Qaid-E-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in the eyes of the foreigners.

[scorpionx]

Your post clearly outlines the positive influential role of the Hindu Mahasabha in the 1920s to 1947, I wish we had a similar political patriotic party like the HM in today's India. BJP in my opinion is starting to behave like Congress sell-outs slowly too.

Patriotic!! It was the Hindu Mahasabha which was championing partition since 20's. When partition became imminent after the failure of Cabinet Mission plan in 1946, HM and pro-Hindu faction within congress suddenly started crying in opposition of partition. We can not define patriotism perfectly when the stand of pro Hindu faction and the HM is full of such inconsistency.I am not going into debate whether partition has been good or bad for us neither I don't them solely for it but contrary to popular belief they too had their own share behind partition.

 

[Hadeed 23571468]

You can say anything ,my point was there is nothing like ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity in two nation theory.

Quaid-e-Azam was the ambassador of hindu muslim unity in the beggining,but when he saw the street power of organizations like hindu mahasabha.rss,arya samaj he changed his mind,but he never hated hindus,he even cried in public when he visited a hindu refugee camp in karachi in 1948.

@Hadeed 23571468

Make sure you edit properly, don't post from a mobile device or a tablet. Please have a look at how i have edited the above post and make sure you post more quotes in the same manner so its easier to read.

Thanx a thousand times aeronaut for improving my thread.

HM Patriotic? Yes. And one of the many reasons I consider them patriotic is the fact that they had the backbone to go through with Partition, unlike other power-hungry Hindu leaders (mostly Congressis) at that time who just wanted a United Indian country without giving thought to how disastrous that would be for Hindus. The HM didnt do what was the popular decision, they did the RIGHT decision, something that is rarely seen in Indian Politics, and they have my complete respect for that.

Also AFAIK, They were mostly "crying" because:
1. Hindus were being ethnically cleansed in the Muslim Majority districts,
2. Also the fact that we had to take care of a huge chunk of Muslims that did not want to gtfo to their land of milk and honey they had just created in the name of their beloved muslim ummah

As for Partition, I think bloodshed aside, it was one of the best things that could have happened to India, and would have happened on a much larger scale post 1947, if it didn't happen in 1947 itself.

if hindu mahasabha was so patriotic,why they took part in the massacre of innocent muslims in bihar,west bengal,delhi,azad kashmir and foremost punjab along with the akalis.

 

[scorpionx]

Also AFAIK, They were mostly "crying" because:
1. Hindus were being ethnically cleansed in the Muslim Majority districts,
2. Also the fact that we had to take care of a huge chunk of Muslims that did not want to gtfo to their land of milk and honey they had just created in the name of their beloved muslim ummah

As for Partition, I think bloodshed aside, it was one of the best things that could have happened to India, and would have happened on a much larger scale post 1947, if it didn't happen in 1947 itself.

Well, definition of patriotism is based on individual perception and dividing India on the basis of religion disregarding it's immediate aftereffects as per my personal understanding was not a very good choice a true patriot would have opted for.But again it is my personal opinion, not a collective one.So, we can keep this debate aside.

Secondly, the so called "Crying" started before the atrocities on both side of the border. And crying after seeing own brethren butchered does not make any sense when they were championing the partition, whose immediate after effect was predicted by several national leaders.

The so called phrase "Land of Milk and honey" was termed for entire India during the invasion of Alexander and irony that you mentioned this term to define Pakistan. Point is partition was a result of egoism, unwanted religious jingoism and lack of foresight. The less we blame the innocent Hindus and Muslims for it better for all of us.

 

[INDIC]

Well, look at it from another perspective. Instead of separate electorate which had been accepted by Congress itself, DM proposal was quite meritorious in the sense it ensured the 1/3rd representation of Hindus in Muslim Majority provinces too. So, by this logic Muslims were making a huge sacrifices too. The pro-British faction within the Muslim league displayed sheer degree of disdain and insecurity when Jinnah came with this proposal. It was perhaps the biggest risk, Mr.Jinnah took in his entire political career.

C R Das, another prominent Congress leader took similar risks in Bengal assembly and Calcutta corporation election by giving the Muslims 70% reservation which was accepted by AICC then. Now, three years after the death of Mr.das, their opposition to 1/3rd minority representation looked quite dubious and impractical if we take the contemporary political drift in consideration.

Hindus in Bengal and Hindu-Sikhs in Punjab were more than 1/3 of the population, while Hindus were 25% of population of Sindh. But Sindhi Hindus had no such demands. Giving 33% to Muslims in provinces like Bombay or Madras where Muslim were just 10-12% of population seems extremely illogical on the expense of great sacrifice from Hindus and it was great thing Congress had rejected it. The fact is almost all of the Sindhi Muslims still live in villages, creation of Pakistan gave no help to them.

 

[INDIC]

Quaid-e-Azam was the ambassador of hindu muslim unity in the beggining,but when he saw the street power of organizations like hindu mahasabha.rss,arya samaj he changed his mind,but he never hated hindus,he even cried in public when he visited a hindu refugee camp in karachi in 1948.

There you are wrong. During his entire Pakistan movement he was very critical of Hindus in political rally trying to portray Hindus as cunning people. He was the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity because he was in Congress party.

 

[scorpionx]

Hindus in Bengal and Hindu-Sikhs in Punjab were more than 1/3 of the population, while Hindus were 25% of population of Sindh. But Sindhi Hindus had no such demands. Giving 33% to Muslims in provinces like Bombay or Madras where Muslim were just 10-12% of population seems extremely illogical on the expense of great sacrifice from Hindus and it was great thing Congress had rejected it. The fact is almost all of the Sindhi Muslims still live in villages, creation of Pakistan gave no help to them.

To understand the demand for 1/3rd representation I would like to look upon ML's internal politics since it's birth. Please understand the fact that separate electorate (which is just a prelude to Partition) was a brain child of Minto-Morley which was opposed by Jinnah. This man faced immense criticism from his own party within when he came up with lucknow pact in 1913. Muslim of Punjab and Bengal started blaming him for sacrificing them for the interests of the Muslims of UP. This 33% demand was a reconciling attempt to calm those pro-British and pro-partition ML leaders down. If Jinnah is to be blamed for this demand, I may ask why don't we blame Motilal Nehru for his proposal for communal vetoing?

 

[INDIC]

To understand the demand for 1/3rd representation I would like to look upon ML's internal politics since it's birth. Please understand the fact that separate electorate (which is just a prelude to Partition) was a brain child of Minto-Morley which was opposed by Jinnah. This man faced immense criticism from his own party within when he came up with lucknow pact in 1913. Muslim of Punjab and Bengal started blaming him for sacrificing them for the interests of the Muslims of UP.

Yes, I know about this, basically what Muslim League did was giving more seats to Muslims of United Provinces than they actually deserved based on their number and that increase was adjusted by clipping the Muslims seats from Bengal and Punjab. Even after partition, Liaquat Ali Khan reserved 14% government posts for Muhajirs.

This 33% demand was a reconciling attempt to calm those pro-British and pro-partition ML leaders down. If Jinnah is to be blamed for this demand, I may ask why don't we blame Motilal Nehru for his proposal for communal vetoing?

Even if it was reconciling attempts, you think such power sharing by clipping the representation of Hindus would have gone well among the Hindus. I have previously mentioned that such kaamchalau government wasn't going to work. ML were basically against everything like constituting Constituent Assembly, Strong federal government, reducing the autonomy of princely states. I am sure it would have been a great pain for Congress to eradicate Feudalism if India was never partitioned.

 

[Kompromat]

Enjoy an antique picture of the greatest Pakistani ever to exist in the meanwhile.

 

[scorpionx]

@dollarman

1. Heading to 1947, there was a group of Hindus and Muslims vying for nationhood. While the Muslim leaders rightly focused on Muslim nationhood, many Hindu leaders, especially congress ones were not representing Hindus properly. The only exceptions were patriots like RSS and HM. This continues happening in India to this very day.

Yes. For the sake of the arguments I conform with your view that Congress was not representing the Hindus. So, who did we have then to represent the Hindus? It is the Hindu Mahasabha. So what was the best way for them to voice their ideologies? Certainly not guns but an electoral process. Did they fair well in the elections? No. They failed severely.So, I can not accept your assertion that Hindu Mahasabha was representing the majority of the Hindus unlike the Muslim legue.

2. Such a bad analogy that I am surprised you even said it. HM supported partition, not ethnic genocide. Also, much more Hindus would have been killed if Partition didnt take place in later civil wars, so even in this case HM was right.

I did not say HM supported ethnic genocide. I said they along with Pro-Partition Conressi and ML leaders overlooked the consequences.

3. Point is partition was a result of ground rooted facts of Hindus and Muslims being different and having a separate sense of identity, culture, nationhood and destiny. [Fixed that for you]

Two Nation theory has been debunked forty three years ago and it has been widely accepted that a nation can not hold itself together just on the ground of "One religion one language" concept. You need to work harder and harder to build a nation and maintain it's continuity. The so called "ground rooted" fact that Hindus and Muslims are different in terms of identity,culture and destiny not only vilifies our very own constitution, it rebukes the the fact that in spite of such differences and inept government policies to uplift the general Muslims, we can live together like we are living for the last 67 years.

 

[krash]

• "A man of great vision, incorruptible, great integrity, brilliant man. Was a friend of Gandhi's, they were both lawyers. And he founded Pakistan, and I played him in this film. And I know it's the best thing I've ever done, by a long long way," Saruman (Sir Christopher Lee).

• “Jinnah is the most remarkable,” Winston Churchill

• "Jinnah is a cold blooded constitutionalist," Winston Churchill

• "Gandhi Was A Wily Politician, Jinnah Remained A Secularist Till His Death," Patrick French.

@Aeronaut , can we please purge this beautiful thread of the garbage some neighbours of ours have spread over here?

My dear neighbours, take your barf else where, tag me, and I will come respond.