no doubt referring to the fact that his great gandfather was a convert to Islam, just like millions of other muslims. His disagreement was with Congress leaders yes, but he did use Islam and Muslims to achieve politcal ends.

If we can understand the fact that it was primarily mistrust caused by external powers for their own benefit and secondarily uncompromising attitudes amongs politcal leaders rather some fundamentally flawed "theory" that means muslims can't live with non-muslims it automatically results in the process and hope of genuine peace and co-operation rather than a icy cold peace with just tolerance and indifference.

 

[U-571]

The partition was done with full support of the British, as the book points, Muslim League and Jinnah was never popular among the muslim masses. IT was only the landlords and the civil services people i.e. the elitist and even then not all.

Its a fact of history that even in 1946 elections, when Jinnah used his rabid secretarian campaign, and the British tried their utmost to let the riots run and promote Hindu-Muslim conflict. No one even knew what the boundaries of future Pakistan would be.

STILL NWFP with 95% muslims was with Congress, Punjab the main province of present day Pakistan was with the Unionists. Both full opposed the two nation theory. In Kashmir Sheikh Abdulla was the most popular leader who again opposed the two nation theory.

Ironically it was only in the Bengal province that Muslim League was able to establish a majority comfortably. They later seceded from Pakistan. Don't forget that these elections had only 14% franchise so the masses were never asked to vote who were more pro-congress because of their land reforms policies. ML and Jinnah on the other hand opposed landreforms to draw the land lords in. One of the reasons why land reforms is still a distant reality in Pakistan.

But still the biggest reason for the partition was to maintain British strategic interests in South Asia, particularly against USSR. Jinnah assured the British that he would do their bidding in defence related matters and let them establish their bases and basically agreeing for their interference.
Probably one of the reason why the US (Britain's heir) interferes so much in Pakistan.

Until Pakistan realizes that the two nation theory was propounded by Savarkar and Hindu extremists and has no basis in Islam (and obviously not an ideology that a progressive nation int he 21st century can use) it will have problem to be at peace with itself.

Otherwise, even a book is enough to make people insecure, just like their counterparts in India the BJP/RSS are.

what a rant. dont forget before the british, before the muslims, india was a divided, not a unified nation.

 

[vsdoc]

^^^ What an uneducated comment. Please Google for Chandragupta Maurya, among others.

Cheers, Doc