The movie Jinnah, your opinions?

[TMA]

Jinnah became a Muslim separatist because he could not become the president of Congress. Hence his grudge against Gandhi.

No, rather he realized the underlying but seething hatred of the Vedantists towards Muslims, and fought to protect Muslims.

 

[shootingstar]

LOL, what a bullshit post.

Jinnah was fighting for the political rights of Muslims.

You should shut the hell up.

Gandhi even suggested Jinnah become the Prime Minister of a United India, but Jinnah rejected that garbage offer.

And Nehru took the job of Prime Minister of India instead.

You have been reported for trolling.

@Joe Shearer

No sir. Jinnah was not for Pakistan at least until 1920. Only when he could not grow in Congress he left and took up the issue of Muslim rights. He was a Gujju after all and knew how to play politics.


Jinnah, Tilak and Indian independence movement
March 17, 2010
7

0
KARACHI Karachiites on Tuesday had the privilege of listening to the comments of A.G. Noorani at the third lecture in the 'Culture, Politics and Change in South Asia' series currently running at the Mohatta Palace Museum. Following talks by historian Ayesha Jalal and diplomat Mani Shankar Aiyar, Noorani's lecture offered yet another perspective on Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Much like Jalal, Noorani calls for scholars and the public at large in both India and Pakistan to revisit Jinnah's person and political legacy in an attempt to better understand this region's history. He argues that it is important for Indians to reclaim Jinnah as a freedom fighter and integral figure in their own history, while Pakistanis need to acknowledge that the founder of their nation made some mistakes.

Noorani is an advocate of the Indian Supreme Court, a historian, and the author of 'Jinnah and Tilak Comrades in the Freedom Struggle', a new book on which his talk was loosely based. He is also, as he puts it, one of the dwindling group of individuals who saw Jinnah in the flesh.

In his talk and the following question and answer session, Noorani described the important yet forgotten relationship between Jinnah and Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a popular leader of the Indian independence movement. Noorani explains that Jinnah's commitment to Indian freedom was in many ways informed by his relations with Tilak and another Indian National Congress leader, Gopal Krishna Gokhale.

ADVERTISEMENT
In 1916, Jinnah defended Tilak when he was charged with sedition, ultimately securing his acquittal. Initially, Noorani explained, Tilak had wanted to fight the case with a political spin, but Jinnah insisted that the defence proceed on legal grounds alone. Once the case was over, Jinnah also facilitated Tilak's reentry into the Congress party and became his partner in the signing of the historic Lucknow Pact the same year.

In the liveliest parts of his talk, Noorani described the unlikely relationship between Tilak and Jinnah — one a “man of the masses”, the other a “club goer.” The two would meet every other day in bazaars, cloth markets, and at Shantaram Chawl, where public meetings were often held. Indeed, Noorani argued that this friendship was one of the cornerstones of Hindu-Muslim unity in the pre-Partition era.

Noorani also took the opportunity to dispel many myths about Jinnah. For instance, he disagreed with the statement that Jinnah politically came into his own on March 23, 1940. He pointed out that although Jinnah was an active member of the Central Legislative Assembly and the head of a thriving legal practice, he would take time out to go to Delhi and sit in on debates on public issues such as the motor vehicles and shipping acts. Noorani also pointed out that many of the political terms such as “direct action” that Jinnah is now known for germinated in the 1920s.

The theory that Jinnah introduced religion to politics was also debunked. Noorani stated that Jinnah was a liberal social reformer who believed that “scurrilous attacks on religion are wrong, but reasonable critiques [of religion] should be protected by the law.” Interesting anecdotes peppered Noorani's answers to the audience's questions and in one instance he recalled that Jinnah refused to refer to the nationalist brothers Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Ali as 'maulanas.' At the same time, he was never acerbic towards Gandhi, who consistently inserted religion in politics.

Noorani also took issue with Jinnah's portrayal as an elitist. In addition to citing the fact that Jinnah and Tilak regularly met in spaces populated by the masses, he defended Jinnah's ability to speak Gujrati, which biographer Stanley Wolpert has written was weak. According to Noorani, it was impossible for a practising lawyer in Mumbai not to speak fluent Gujrati. He also quoted an incident in which Jinnah gave an interview to a Gujrati-language paper in which he explained that his involvement with the League was part of an effort to be closer to the masses.

Explaining Jinnah's stance on civil disobedience, Noorani added that it was more a case of concern than opposition — were the Indians prepared for [the civil disobedience movement]? Had schools and colleges been readied? When should he stop practising law? These were the questions, Noorani explained, that Jinnah grappled with at the time.

The perception that Jinnah was hell-bent on securing a separate state for Muslims from the start of his political career was also discussed. Noorani mentioned that this issue was not a main feature of the Round Table Conferences and described Jinnah as an “in house critic” for the duration of the Quit India Movement.

After defending Jinnah on several points, Noorani did point to his mistakes as well. He emphasised, for example, the fact that Jinnah did not think through Partition and its repercussions properly. “He didn't think about the territorial limits being agreed to, the exchange of populations, the fate of minorities,” Noorani asserted. He also pointed out that in the years before Partition, Jinnah's manner became increasingly “abrasive.”

Ultimately, Noorani's talk, and the thesis of his book, were received by many in the audience as an invitation to revisit Jinnah's early political career and consider how his main political demand for many years was not for a separate homeland for Muslims, but for an independent India in which the rights of Muslims were protected.

 

[MultaniGuy]

@Joe Shearer

No sir. Jinnah was not for Pakistan at least until 1920. Only when he could not grow in Congress he left and took up the issue of Muslim rights. He was a Gujju after all and knew how to play politics.


Jinnah, Tilak and Indian independence movement
March 17, 2010
7

0
KARACHI Karachiites on Tuesday had the privilege of listening to the comments of A.G. Noorani at the third lecture in the 'Culture, Politics and Change in South Asia' series currently running at the Mohatta Palace Museum. Following talks by historian Ayesha Jalal and diplomat Mani Shankar Aiyar, Noorani's lecture offered yet another perspective on Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Much like Jalal, Noorani calls for scholars and the public at large in both India and Pakistan to revisit Jinnah's person and political legacy in an attempt to better understand this region's history. He argues that it is important for Indians to reclaim Jinnah as a freedom fighter and integral figure in their own history, while Pakistanis need to acknowledge that the founder of their nation made some mistakes.

Noorani is an advocate of the Indian Supreme Court, a historian, and the author of 'Jinnah and Tilak Comrades in the Freedom Struggle', a new book on which his talk was loosely based. He is also, as he puts it, one of the dwindling group of individuals who saw Jinnah in the flesh.

In his talk and the following question and answer session, Noorani described the important yet forgotten relationship between Jinnah and Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a popular leader of the Indian independence movement. Noorani explains that Jinnah's commitment to Indian freedom was in many ways informed by his relations with Tilak and another Indian National Congress leader, Gopal Krishna Gokhale.

ADVERTISEMENT
In 1916, Jinnah defended Tilak when he was charged with sedition, ultimately securing his acquittal. Initially, Noorani explained, Tilak had wanted to fight the case with a political spin, but Jinnah insisted that the defence proceed on legal grounds alone. Once the case was over, Jinnah also facilitated Tilak's reentry into the Congress party and became his partner in the signing of the historic Lucknow Pact the same year.

In the liveliest parts of his talk, Noorani described the unlikely relationship between Tilak and Jinnah — one a “man of the masses”, the other a “club goer.” The two would meet every other day in bazaars, cloth markets, and at Shantaram Chawl, where public meetings were often held. Indeed, Noorani argued that this friendship was one of the cornerstones of Hindu-Muslim unity in the pre-Partition era.

Noorani also took the opportunity to dispel many myths about Jinnah. For instance, he disagreed with the statement that Jinnah politically came into his own on March 23, 1940. He pointed out that although Jinnah was an active member of the Central Legislative Assembly and the head of a thriving legal practice, he would take time out to go to Delhi and sit in on debates on public issues such as the motor vehicles and shipping acts. Noorani also pointed out that many of the political terms such as “direct action” that Jinnah is now known for germinated in the 1920s.

The theory that Jinnah introduced religion to politics was also debunked. Noorani stated that Jinnah was a liberal social reformer who believed that “scurrilous attacks on religion are wrong, but reasonable critiques [of religion] should be protected by the law.” Interesting anecdotes peppered Noorani's answers to the audience's questions and in one instance he recalled that Jinnah refused to refer to the nationalist brothers Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Ali as 'maulanas.' At the same time, he was never acerbic towards Gandhi, who consistently inserted religion in politics.

Noorani also took issue with Jinnah's portrayal as an elitist. In addition to citing the fact that Jinnah and Tilak regularly met in spaces populated by the masses, he defended Jinnah's ability to speak Gujrati, which biographer Stanley Wolpert has written was weak. According to Noorani, it was impossible for a practising lawyer in Mumbai not to speak fluent Gujrati. He also quoted an incident in which Jinnah gave an interview to a Gujrati-language paper in which he explained that his involvement with the League was part of an effort to be closer to the masses.

Explaining Jinnah's stance on civil disobedience, Noorani added that it was more a case of concern than opposition — were the Indians prepared for [the civil disobedience movement]? Had schools and colleges been readied? When should he stop practising law? These were the questions, Noorani explained, that Jinnah grappled with at the time.

The perception that Jinnah was hell-bent on securing a separate state for Muslims from the start of his political career was also discussed. Noorani mentioned that this issue was not a main feature of the Round Table Conferences and described Jinnah as an “in house critic” for the duration of the Quit India Movement.

After defending Jinnah on several points, Noorani did point to his mistakes as well. He emphasised, for example, the fact that Jinnah did not think through Partition and its repercussions properly. “He didn't think about the territorial limits being agreed to, the exchange of populations, the fate of minorities,” Noorani asserted. He also pointed out that in the years before Partition, Jinnah's manner became increasingly “abrasive.”

Ultimately, Noorani's talk, and the thesis of his book, were received by many in the audience as an invitation to revisit Jinnah's early political career and consider how his main political demand for many years was not for a separate homeland for Muslims, but for an independent India in which the rights of Muslims were protected.

Please don't post your crap that you are taught in Indian schools. lol.

Jinnah was fighting for the political rights for Muslims.

I disagree with the Dawn article.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Jinnah became a Muslim separatist because he could not become the president of Congress. Hence his grudge against Gandhi.

Really?

Didnt he present the Mission Cabinet Formula in 1940?

Wasnt he offered the Premiership of india?

Didnt he know he didnt have enough time as his health was failing?

@Joe Shearer

No sir. Jinnah was not for Pakistan at least until 1920. Only when he could not grow in Congress he left and took up the issue of Muslim rights. He was a Gujju after all and knew how to play politics.


Jinnah, Tilak and Indian independence movement
March 17, 2010
7

0
KARACHI Karachiites on Tuesday had the privilege of listening to the comments of A.G. Noorani at the third lecture in the 'Culture, Politics and Change in South Asia' series currently running at the Mohatta Palace Museum. Following talks by historian Ayesha Jalal and diplomat Mani Shankar Aiyar, Noorani's lecture offered yet another perspective on Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Much like Jalal, Noorani calls for scholars and the public at large in both India and Pakistan to revisit Jinnah's person and political legacy in an attempt to better understand this region's history. He argues that it is important for Indians to reclaim Jinnah as a freedom fighter and integral figure in their own history, while Pakistanis need to acknowledge that the founder of their nation made some mistakes.

Noorani is an advocate of the Indian Supreme Court, a historian, and the author of 'Jinnah and Tilak Comrades in the Freedom Struggle', a new book on which his talk was loosely based. He is also, as he puts it, one of the dwindling group of individuals who saw Jinnah in the flesh.

In his talk and the following question and answer session, Noorani described the important yet forgotten relationship between Jinnah and Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a popular leader of the Indian independence movement. Noorani explains that Jinnah's commitment to Indian freedom was in many ways informed by his relations with Tilak and another Indian National Congress leader, Gopal Krishna Gokhale.

ADVERTISEMENT
In 1916, Jinnah defended Tilak when he was charged with sedition, ultimately securing his acquittal. Initially, Noorani explained, Tilak had wanted to fight the case with a political spin, but Jinnah insisted that the defence proceed on legal grounds alone. Once the case was over, Jinnah also facilitated Tilak's reentry into the Congress party and became his partner in the signing of the historic Lucknow Pact the same year.

In the liveliest parts of his talk, Noorani described the unlikely relationship between Tilak and Jinnah — one a “man of the masses”, the other a “club goer.” The two would meet every other day in bazaars, cloth markets, and at Shantaram Chawl, where public meetings were often held. Indeed, Noorani argued that this friendship was one of the cornerstones of Hindu-Muslim unity in the pre-Partition era.

Noorani also took the opportunity to dispel many myths about Jinnah. For instance, he disagreed with the statement that Jinnah politically came into his own on March 23, 1940. He pointed out that although Jinnah was an active member of the Central Legislative Assembly and the head of a thriving legal practice, he would take time out to go to Delhi and sit in on debates on public issues such as the motor vehicles and shipping acts. Noorani also pointed out that many of the political terms such as “direct action” that Jinnah is now known for germinated in the 1920s.

The theory that Jinnah introduced religion to politics was also debunked. Noorani stated that Jinnah was a liberal social reformer who believed that “scurrilous attacks on religion are wrong, but reasonable critiques [of religion] should be protected by the law.” Interesting anecdotes peppered Noorani's answers to the audience's questions and in one instance he recalled that Jinnah refused to refer to the nationalist brothers Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Ali as 'maulanas.' At the same time, he was never acerbic towards Gandhi, who consistently inserted religion in politics.

Noorani also took issue with Jinnah's portrayal as an elitist. In addition to citing the fact that Jinnah and Tilak regularly met in spaces populated by the masses, he defended Jinnah's ability to speak Gujrati, which biographer Stanley Wolpert has written was weak. According to Noorani, it was impossible for a practising lawyer in Mumbai not to speak fluent Gujrati. He also quoted an incident in which Jinnah gave an interview to a Gujrati-language paper in which he explained that his involvement with the League was part of an effort to be closer to the masses.

Explaining Jinnah's stance on civil disobedience, Noorani added that it was more a case of concern than opposition — were the Indians prepared for [the civil disobedience movement]? Had schools and colleges been readied? When should he stop practising law? These were the questions, Noorani explained, that Jinnah grappled with at the time.

The perception that Jinnah was hell-bent on securing a separate state for Muslims from the start of his political career was also discussed. Noorani mentioned that this issue was not a main feature of the Round Table Conferences and described Jinnah as an “in house critic” for the duration of the Quit India Movement.

After defending Jinnah on several points, Noorani did point to his mistakes as well. He emphasised, for example, the fact that Jinnah did not think through Partition and its repercussions properly. “He didn't think about the territorial limits being agreed to, the exchange of populations, the fate of minorities,” Noorani asserted. He also pointed out that in the years before Partition, Jinnah's manner became increasingly “abrasive.”

Ultimately, Noorani's talk, and the thesis of his book, were received by many in the audience as an invitation to revisit Jinnah's early political career and consider how his main political demand for many years was not for a separate homeland for Muslims, but for an independent India in which the rights of Muslims were protected.

Even Indian politicians like Jaswant Singh have rubbished these nonsensical claims you are tryin to peddle.

 

[shootingstar]

No, rather he realized the underlying but seething hatred of the Vedantists towards Muslims, and fought to protect Muslims.

No. It was never Muslim vs Hindus for Jinnah. If Jinnah was a fundamentalist like you claim why did you think he defended Tilak in the sedition case? Tilak represented the right wing group of Congress. Do you know Jinnah said “it is my ambition to become a Muslim Gokhale”. Gokhale was guru of Gandhi and represented the liberal group of congress and was a rival of Tilak in Congress.

Really?

Didnt he present the Mission Cabinet Formula in 1940?

Wasnt he offered the Premiership of india?

Didnt he know he didnt have enough time as his health was failing?




Even Indian politicians like Jaswant Singh have rubbished these nonsensical claims you are tryin to peddle.

Yes But Jinnah moved towards Muslim/Right wing politics only after Gandhi took over the leadership of Congress in 1920. Until then he was never for Muslim rights.

 

[MultaniGuy]

No. It was never Muslim vs Hindus for Jinnah. If Jinnah was a fundamentalist like you claim why did you think he defended Tilak in the sedition case? Tilak represented the right wing group of Congress. Do you know Jinnah said “it is my ambition to become a Muslim Gokhale”. Gokhale was guru of Gandhi and represented the liberal group of congress and was a rival of Tilak in Congress.



Yes But Jinnah moved towards Muslim/Right wing politics only after Gandhi took over the leadership of Congress in 1920. Until then he was never for Muslim rights.

What is your point you Indian joker? Jinnah was called the ambassador of Muslim-Hindu unity, but later realized that the Congress party were goons and not taking the Muslim sensibilities seriously enough.

I am not convinced by your garbage.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Really?

Didnt he present the Mission Cabinet Formula in 1940?

Wasnt he offered the Premiership of india?

Didnt he know he didnt have enough time as his health was failing?




Even Indian politicians like Jaswant Singh have rubbished these nonsensical claims you are tryin to peddle.

I don't know what claims he is trying to peddle, but only have the last page to go by. Noorani was more or less on target. So, too, are you; even in 1940, he was trying a constitutionally coherent solution.

Last night, coincidentally, I was explaining to a close friend and a formerly active member of this forum that Jinnah had seen the failure of the reforms of 1919, and he was back in India to see the failure of the 1935 Government of India Act. You may recall that in the turbulence of the Simon Commission of 1927, when the British sought to look at India's constitutional status, Jinnah held firm with the rest of the Muslim League against any compromise. The next year, his view, the Fourteen Points, was opposed to Motilal Nehru's Report, the Nehru Report; very clearly, he saw the need to move beyond reserved seats, beyond reserved status within government to a stage surpassing these. I believe that the description of one of his colleagues at the Bar is significant:"...He had a sixth sense: he could see around corners. That is where his talents lay ... he was a very clear thinker ... But he drove his points home—points chosen with exquisite selection—slow delivery, word by word." I believe that it was this sixth sense that took him to a point where few others reached: the three sub-states in one Dominion, joined at the top by a centre responsible only for defence, external affairs and communications. Pakistan was the bogey that he preserved to drive Congress leaders into line; it was inconceivable to him that the day would come when the Congress would press for partition, refuse the Muslim progressives their fair chance in social and political terms that Jinnah sought, and agree to Pakistan.

As for the offer of the position of Prime Minister (of the Union), it was quite rational, but that is not what he was seeking. Further, while Gandhi may have been sincere in making the offer, the Congress, where, in order to follow Gandhi's line, Jinnah was shouted down in 1920, was probably not at all serious. They had already spent nearly a decade in a war of nerves with him, as he slowly wore down British resistance to the League and got more and more into the thinking of Linlithgow.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Stop talking nonsense. It does not matter when he was advocating Muslim political rights. But when

@Joe Shearer

No sir. Jinnah was not for Pakistan at least until 1920. Only when he could not grow in Congress he left and took up the issue of Muslim rights. He was a Gujju after all and knew how to play politics.


Jinnah, Tilak and Indian independence movement
March 17, 2010
7

0
KARACHI Karachiites on Tuesday had the privilege of listening to the comments of A.G. Noorani at the third lecture in the 'Culture, Politics and Change in South Asia' series currently running at the Mohatta Palace Museum. Following talks by historian Ayesha Jalal and diplomat Mani Shankar Aiyar, Noorani's lecture offered yet another perspective on Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Much like Jalal, Noorani calls for scholars and the public at large in both India and Pakistan to revisit Jinnah's person and political legacy in an attempt to better understand this region's history. He argues that it is important for Indians to reclaim Jinnah as a freedom fighter and integral figure in their own history, while Pakistanis need to acknowledge that the founder of their nation made some mistakes.

Noorani is an advocate of the Indian Supreme Court, a historian, and the author of 'Jinnah and Tilak Comrades in the Freedom Struggle', a new book on which his talk was loosely based. He is also, as he puts it, one of the dwindling group of individuals who saw Jinnah in the flesh.

In his talk and the following question and answer session, Noorani described the important yet forgotten relationship between Jinnah and Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a popular leader of the Indian independence movement. Noorani explains that Jinnah's commitment to Indian freedom was in many ways informed by his relations with Tilak and another Indian National Congress leader, Gopal Krishna Gokhale.

ADVERTISEMENT
In 1916, Jinnah defended Tilak when he was charged with sedition, ultimately securing his acquittal. Initially, Noorani explained, Tilak had wanted to fight the case with a political spin, but Jinnah insisted that the defence proceed on legal grounds alone. Once the case was over, Jinnah also facilitated Tilak's reentry into the Congress party and became his partner in the signing of the historic Lucknow Pact the same year.

In the liveliest parts of his talk, Noorani described the unlikely relationship between Tilak and Jinnah — one a “man of the masses”, the other a “club goer.” The two would meet every other day in bazaars, cloth markets, and at Shantaram Chawl, where public meetings were often held. Indeed, Noorani argued that this friendship was one of the cornerstones of Hindu-Muslim unity in the pre-Partition era.

Noorani also took the opportunity to dispel many myths about Jinnah. For instance, he disagreed with the statement that Jinnah politically came into his own on March 23, 1940. He pointed out that although Jinnah was an active member of the Central Legislative Assembly and the head of a thriving legal practice, he would take time out to go to Delhi and sit in on debates on public issues such as the motor vehicles and shipping acts. Noorani also pointed out that many of the political terms such as “direct action” that Jinnah is now known for germinated in the 1920s.

The theory that Jinnah introduced religion to politics was also debunked. Noorani stated that Jinnah was a liberal social reformer who believed that “scurrilous attacks on religion are wrong, but reasonable critiques [of religion] should be protected by the law.” Interesting anecdotes peppered Noorani's answers to the audience's questions and in one instance he recalled that Jinnah refused to refer to the nationalist brothers Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Ali as 'maulanas.' At the same time, he was never acerbic towards Gandhi, who consistently inserted religion in politics.

Noorani also took issue with Jinnah's portrayal as an elitist. In addition to citing the fact that Jinnah and Tilak regularly met in spaces populated by the masses, he defended Jinnah's ability to speak Gujrati, which biographer Stanley Wolpert has written was weak. According to Noorani, it was impossible for a practising lawyer in Mumbai not to speak fluent Gujrati. He also quoted an incident in which Jinnah gave an interview to a Gujrati-language paper in which he explained that his involvement with the League was part of an effort to be closer to the masses.

Explaining Jinnah's stance on civil disobedience, Noorani added that it was more a case of concern than opposition — were the Indians prepared for [the civil disobedience movement]? Had schools and colleges been readied? When should he stop practising law? These were the questions, Noorani explained, that Jinnah grappled with at the time.

The perception that Jinnah was hell-bent on securing a separate state for Muslims from the start of his political career was also discussed. Noorani mentioned that this issue was not a main feature of the Round Table Conferences and described Jinnah as an “in house critic” for the duration of the Quit India Movement.

After defending Jinnah on several points, Noorani did point to his mistakes as well. He emphasised, for example, the fact that Jinnah did not think through Partition and its repercussions properly. “He didn't think about the territorial limits being agreed to, the exchange of populations, the fate of minorities,” Noorani asserted. He also pointed out that in the years before Partition, Jinnah's manner became increasingly “abrasive.”

Ultimately, Noorani's talk, and the thesis of his book, were received by many in the audience as an invitation to revisit Jinnah's early political career and consider how his main political demand for many years was not for a separate homeland for Muslims, but for an independent India in which the rights of Muslims were protected.

Stop talking nonsense. It does not matter when he was advocating Muslim political rights. But when Jinnah did, he never went back to the Congress party.

Jinnah was the ambassador of Muslim-Hindu unity. Why would Jinnah turn his back on Muslim-Hindu unity. LOL.

Because Jinnah knew the Congress party were being dishonest and not looking after the Muslim's political interests.

I don't know what claims he is trying to peddle, but only have the last page to go by. Noorani was more or less on target. So, too, are you; even in 1940, he was trying a constitutionally coherent solution.

Last night, coincidentally, I was explaining to a close friend and a formerly active member of this forum that Jinnah had seen the failure of the reforms of 1919, and he was back in India to see the failure of the 1935 Government of India Act. You may recall that in the turbulence of the Simon Commission of 1927, when the British sought to look at India's constitutional status, Jinnah held firm with the rest of the Muslim League against any compromise. The next year, his view, the Fourteen Points, was opposed to Motilal Nehru's Report, the Nehru Report; very clearly, he saw the need to move beyond reserved seats, beyond reserved status within government to a stage surpassing these. I believe that the description of one of his colleagues at the Bar is significant:"...He had a sixth sense: he could see around corners. That is where his talents lay ... he was a very clear thinker ... But he drove his points home—points chosen with exquisite selection—slow delivery, word by word." I believe that it was this sixth sense that took him to a point where few others reached: the three sub-states in one Dominion, joined at the top by a centre responsible only for defence, external affairs and communications. Pakistan was the bogey that he preserved to drive Congress leaders into line; it was inconceivable to him that the day would come when the Congress would press for partition, refuse the Muslim progressives their fair chance in social and political terms that Jinnah sought, and agree to Pakistan.

As for the offer of the position of Prime Minister (of the Union), it was quite rational, but that is not what he was seeking. Further, while Gandhi may have been sincere in making the offer, the Congress, where, in order to follow Gandhi's line, Jinnah was shouted down in 1920, was probably not at all serious. They had already spent nearly a decade in a war of nerves with him, as he slowly wore down British resistance to the League and got more and more into the thinking of Linlithgow.

What you have written is all rubbish.

Jinnah realized that the Congress party were not looking after the Muslim political interests hence Jinnah strengthening the Muslim League as the representative of the Muslim community in South Asia.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Stop talking nonsense. It does not matter when he was advocating Muslim political rights. But when

Stop talking nonsense. It does not matter when he was advocating Muslim political rights. But when Jinnah did, he never went back to the Congress party.

Jinnah was the ambassador of Muslim-Hindu unity. Why would Jinnah turn his back on Muslim-Hindu unity. LOL.

Because Jinnah knew the Congress party were being dishonest and not looking after the Muslim's political interests.


What you have written is all rubbish.

Jinnah realized that the Congress party were not looking after the Muslim political interests hence Jinnah strengthening the Muslim League as the representative of the Muslim community in South Asia.

Don't post till you learn manners.

 

[ashok mourya]

Gandhi Gujarati,Patel Gujarati,Jinnah Gujarati....now modi Gujarati... All have Gujarat connection...Jinnah's grandfather expelled from Hinduism so he had a anger n hatred against Hindus...from khwaja to shia to sunni sect Jinnah keep changing his identity n married a Parsi..

 

[shootingstar]

Stop talking nonsense. It does not matter when he was advocating Muslim political rights. But when

Stop talking nonsense. It does not matter when he was advocating Muslim political rights. But when Jinnah did, he never went back to the Congress party.

Jinnah was the ambassador of Muslim-Hindu unity. Why would Jinnah turn his back on Muslim-Hindu unity. LOL.

Because Jinnah knew the Congress party were being dishonest and not looking after the Muslim's political interests.


What you have written is all rubbish.

Jinnah realized that the Congress party were not looking after the Muslim political interests hence Jinnah strengthening the Muslim League as the representative of the Muslim community in South Asia.

Muslim League was born in 1906 but Jinnah was still with Congress dong the Lucknow pact in 1916. Only after Gandhi returned after 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre and the call for civil disobedience movement until complete independence in 1920 did Jinnah resign from Congress. Jinnah did not support Gandhi's proposal to support Khilafat movement and Ottomon empire. Jinnah was a liberal and close to British.

 

[saiyan0321]

I don't know what claims he is trying to peddle, but only have the last page to go by. Noorani was more or less on target. So, too, are you; even in 1940, he was trying a constitutionally coherent solution.

Last night, coincidentally, I was explaining to a close friend and a formerly active member of this forum that Jinnah had seen the failure of the reforms of 1919, and he was back in India to see the failure of the 1935 Government of India Act. You may recall that in the turbulence of the Simon Commission of 1927, when the British sought to look at India's constitutional status, Jinnah held firm with the rest of the Muslim League against any compromise. The next year, his view, the Fourteen Points, was opposed to Motilal Nehru's Report, the Nehru Report; very clearly, he saw the need to move beyond reserved seats, beyond reserved status within government to a stage surpassing these. I believe that the description of one of his colleagues at the Bar is significant:"...He had a sixth sense: he could see around corners. That is where his talents lay ... he was a very clear thinker ... But he drove his points home—points chosen with exquisite selection—slow delivery, word by word." I believe that it was this sixth sense that took him to a point where few others reached: the three sub-states in one Dominion, joined at the top by a centre responsible only for defence, external affairs and communications. Pakistan was the bogey that he preserved to drive Congress leaders into line; it was inconceivable to him that the day would come when the Congress would press for partition, refuse the Muslim progressives their fair chance in social and political terms that Jinnah sought, and agree to Pakistan.

As for the offer of the position of Prime Minister (of the Union), it was quite rational, but that is not what he was seeking. Further, while Gandhi may have been sincere in making the offer, the Congress, where, in order to follow Gandhi's line, Jinnah was shouted down in 1920, was probably not at all serious. They had already spent nearly a decade in a war of nerves with him, as he slowly wore down British resistance to the League and got more and more into the thinking of Linlithgow.

Fact is that Jinnah has undergone distortions as each individual tries to paint him in a way that panders their narrative. From a Muslim separatist extremist to a Hindu hating bigot who got kicked out of Hinduism ( didn't know you could get kicked out of religion especially hinduism) to a secularist nationalist to a realist who saw the situation, to a Muslim who championed for Muslim rights to a Muslim who believed in Islamic supremacy to a Muslim who wanted an Islamic pure state.....

These above views have distorted Jinnah who in my opinion dominates the subcontinent.

So each group has created their own images and this proves how dynamic the role of Jinnah was in south Asian politics.

However this is not the thread for Jinnah but a simple movie review and yes it was a good movie.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Fact is that Jinnah has undergone distortions as each individual tries to paint him in a way that panders their narrative. From a Muslim separatist extremist to a Hindu hating bigot who got kicked out of Hinduism ( didn't know you could get kicked out of religion especially hinduism) to a secularist nationalist to a realist who saw the situation, to a Muslim who championed for Muslim rights to a Muslim who believed in Islamic supremacy to a Muslim who wanted an Islamic pure state.....

These above views have distorted Jinnah who in my opinion dominates the subcontinent.

So each group has created their own images and this proves how dynamic the role of Jinnah was in south Asian politics.

However this is not the thread for Jinnah but a simple movie review and yes it was a good movie.

Which is what I should have started with - I haven't seen the movie!

 

[saiyan0321]

- I haven't seen the movie!

Oh you should. Its very good. Very good.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Oh you should. Its very good. Very good.

Will pencil it in. Just need to go out and do these things - watching movies, eating out, travelling - a little more.