Two Nation Theory

[toxic_pus]

I am a little surprised at your observation.

The TNT (why do you keep calling it the TWT?) does not ask for Pakistan; that is nowhere in the picture. This theory was originally a defence of the demand for separate electorates.

The demand having failed to impact the state of the Muslims, it dawned on the leadership of the Muslims that something more was needed. This was the confederal idea that the AIML led by Jinnah promoted, NOT AN IDEA OF A SEPARATE STATE.

If I may interject. Below is an excerpt of Jinnah's Presidential Address at the 28th Annual Session of the All-India Muslim League, Madras, April 15, 1941.

'In order that there should be no room left for misunderstanding and that no doubt should be left in the mind of any intelligent or sensible Indian- it does not matter to which class or community he belongs-let me clarify our position with regard to our goal. What is the goal of the All-India Muslim League? What is its ideology and what its policy? Let me tell you as clearly as I can possibly define it, that the goal of the All-India Muslim League is this: We want the establishment of completely independent states in the North-West and Eastern zones of India, with full control finally of defence, foreign affairs, communications, customs, currency, exchange, etc. We do not want in any circumstances a constitution of an All-India character with one government at the Centre. We will never agree to that. If we once agree to that, let me tell you, the Muslims will be absolutely wiped out of existence. We shall never be tributaries of any power or any government at the Centre so far as the North West and Eastern zones of our free national homelands are concerned.'​

Incidentally it was in this speech, that Jinnah had raised the issue of 'Dravidastan'.

One more thing. Ambedkar did support TNT, although he was against Pakistan. For a refutation of Ambedkar's argument refer India Divided by Rajendra Prasad. (Actually India Divided is a refutation of Durrani's argument for TNT, which was similar to Ambedkar's reasoning.)

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dear Sir, (and you know why I keep saying this by now, on this occasion, most emphatically for those reasons, by reason of the stand that you have taken)

You came in on the wrong note. I had hoped to discuss other interesting things you raised.

Let us however deal with your interjection.

If I may interject. Below is an excerpt of Jinnah's Presidential Address at the 28th Annual Session of the All-India Muslim League, Madras, April 15, 1941.

'In order that there should be no room left for misunderstanding and that no doubt should be left in the mind of any intelligent or sensible Indian- it does not matter to which class or community he belongs-let me clarify our position with regard to our goal. What is the goal of the All-India Muslim League? What is its ideology and what its policy? Let me tell you as clearly as I can possibly define it, that the goal of the All-India Muslim League is this: We want the establishment of completely independent states in the North-West and Eastern zones of India, with full control finally of defence, foreign affairs, communications, customs, currency, exchange, etc. We do not want in any circumstances a constitution of an All-India character with one government at the Centre. We will never agree to that. If we once agree to that, let me tell you, the Muslims will be absolutely wiped out of existence. We shall never be tributaries of any power or any government at the Centre so far as the North West and Eastern zones of our free national homelands are concerned.'​

Incidentally it was in this speech, that Jinnah had raised the issue of 'Dravidastan'.

I ask you to forgive me for what I am about to say.

In citing this, you have been lazy and careless. This is unforgiveable. People have written carefully, constructed their arguments in elaborate detail, paid attention to contradictions and reasoned with peers over them and discussed them in the light of the evidence available. It is terrible that you have just taken a short cut and dumped this on us, with not the slightest effort to think things through.

Why I am so disappointed is because of this extract from an earlier post. I ask you to find out which post it is, and to find it in yourself to feel contrite.

The Two Nation Theory, as adopted by Jinnah and the Muslim League in 1940, was a mere restatement of the minority problem in national terms and not a clarion call, to use Dr Ayesha Jalal’s vocabulary, for partition. What Jinnah was aiming for was what in recent years has been coined as ‘consociationalism’, a power sharing between disparate ethnic and communal groups in multinational and multiethnic states. Though the term was coined only a decade or so ago, consociationalism as a political system is quite old and is tried and tested in states like The Netherlands, Switzerland and Canada.

When the Quaid-e-Azam articulated the Two Nation Theory, he referred to language, culture, family laws and historical antecedents. He was, as an adroit lawyer, making the case for changing the status of a minority to that of a nation and not for separation of Islam from India as is alleged by his detractors.

The truth is that Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan was not predicated on the partition of India. His idea of Pakistan was a power sharing arrangement between the Muslims and Hindus. His Two Nation Theory did not, at least not until December 1946, suggest that the Hindus and Muslims must be separated. And yet, even in May 1947, Jinnah was pleading against the partition of Punjab and Bengal by arguing that a Punjabi is a Punjabi and a Bengali is a Bengali before he is a Hindu or a Muslim.

Much of this is confirmed by one of the most extraordinary pieces of prescience left behind by H V Hodson, who was the Reforms Commissioner in India in 1941. Hodson wrote in clear terms very soon after the Lahore Resolution that every Muslim Leaguer from Jinnah down to the last one interpreted the Pakistan idea as consistent with the idea of a confederation of India. Hodson believed that “Pakistan” was a “revolt against minority status” and a call for power sharing and not just defining rules of conduct how a majority (in this case Hindu) would govern India. He spoke of an acute realisation that the minority status with all the safeguards could only amount to a “Cinderella with trade union rights and radio in the kitchen but still below the stairs.” Jinnah’s comment was that Hodson had finally understood what the League was after, but that he could not publicly come out with these fundamental truths, as these were likely to be misunderstood at the time.

For Jinnah and the Muslim League, the Two Nation Theory was not an ideological position etched in stone. It was the restatement of the arguments needed to ensure national status for Muslims in a multinational independent India. It was also a vehicle to get parochial elements in Muslim majority provinces into line behind the Muslim League at the All India Centre. At the very least, Jinnah’s Pakistan did not necessarily envisage a partition, secession from or division of United India. This is why he jumped at the opportunity of the Cabinet Mission Plan, which did not even deliver 50 percent of what he had demanded. In the end, however, the idea of power sharing with the League and Muslims was too much for the Indian National Congress to gulp, even if Gandhi and Nehru could have been brought around to the idea. Maulana Azad’s grudging admissions in his book India Wins Freedom seal this argument.

It is important, however, to note that Jinnah’s August 11 speech and all his pronouncements thereafter made it absolutely clear that the Two Nation Theory would have no role to play in the principles of citizenship of the new state. Significantly, after partition, Jinnah went back to using the word ‘community’ for Hindus and Muslims instead of nations.

One more thing. Ambedkar did support TNT, although he was against Pakistan. For a refutation of Ambedkar's argument refer India Divided by Rajendra Prasad. (Actually India Divided is a refutation of Durrani's argument for TNT, which was similar to Ambedkar's reasoning.)

I quite agree that supporting TNT does not amount to supporting Pakistan. That has been said again and again and again. Both Pakistanis and Indians have made the mistake of identifying the TNT to a demand for partition. It was not so; it was never so.

Sincerely,

'Joe'

PS: I dearly wish I could meet you in Kolkata before my forthcoming trip to Assam, so that I could hit you on the head with Ayesha Jalal's other book. It is not as good, but it is thicker.

'Joe'

 

[EjazR]

@Joe Shearer

Just coming to the part about Pakistanis--even liberal Pakistanis that you say have completely opposing views about Badshah Khan and his Khudai Khitmatagars. I can easily comprehend that. Infact, it would be the seemingly "liberal" Pakistanis that would be more opposed to it than those who would be more devout/religious.
The main reason is that most of the devout and religious Muslims of the sub-continent opposed political Islamic policies. You can look at the similarity where orthodox Jews opposed zionism or political judaistic policies. The analogy is quite similar.

Due to the current geopolitical situation especially post 9/11; it is fashionable to depict any devout Muslim or a religious Muslim as an extremist and unfavorable but a liberal and favorable Muslim is he who is not devout.

This however was not the case in the sub-continent which has been historically steeped in spirituality and religion. Gandhiji was a devout Hindu, Maulana Azad and Jamiat Ulema i Hind as well Majlis-i-Ahrar and Khudai Kitmatagar were devout Muslims. Still both were united in their struggle for a unified Independent country. How else can we explain the start of public meetings in the pre-independence era with readings from the passage of the Quran and the Gita?

Some "liberal" Pakistanis at PTH might contend that it was these very Ahraris and other religious fanatics that have become a problem nowadays but this is a wrong conclusion. Jamaat-Islami in particular which is the main culprit in creating a favorable environment of political Islam ideology was supported by various military regimes. The "success" of Muslim League in using political Islamic politics allowed opportunist elements from these groups to use Islam further for their agenda. These groups have nothing of substance from their pre-independence counterparts. The bigotry that we see today is a direct consequence of the Muslim League politics before independence and the politics of the ruling elite--particularly military but also civilian--after independence.
Those who were religious and devout and opposed to Pakistan were ruthlessly put down, jailed or even killed in independent Pakistan. The story of Bacha Khan and the decades he spent in jail his heart wrenching for anyone to read. If these grass roots leaders had been given the chance to govern their province or even Pakistan, strong pro-people institutions would have been built. Instead a sustained propaganda against anyone who had opposed Pakistan has turned them into "Hindu" agents or religious "Islamic fanatics" even though I'm surprised such people don't see the contradiction between the two.

The overall historical fact from a neutral point of view doesn't change this though. Bacha Khan was one of the greatest personalities of the sub-continent and certainly one of the greatest personalities that the Pashtoons have produced. His emphasis on non-violence from the Quran and Hadith is a source of strength to many thousands who followed him which he followed many years before Gandhi even came to India. His commitment to non-violence was one of the reasons why he eventually took oath on the Pakistani constitution instead of fighting for joining Afghanistan or and independent Pashtunistan even though there was adequate sentiment for that. Even the British who had opposed him every step of the way were impressed from him.

About Iqbal, he never mentioned TWT in any of his speeches. He did emphasize that Muslim communities have legitimate concerns and need their rights to be safeguarded which was quite logical and acceptable.

Some argue that TWT was a way to fight for the rights of Muslims, some may go further and say it was actually a fight for all minorities. But as Ambedkar said later, the Muslim League way of fighting for those rights (by advocating TWT) was not the best way. He himself says that a British Raj should under no circumstances be replaced by a Hindu Raj as that was be especially a big problem for Dalits. Now Dalits were oppressed for thousands of years and if they wanted to a separate state to protect their culture and rights it would have more sense than Muslim who were already in better situation than most of the communities. Instead of using a community based secular approach where people of different faiths and communities could be wooed, the shortest and quickest way of using communal propaganda was used. Statements like vote for Muslim League if you are Muslim and if you don't vote for league you will be excommunicated from Islam is hardly a way to fight for the rights of Muslims let alone the rights for other minorities in the sub-continent.

But events turned out to be different. As I said before, the great power politics are a necessary component in this regard. For example, many people think that the cabinet mission plan was a something of a genuine plan that would have kept India united. This is a fallacy when you actually go through what the plan implicated and what would have been the result had it been accepted the way it was presented. The sub-continent would be divided into small bit countries like the Middle East or Africa which would be mired in small wars.

I would still recommend you read the book Facts are Sacred where the link is provided in my previous post.
To get a better understanding of the CMP check out this website
CabinetMissionPlan

 

[EjazR]

One more thing. Ambedkar did support TNT, although he was against Pakistan. For a refutation of Ambedkar's argument refer India Divided by Rajendra Prasad. (Actually India Divided is a refutation of Durrani's argument for TNT, which was similar to Ambedkar's reasoning.)

Ambedkar did a a very dispassionate analysis based on different presumptions. I wouldn't say he supported the theory that Hindus and Muslims are two nations as he cites the examples of how Punjabi Hindus and Punjabi Muslims are way more similar than Bengali Muslims or Madrasi Muslim with Punjabi Muslims.

What he did was qualify and do away with insisting on all being one nation by saying that India consists of a multitude of nations and if a group or community gains awareness and started seeing themselves as a nation there is nothing we can do to prevent it. Thus the statement that India actually resembles Europe in the diversity of races languages religions e.t.c. that it contains. Hence why it is equally important that each culture, race, religion and language is given full autonomy to develop them.

The more important point that I would again mention that Ambedkar was unaware of the cold war and great power politics of the region that were shaping India's internal politics. His advise was simple, if all Muslims are insisting on a separate nation then it is better to give it to them--EVEN THOUGH, this would be detrimental to the Muslims themselves.

It is interesting also on how he says that there is no use it explaining the fallacy of the "Pakistan demand" for Muslims themselves because it is based on sentiment and this is where its strength rather than weakness lies. Sentiment does not require logic. Something that we see in reverse happening in India today as well, were the "sentiment of the people" is given more importance than actual justice.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dear Sir,

I am in harmony with most of your post, except for minor divergences and small questions that are still unanswered.

@Joe Shearer
Just coming to the part about Pakistanis--even liberal Pakistanis that you say have completely opposing views about Badshah Khan and his Khudai Khitmatagars. I can easily comprehend that. Infact, it would be the seemingly "liberal" Pakistanis that would be more opposed to it than those who would be more devout/religious.

The main reason is that most of the devout and religious Muslims of the sub-continent opposed political Islamic policies. You can look at the similarity where orthodox Jews opposed zionism or political judaistic policies. The analogy is quite similar.

I understood that the Muslim League was largely supported and led by the AMU generation of westernised salary-drawing government servant, or professional (doctor or lawyer). The Mullahs were opposed to this 'salariat' as much as they are opposed to reformers like Asghar Ali Engineer or others.

Due to the current geopolitical situation especially post 9/11; it is fashionable to depict any devout Muslim or a religious Muslim as an extremist and unfavorable but a liberal and favorable Muslim is he who is not devout.

This however was not the case in the sub-continent which has been historically steeped in spirituality and religion. Gandhiji was a devout Hindu, Maulana Azad and Jamiat Ulema i Hind as well Majlis-i-Ahrar and Khudai Kitmatagar were devout Muslims. Still both were united in their struggle for a unified Independent country. How else can we explain the start of public meetings in the pre-independence era with readings from the passage of the Quran and the Gita?

Perhaps it would have been better to do without either the Quran or the Gita. It was this introduction of religion into public affairs that was one of Jinnah's objections to Gandhi's methods, and it resulted in negative consequences for India. We landed up with a version of secularism, not the secularism of the Treaty of Westphalia, but a peculiar warped version wherein we give every religion equal respect. This never happens; either we open functions with a kuthuvilakku being lighted, inaugurate buildings with a bhoomi-puja, and do an Ayutha Puja and smear our work-place with sandalwood paste and vibhuti, or we cosy up to the Muslim community at government level by making concessions to them not of the sort that the community wants, but of the sort that government thinks will please the Mullahs.

After a lifetime of opposing the Sangh Parivar tooth and nail, I find myself defensive when they raise their eyebrows and speak about pseudo-secularism. It is a pseudo-secularism that the Congress, oriented in that direction by Gandhi, brought into India.

It is better to keep religion safely at a distance from public affairs, otherwise we will see unseemly scenes like we are seeing on PTH recently, on the Ahmedi issue most of all.

Some "liberal" Pakistanis at PTH might contend that it was these very Ahraris and other religious fanatics that have become a problem nowadays but this is a wrong conclusion. Jamaat-Islami in particular which is the main culprit in creating a favorable environment of political Islam ideology was supported by various military regimes. The "success" of Muslim League in using political Islamic politics allowed opportunist elements from these groups to use Islam further for their agenda. These groups have nothing of substance from their pre-independence counterparts. The bigotry that we see today is a direct consequence of the Muslim League politics before independence and the politics of the ruling elite--particularly military but also civilian--after independence.

Don't you count Maudoodi among those who have most 'Islamicised' Pakistan? Wasn't he among those who opposed Pakistan, called it Paleedistan, and called Jinnah Kufr-e-Azam?

Is it not true that immediately after partition, he migrated to Pakistan, and started projecting himself and his line of thinking as the key to Pakistan? Is there anything good that came out of him, except for Ghamidi?

Those who were religious and devout and opposed to Pakistan were ruthlessly put down, jailed or even killed in independent Pakistan. The story of Bacha Khan and the decades he spent in jail his heart wrenching for anyone to read. If these grass roots leaders had been given the chance to govern their province or even Pakistan, strong pro-people institutions would have been built. Instead a sustained propaganda against anyone who had opposed Pakistan has turned them into "Hindu" agents or religious "Islamic fanatics" even though I'm surprised such people don't see the contradiction between the two.

I agree that it may be argued that this line of persecution was pernicious, and that much ground was lost in NWFP and FATA thanks to such silliness. But was it silliness? Aren't the present day fundamentalists in KP the descendants of these earlier conservatives, turned fundamentalist, turned extremist, and allied to the Taliban?

Liberal Pakistanis call both of them, the earlier religious leadership and the present-day Swat-based, Waziristan-based fundamentalists lackeys of India, hirelings of R&W. Why? The hirelings of R&W can be taken with a large double-handful of salt, but why did these people oppose Pakistan tooth and nail? Why did they bring in extreme versions of Shariah whenever they were able to back down the existing administration?

The Jamaat were fundamentalist and backed the military; these people were fundamentalist and landed up backing the Taliban, created in the first place by the military. How does the shade of meaning matter to the ordinary Pakistani getting blown up, or the ordinary Indian getting killed?

The overall historical fact from a neutral point of view doesn't change this though. Bacha Khan was one of the greatest personalities of the sub-continent and certainly one of the greatest personalities that the Pashtoons have produced. His emphasis on non-violence from the Quran and Hadith is a source of strength to many thousands who followed him which he followed many years before Gandhi even came to India. His commitment to non-violence was one of the reasons why he eventually took oath on the Pakistani constitution instead of fighting for joining Afghanistan or and independent Pashtunistan even though there was adequate sentiment for that. Even the British who had opposed him every step of the way were impressed from him.

I am glad to hear this being said about him, as he was one of my heroes.

About Iqbal, he never mentioned TWT in any of his speeches. He did emphasize that Muslim communities have legitimate concerns and need their rights to be safeguarded which was quite logical and acceptable.

Which frankly is where the TNT came from. It is a popular mistake to think that it stood for a physical partition of British India. If we go through the history of political reforms and administrative reforms in British India, we soon find that on the one hand, the British were devolving powers to Indians, through the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and Dyarchy in 1919, then through the Government of India Act in 1935; on the other, various minorities were increasingly nervous about the huge central mass, the Hindi-speaking, Hindu bloc in the Gangetic plain, and reacting to it with various degrees of political sophistication.

It is this problem that the whole paper of Shanta Rajagopalan touches upon and analyses so deftly. My only complaint about her paper is that she considers the peninsular states and regions as peripheral, and completely forgets the alienation of the hills and the forests.

Some argue that TWT was a way to fight for the rights of Muslims, some may go further and say it was actually a fight for all minorities.

At core, yes, but limited in scope and outlook, and in applicability by its exclusive emphasis on religion as an identifier; there were linguistic, ethnic and caste based identifiers, which came up for attention almost immediately after partition.

Both in India, which rejected religion as a discriminant, and Pakistan, which had it at its core, other factors mentioned, ethnicity and linguistic identity came up as seeking - demanding - urgent attention. The TNT was not complete, it was partial, that is why we do not have a multi-valent model which would help our political decision-making as these issues bubbled up.

But as Ambedkar said later, the Muslim League way of fighting for those rights (by advocating TWT) was not the best way.

This makes sense if we consider the basic paradigm, rather than those seeking to implement it. This was not a Muslim League or an INC problem, it was a TNT problem.

He himself says that a British Raj should under no circumstances be replaced by a Hindu Raj as that was be especially a big problem for Dalits. Now Dalits were oppressed for thousands of years and if they wanted to a separate state to protect their culture and rights it would have more sense than Muslim who were already in better situation than most of the communities. Instead of using a community based secular approach where people of different faiths and communities could be wooed, the shortest and quickest way of using communal propaganda was used. Statements like vote for Muslim League if you are Muslim and if you don't vote for league you will be excommunicated from Islam is hardly a way to fight for the rights of Muslims let alone the rights for other minorities in the sub-continent.

1. He himself says that a British Raj should under no circumstances be replaced by a Hindu Raj as that was be especially a big problem for Dalits. Now Dalits were oppressed for thousands of years and if they wanted to a separate state to protect their culture and rights it would have more sense than Muslim who were already in better situation than most of the communities.


Ultimately, as you have pointed out in your next post, it was a question of sentiment. And there is no accounting for the logic of a sentiment, nor does it bow down to numbers, as I was trying to explain to others on a regional context.

2. Instead of using a community based secular approach where people of different faiths and communities could be wooed, the shortest and quickest way of using communal propaganda was used.

This would not have worked. An expression of identity typically works by exclusion, not, as states do, by inclusion.

But events turned out to be different. As I said before, the great power politics are a necessary component in this regard. For example, many people think that the cabinet mission plan was a something of a genuine plan that would have kept India united. This is a fallacy when you actually go through what the plan implicated and what would have been the result had it been accepted the way it was presented. The sub-continent would be divided into small bit countries like the Middle East or Africa which would be mired in small wars.

I would still recommend you read the book Facts are Sacred where the link is provided in my previous post.
To get a better understanding of the CMP check out this website
CabinetMissionPlan

I shall certainly try to get the book, and will read the web-site too, although actually we have enough documentation on that already while we were researching it and fighting about it on PTH six or seven times earlier!

After reading and debating the CMP for over two years, it simply does not appear that the plan - the May 16 plan, we are in fact living through the June plan! - would have produced those balkanising wars and troubles.

First, it is extremely misleading to indulge in alternative history speculations - what would have happened if Napoleon had not attacked Russia, what would have happened if Alexander had pressed on into the Gangetic plain;

Second, many of the fears that you express have come true already, and some more may. For instance, we are now three countries instead of two. How much more of a failure would the May 16 plan have been?

Sincerely,

'Joe'

 

[Joe Shearer]

Ambedkar did a a very dispassionate analysis based on different presumptions. I wouldn't say he supported the theory that Hindus and Muslims are two nations as he cites the examples of how Punjabi Hindus and Punjabi Muslims are way more similar than Bengali Muslims or Madrasi Muslim with Punjabi Muslims.

What he did was qualify and do away with insisting on all being one nation by saying that India consists of a multitude of nations and if a group or community gains awareness and started seeing themselves as a nation there is nothing we can do to prevent it. Thus the statement that India actually resembles Europe in the diversity of races languages religions e.t.c. that it contains. Hence why it is equally important that each culture, race, religion and language is given full autonomy to develop them.

The more important point that I would again mention that Ambedkar was unaware of the cold war and great power politics of the region that were shaping India's internal politics. His advise was simple, if all Muslims are insisting on a separate nation then it is better to give it to them--EVEN THOUGH, this would be detrimental to the Muslims themselves.

It is interesting also on how he says that there is no use it explaining the fallacy of the "Pakistan demand" for Muslims themselves because it is based on sentiment and this is where its strength rather than weakness lies. Sentiment does not require logic. Something that we see in reverse happening in India today as well, were the "sentiment of the people" is given more importance than actual justice.

Dear Sir,

This is quite simply the most rational view taken of the nationalities question in India. There are obvious patches with which one is in disagreement, but it is perhaps the best view of the issues raised by the TNT, sane, rational and practical.

I congratulate you on your presentation.

Sincerely,

'Joe Shearer'

 

[toxic_pus]

Dear Sir, (and you know why I keep saying this by now, on this occasion, most emphatically for those reasons, by reason of the stand that you have taken)

You came in on the wrong note. I had hoped to discuss other interesting things you raised.

Let us however deal with your interjection.



I ask you to forgive me for what I am about to say.

In citing this, you have been lazy and careless. This is unforgiveable. People have written carefully, constructed their arguments in elaborate detail, paid attention to contradictions and reasoned with peers over them and discussed them in the light of the evidence available. It is terrible that you have just taken a short cut and dumped this on us, with not the slightest effort to think things through.

Why I am so disappointed is because of this extract from an earlier post. I ask you to find out which post it is, and to find it in yourself to feel contrite.

The Two Nation Theory, as adopted by Jinnah and the Muslim League in 1940, was a mere restatement of the minority problem in national terms and not a clarion call, to use Dr Ayesha Jalal’s vocabulary, for partition.

[...snip...]

It is important, however, to note that Jinnah’s August 11 speech and all his pronouncements thereafter made it absolutely clear that the Two Nation Theory would have no role to play in the principles of citizenship of the new state. Significantly, after partition, Jinnah went back to using the word ‘community’ for Hindus and Muslims instead of nations.

Joe, I am aware of this Ayesha Jalal school of thought. Remember? I do not entirely disagree that Jinnah was rightfully asking for safeguards (the equality in power sharing is something that still baffles me though). What I disagree with that school of thought is how they assess that a vitriolic sectarian idea, used as a political tool, wouldn't have eventually led to a partition, regardless of whether Jinnah wanted that or not; or how they assess the Congress reaction to that political posturing as something less than acceptable.

Joe, put yourself in the shoes of Congress president. Now how would you have reacted to that above speech? I have quoted the above speech merely to make the point, that it doesn't matter now, how we spin it and call it mere posturing. What matters is how it was read by Congress, right at that point in time.

I quite agree that supporting TNT does not amount to supporting Pakistan. That has been said again and again and again. Both Pakistanis and Indians have made the mistake of identifying the TNT to a demand for partition. It was not so; it was never so.

Agreed to an extent. See this is one of those times when I feel we are looking in the same direction, but using different binoculars.

PS: I dearly wish I could meet you in Kolkata before my forthcoming trip to Assam, so that I could hit you on the head with Ayesha Jalal's other book. It is not as good, but it is thicker.

Note to self: buy a better crash helmet before meeting Joe

PS: Joe you are way more senior to me to beg my forgiveness. Please don't make me more uncomfortable than you already are by constantly addressing me, 'sir'.

 

[toxic_pus]

Ambedkar did a a very dispassionate analysis based on different presumptions. I wouldn't say he supported the theory that Hindus and Muslims are two nations as he cites the examples of how Punjabi Hindus and Punjabi Muslims are way more similar than Bengali Muslims or Madrasi Muslim with Punjabi Muslims.

What he did was qualify and do away with insisting on all being one nation by saying that India consists of a multitude of nations and if a group or community gains awareness and started seeing themselves as a nation there is nothing we can do to prevent it. Thus the statement that India actually resembles Europe in the diversity of races languages religions e.t.c. that it contains. Hence why it is equally important that each culture, race, religion and language is given full autonomy to develop them.

The more important point that I would again mention that Ambedkar was unaware of the cold war and great power politics of the region that were shaping India's internal politics. His advise was simple, if all Muslims are insisting on a separate nation then it is better to give it to them--EVEN THOUGH, this would be detrimental to the Muslims themselves.

It is interesting also on how he says that there is no use it explaining the fallacy of the "Pakistan demand" for Muslims themselves because it is based on sentiment and this is where its strength rather than weakness lies. Sentiment does not require logic. Something that we see in reverse happening in India today as well, were the "sentiment of the people" is given more importance than actual justice.

I do not disagree with you, or with Joe, that Ambedkar was essentially arguing that India was not a single nation, as claimed by Hindu apologists and Congress. (I believe in one of my replies to Agno, I had mentioned that neither India nor Pakistan is a nation, but merely a state).

However I do disagree with you on your assertion that he didn’t think that Muslims constituted a separate nation. He goes to great extent to argue that even if ‘Punjabi Hindus and Punjabi Muslims are way more similar than Bengali Muslims or Madrasi Muslim with Punjabi Muslims’, the similarity is superficial at best, illusory at worst. What are the bases for such similarity? Culture, language, common historical antecedents, common folklore or mythology. He argues that what we call ‘similar’ culture is actually an illusion and is a result of ‘incomplete conversion’. Language, he argues, is not enough to be the basis for single nation, as is the case with US of A and England. As with common historical antecedents, he argues, like Jinnah, that these have entirely opposite connotations to the two religions. Same with folklore and mythology.

Ambedkar’s argument is that ‘nationality’ is a ‘social feeling’; ‘a feeling of a corporate sentiment of oneness which makes those who are charged with it feel that they are kith and kin’. In other words, ‘nationality’ is more psychological than it is physical (in the sense that it can’t be defined by culture, race, language, common historical antecedents as it can be explained by the ‘feeling of fellowship’)

Let me quote Ambedkar from ‘A Nation Calling for A Home’ on the issue of ‘nationality’ (‘nationhood’) and ‘nationalism’:

‘First, there is a difference between nationality and nationalism. They are two different psychological states of the human mind. Nationality means "consciousness of kind, awareness of the existence of that tie of kinship." Nationalism means "the desire for a separate national existence for those who are bound by this tie of kinship." Secondly, it is true that there cannot be nationalism without the feeling of nationality being in existence. But, it is important to bear in mind that the converse is not always true. The feeling of nationality may be present and yet the feeling of nationalism may be quite absent. That is to say, nationality does not in all cases produce nationalism. For nationality to flame into nationalism two conditions must exist. First, there must arise the "will to live as a nation." Nationalism is the dynamic expression of that desire. Secondly, there must be a territory which nationalism could occupy and make it a state, as well as a cultural home of the nation. Without such a territory, nationalism, to use Lord Acton's phrase, would be a "soul as it were wandering in search of a body in which to begin life over again and dies out finding none." The Muslims have developed a "will to live as a nation." For them nature has found a territory which they can occupy and make it a state as well as a cultural home for the new-born Muslim nation.’ ​

Joe is bang on the money when he says, that TNT didn’t necessarily mean separate nation for the Muslims, to which I agree. This is exactly why I had wondered aloud: ‘So the question is, was TNT at all necessary to demand those safeguards for 'protecting the rights of a Muslim minority’. Or was TNT proposed with an eye on eventually creating a separate ‘nation state’. Anyway, Ambedkar concludes:

Given these favourable conditions, there should be no wonder, if the Muslims say that they are not content to occupy the position which the French choose to occupy in Canada or the English choose to occupy in South Africa, and that they shall have a national home which they can call their own.
​

As you can see, he was not against the creation of Pakistan on the principles of ‘nationality’ (‘nationhood’), because to him it made perfect sense. He was opposed, however, for the very reason that Muslim ‘nationalism’ didn’t make much sense to him. When we say that Ambedkar didn't support the creation of Pakistan, we only say half the story. It is the other half, that is more interesting, and I mentioned Ambedkar's stand on TNT just to throw some light on that half.

Hope this clarifies my position.

PS: What is this TWT that you constantly refer to. Shouldn't it be TNT.

 

[toxic_pus]

Joe, CabinetMissionPlan is run by Sadna Gupta. It is filled with excerpts from original documents and books.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dear Sir,

I can't possibly be asked to address anyone either as 'Dear toxic' or as 'Dear pus'; you must put yourself in my shoes for an instant, as you have been putting me in various other shoes in your observations. So, Dear Sir it is, until otherwise decided by mutual consent.

Joe, I am aware of this Ayesha Jalal school of thought. Remember? I do not entirely disagree that Jinnah was rightfully asking for safeguards (the equality in power sharing is something that still baffles me though).

Reasonable. If this is not a show-stopper, let us get that out of the way before returning to this. A word from the experts, first:

The great merit was that in such a federation 'Pakistan' would have equal status with Hindustan in those two matters over which a rather emasculated all-India centre was to be given authority. There was to be no union legislature and any question at the centre on which the two federal units failed to agree would be referred back to their respective group legislatures. Agreement would not be imposed by central dictate, but by agreement between two federated governments.

'Sole Spokesman-Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan', Cambridge University Press, 1985.

What I disagree with that school of thought is how they assess that a vitriolic sectarian idea, used as a political tool, wouldn't have eventually led to a partition, regardless of whether Jinnah wanted that or not; or how they assess the Congress reaction to that political posturing as something less than acceptable.

Joe, put yourself in the shoes of Congress president. Now how would you have reacted to that above speech? I have quoted the above speech merely to make the point, that it doesn't matter now, how we spin it and call it mere posturing. What matters is how it was read by Congress, right at that point in time.

Fair enough.

Would you join me in calling him an indecisive idiot?

In Simla, he agreed to the May 16 plan; in Bombay, he whirled in his tracks, and on July 10, sank everything without a trace.

Why did he agree?

The answer is: none of the Congress were in ignorance. Cripps was not being the cool but distant Englishman of legend. He was constantly in touch with the two delegations. He was sending out notes, meeting people, even trying risky expedients (not here, some other time, some other place).

Agreed to an extent. See this is one of those times when I feel we are looking in the same direction, but using different binoculars.






Note to self: buy a better crash helmet before meeting Joe

PS: Joe you are way more senior to me to beg my forgiveness. Please don't make me more uncomfortable than you already are by constantly addressing me, 'sir'.

Sir, allow me to inform you that you are an 'ageist'. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, but we shall never surrender, we shall never accept being aged.

Sincerely,

'Joe'

 

[Jade]

@ Joe Shearer

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your response; I understand why you think that this paper supports your view. I never denied that there was no alienation amongst certain segments of the Tamil society, there was; however, I would not call it inclusive. I also never denied that there was a fear amongst certain segments of the Tamil society that their culture is under threat, there was; however, I would certainly not categorize them as minority sentiments.

Let us take some of you points from your previous posts and see how much they agree with the paper by Rajagopalan

“it states clearly what the Dravidian movement was originally, it states clearly the feeling of alienation and domination by a majority”

I did not found anything in the paper that says that the feeling of alienation and domination are universal. The paper was more from a security and state building perspective than from the movement per se. However there are some sentences, which I am quoting below, regarding the inclusiveness of the movement.

“The origins of the Dravidian movement lay in the championing by merchant-princes and landed professionals of South India of an expansion of representation and political access. These men came from every ethnic group found in the Madras Presidency and they were members of land-owning and commercial castes “.

I never denied that there was no alienation; however, my point is the movement is restricted to certain groups and castes.

“In this period, several things happened. First, in the rural areas, a deteriorating relationship between untouchables and the local dominant castes (which happened to be the castes from which the JP drew its membership) led to conversions to Islam, costing the Justice Party its base from among both the untouchables and Muslims”.

This clearly, again, proves that all segments of the society were not represented by JP.

According to Rajagopalan, both are comparable, and she compares them:

”The separatist agendas of the Pakistan Movement and the Dravidian Movement evolved more or less simultaneously, in a post-Bengal Partition political climate of mass mobilization around identity issues.

I did not found anything in the paper that actually compares Pakistan Movement and the Dravidian Movement. The paper was from a peninsular point of view and dealing exclusively with Dravidian Movement. The paper only alludes to the fact that evolution of both movements could have happen at the same time and around identity issues.

That explains why minorities. Look at the list; you will find one exception: the Scheduled Castes. Rajagopalan has let me down here. Or has she?

I never found in the paper Rajagopalan describing the Tamilians as Minorities or Tamil sentiments as minority sentiments.

There is an important conclusion which Rajagopalan has made at end of the paper and that I am quoting below that should clear whether Rajagopalan is even alluding Tamil sentiments as minority sentiments.

"Is it possible that what we are postulating as a particular, regional view is in fact a view that is plausible and possible among people in any peripheral region? After all, the same concerns and conditions might be said to obtain in North-east India or Kashmir or even West Bengal, as we have listed here."

She goes even further saying them as ‘concerns and conditions’ rather than ‘sentiments’

This statement should clear all. If all were minority sentiments, then what is a majority sentiment in India; hence, I would advocate a broader definition of what constitute a majority.


Regards


PS: As I am leaving the country for some official work for a week, I may not be able to reply to you

 

[EjazR]

Hi Joe Sir,

I will try to answer some of these questions you raised and hopfully clarify a few things

Dear Sir,

I am in harmony with most of your post, except for minor divergences and small questions that are still unanswered.

I understood that the Muslim League was largely supported and led by the AMU generation of westernised salary-drawing government servant, or professional (doctor or lawyer). The Mullahs were opposed to this 'salariat' as much as they are opposed to reformers like Asghar Ali Engineer or others.

It is true that it was largely supported by the salariat as Alavi says,but in the 40s there was a new emerging section that came about due to the need to gain more votes. At the same time, there were many "salariat" class muslims who were with the Congress as well.

You must remember that the Indian literacy rate was 9%, for Muslims even lower. Starting with the 1940s, deals were cut with the landlords in Punjab and Bengal to join with ML while at the same time the British paid mullas to do propaganda for the Muslim league. Where else did the slogans like vote for ML if you are Muslim came to fore?

It is a myth that no "mullas" supported Pakistan. There was the JUI and a number of mullas particularly in the NWFP region that were paid mainly by the ML but at times by the British intelligence to preach in favor of Muslim league or against the Congress. The Hindu equivalent like the Hindu Mahasabha were also given the same treatment although they were not quite as successful. A recent article on Daily Times talks about this.
Daily Times - Pakistan and the case for Islam.
In a way although there were some who actually believed in Pakistan, many were just opportunist who knew that in a Pakistan they would have the monopoly over the politics in the name of Islam. In fact, if you read some of their texts they seem to expect a sort of position that the mullas in Iran would get post 1979.

So Muslim League in its final years did use Islam for a political purpose and utilized these pirs and maulvis by paying them for propaganda purposes. There was nothing "Islamic" about it. It was pure politics and politics is dirty. More time is spent on denigrating the opponent than explaining to the electorate what you stand for.

I would request you to clarify the issue with Asghar Ali Engineer as well as I'm not sure what you mean by mullas oppose him. As far as I know , he is well respected among the ulema community although they may have difference of opinion on some aspects of what he says. This is a natural product of discussion and freedom of expression. Just because the maulanas might disagree with what he says would not equate them to say the mullas in Pakistan that froth at the mouth shouting Ahmedis are wajibul qatl(to be killed)

Perhaps it would have been better to do without either the Quran or the Gita. It was this introduction of religion into public affairs that was one of Jinnah's objections to Gandhi's methods, and it resulted in negative consequences for India. We landed up with a version of secularism, not the secularism of the Treaty of Westphalia, but a peculiar warped version wherein we give every religion equal respect. This never happens; either we open functions with a kuthuvilakku being lighted, inaugurate buildings with a bhoomi-puja, and do an Ayutha Puja and smear our work-place with sandalwood paste and vibhuti, or we cosy up to the Muslim community at government level by making concessions to them not of the sort that the community wants, but of the sort that government thinks will please the Mullahs.

After a lifetime of opposing the Sangh Parivar tooth and nail, I find myself defensive when they raise their eyebrows and speak about pseudo-secularism. It is a pseudo-secularism that the Congress, oriented in that direction by Gandhi, brought into India.

It is better to keep religion safely at a distance from public affairs, otherwise we will see unseemly scenes like we are seeing on PTH recently, on the Ahmedi issue most of all.

I maintain that religion should be a personal affair, but that does not mean that the elected parliamentarians can't be devout. That a devout Hindu or Muslim is unfit to be in the PM or a minister. Although I don't want to go into a deep discussion on what secularism is I would like to discuss the "negative" consequence of such a policy you mentioned.

What is the solution of "pseudo-secularism"? The simplest answer is education - but in particular a hindu-muslim dialogue or an inter-faith dialogue at all levels.
The govt. does not need to interfere in say muslim personal law, but as the muslim community gets educated and their women gets empowered, the demand for change will come from within that community that will force the mullas to re-interpret in the light of changing circumstances. I follow these issues closely and I can tell you that in the last 10 years there is a sea change in many archaic issues and this is because of the demand of the Muslim community mostly led by the Maulanas and Mullas themselves without any interference from the GoI. What is urgently needed is to increase the literacy and employment levels among the Muslim community to bring them on par with the national average.
Similarly institutionalized interfaith dialogue at state, district and village levels with reduce suspicion and allow moderate elements in various faiths to champion reforms in their own communities.

Remember enforcing a community to change from outside will never work and will be rejected. The best way to reform a community is from within.

Don't you count Maudoodi among those who have most 'Islamicised' Pakistan? Wasn't he among those who opposed Pakistan, called it Paleedistan, and called Jinnah Kufr-e-Azam?

Is it not true that immediately after partition, he migrated to Pakistan, and started projecting himself and his line of thinking as the key to Pakistan? Is there anything good that came out of him, except for Ghamidi?

It is interesting that you bring up Maududi. I'm not sure if you know but he was not a Mulla per se. He never graduated from any madrassa or Dar-ul-uloom and did not hold a completed degree. Still by some he is referred as a Mulla or Maulana which is not accurate. He studied for two years in a Hyderabad Dar-ul-uloom, fell sick and never returned and turned to journalism as a profession. He was more of a journalist than a mulla.

But most important of all he propagated and in fact laid the foundation of the political Islamic ideology that is the bane of Muslims today. This ideology was in complete opposition to what traditional Islamic scholars - the mullas and the maulanas - stood for. They were against the idea of establishing an Islamic state where sharia laws would be enforced top down while the journalist Maududi proposed the same as a remedy for Muslims.

But as with politics, the political Islamic ideology or infact any political religious ideology will be murky. Maududi then changed his stand and found greater capital in going to Pakistan which he did and started preaching his philosophy there. But even there the traditional scholars gave no impetus to this.

It was only under Ayub Khan, Bhutto and mainly under Zia that JI became what it became today. Infact, it was under Qari Hussain and not Maududi that it became what it did today. A supporter of Jihadi groups from KAshmir to Afghanistan

You may be surprised to know this by Maududi OPPOSED the "Jihad" in Kashmir and said that it was not correct under Islamic light to say that Jihad is valid in Kashmir. Moreover, he was completely against the "covert" nature of this saying that having a treaty with a country and then covertly funding fighters is against the Islamic principles of adhering to treaties and being honest. So what we see here is that even a political Islamic ideologue - who actually believed in what he said- was no advocate of the fanatic terrorists that we see today. IT was only under opportunist politicians like Qazi Hussain that such a turnaround in JI came into being.

So its not the Mullas; but the Pakistani Army and ruling elite that is responsible for making this fringe ideology that was opposed by the traditional Islamic scholars into a "powerful" force as it is today.

Jamaat Islami and Maududi is an interesting topic that deserves its own thread as I have been personally involved with this. Maybe that discussion will be for a different time. IMO there is no commonality with Jamaat Islami on one hand and the traditional Islamic scholars of for example Deoband on the other.

I agree that it may be argued that this line of persecution was pernicious, and that much ground was lost in NWFP and FATA thanks to such silliness. But was it silliness? Aren't the present day fundamentalists in KP the descendants of these earlier conservatives, turned fundamentalist, turned extremist, and allied to the Taliban?

Liberal Pakistanis call both of them, the earlier religious leadership and the present-day Swat-based, Waziristan-based fundamentalists lackeys of India, hirelings of R&W. Why? The hirelings of R&W can be taken with a large double-handful of salt, but why did these people oppose Pakistan tooth and nail? Why did they bring in extreme versions of Shariah whenever they were able to back down the existing administration?

The Jamaat were fundamentalist and backed the military; these people were fundamentalist and landed up backing the Taliban, created in the first place by the military. How does the shade of meaning matter to the ordinary Pakistani getting blown up, or the ordinary Indian getting killed?

The Ahrars were based in Punjab and although predominantly devout muslim had welcomed non-Muslim into their fold. The Red Shirts of NWFP had a number of Hindu and Sikhs. These two examples showed that being devout Muslims did not mean bigotry and hatred to non-muslims. To blame these groups for what happened is gross injustice and in fact outright false.

The Ahrar leadership was jailed and many killed. The same is what happened with the Red Shirts. There was a section of FATA people who did launch a campaign of Pashtoonistan but that was not led by Bacha Khan as he had asked his followers to even boycott the referendum to not create a hostile environment by confronting the pro-ML Pathans.

But the crux of the matter is that Jinnah himself had stoked the political Islamic feelings among a section of the pirs and maulavis by promising sharia law once PAkistan is created. My link from the Daily Times above says how the Pir of Manki had promised to support the Muslim League in the referendum provided Jinnah agreed to establish an "Islamic state". It is this feeling of "betrayal" that the political religious ideologues cite when they say that Pakistan is not a "Islamic state" as promised.

The present day Taliban are a direct outcome of military and intelligence policies of Pakistan. There is no connection with Bacha Khan or the Red Shirts/ Khudai Khtimatagars. If there is an organisation that has any remote connection with them, it is the ANP but the current leadership is just a bunch of politicians and fails to adhere to the lofty principles of Bacha Khan. Although I must say that before the PA went in to do operations it was the ANP that sacrificed the largest number of its workers than any other party or institution in Pakistan. If anything, the ANP is the anti-dote to Taliban and its various forms.


You might also want to learn about Faqir of Ipi who had no connection with Bacha Khan but was brutally suppressed by first the British govt. and then the Pakistani govt. 500lb bombs of high explosives were dropped in the valleys and mountains of Waziristan to quell the rebellion. It is their progeny that provides much of the manpower of the Taliban.

If Bacha Khan was allowed a free hand in politics and FATA was integrated into NWFP, most likely these people would have been educated and well off instead of illiterate and being blown to smithereens by CIA drones on one side and PAF bombing runs on the other.

Which frankly is where the TNT came from. It is a popular mistake to think that it stood for a physical partition of British India. If we go through the history of political reforms and administrative reforms in British India, we soon find that on the one hand, the British were devolving powers to Indians, through the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and Dyarchy in 1919, then through the Government of India Act in 1935; on the other, various minorities were increasingly nervous about the huge central mass, the Hindi-speaking, Hindu bloc in the Gangetic plain, and reacting to it with various degrees of political sophistication.

It is this problem that the whole paper of Shanta Rajagopalan touches upon and analyses so deftly. My only complaint about her paper is that she considers the peninsular states and regions as peripheral, and completely forgets the alienation of the hills and the forests.

The TNT is given as a core argument of WHY the partition was necessary, hence the volumes of literature by muslim scholars as well as academics pre-independence and post to show that this was wrong. Similarly in Pakistan, particularly the Zia era, this was again brandished as the primary reason why partition was not only necessary but mandatory. Gone was the perception that partition was actually a plan B, not only that according to some it was only a bargaining tactic and not something that was to be actually attempted at.

You would be surprised at some of the literature particularly in Urdu written by Mullas and Maulanas on negating the TNT and explaining from the Quran and Hadis why loyalty to this land is actually a part of their religious observance. That even if a Muslim country invades India, according to their religion, Muslims will stand shoulder to shoulder with their non-Muslim country men to defend their land.
Some interesting reading that has been translated to English are here
India Our Land and Its Virtues, part I
India our land & its virtues, part II
Hindu-Muslim unity: a historical speech by a leading Deobandi maulvi | TwoCircles.net

As noted all these were from traditional Islamic scholars- the much maligned mullas and maulanas that some "liberal Pakistanis" that you indicated denigrate. The point being that many salariat muslims as well as the majority of the traditional Islamic scholars aka maulanas felt confident enough to fight for their rights and develop their culture even if there was a hindu majority because they were looking forward to universal adult franchise were the average Indian would decide the policies of the state.

The ML leadership on the other hand post 1940s on the other hand came to be dominated by the landlords and nawabs, the salariat loyals were shunned aside and it was their interests that at the end ML protected. Some say that it was a temporary alliance to achieve Pakistan. But this alliance continues to this day.

Yes there was a legitimate concern of muslims about "Hindu" domination but this was for the muslims in the minority provinces not in the majority ones. Here they would easily dominate a universal franchise legislature and hence the appeal of ML was also much less.

At core, yes, but limited in scope and outlook, and in applicability by its exclusive emphasis on religion as an identifier; there were linguistic, ethnic and caste based identifiers, which came up for attention almost immediately after partition.

Both in India, which rejected religion as a discriminant, and Pakistan, which had it at its core, other factors mentioned, ethnicity and linguistic identity came up as seeking - demanding - urgent attention. The TNT was not complete, it was partial, that is why we do not have a multi-valent model which would help our political decision-making as these issues bubbled up.

This makes sense if we consider the basic paradigm, rather than those seeking to implement it. This was not a Muslim League or an INC problem, it was a TNT problem.

I don't see it as a TNT problem but more with regards to the rights each community has and the safeguards it should posses. By late 1940s, the safeguards provided were more than adequate for muslims. A few anomalies could have been easily negotiated after independence when the new constitution would be promulgated. The main facet that Centre will grant autonomy to the provinces and not interfere has been upheld in India with a few exceptions but has been completely trashed in Pakistan. It was not a TNT problem because had it been so, the provision fo safeguards would have solved it. It was a political power play issue and hence a more sentimental issue.
This is what happened when religion is invoked in politics, logic is the first victim.

Hence what we should be aware of is not devout Hindu or a devout muslim in a position of power. But the use of religion in electoral politics. This should be banned. There should be no party that says
"vote for me if you are a muslim" or "If you want to protect Hindus vote for me". Electoral politics should be based on development of communities and people alone.

Second, many of the fears that you express have come true already, and some more may. For instance, we are now three countries instead of two. How much more of a failure would the May 16 plan have been?

Sincerely,

'Joe'

I think the creation of Bangladesh was a direct blow to the TNT, it was because of this that Zia took up the teacing of TNT as an ideology of Pakistan which was never the case before. Three countries is still much better than what could have happened. British India consisted of 500+ kingdoms across India. The acceptance of Congress for the partition of India was directly linked by the British to weather these kingdoms would be forced to join India or not. In other words if Congress does not agree to the partition of India, these kingdoms would be given the option of Independence and the British crown will not interfere in this. However, if Congress agreed to the partition, the Crown will support and force the Maharjaas, Nawabs and other kings to choose either India or Pakistan which would result in two unified dominions. Just imagine the situation where you had 100s of kingdoms each forming alliances and fighting other kingdoms across the subcontinent. We would have witnessed Europe in the middle ages happening in India.


As I keep saying not understanding the role of the British and the emerging cold war scenario will not give you adequate answers. Yes there was some problems between the Hindu and Muslim communities but these problems that would be negotiated and resolved in a parliamentary debate in one country was turned in a a constitutional and sovereign conflict by the creation of Pakistan as said by Maulana Azad. The resolution of this problem has since then become more difficult.
Wouldn't we be kidding ourselves if we don't see how the India Pakistan conflict is time and again converted into a Hindu-Muslim conflict particularly in Pakistan but also in India by the right wing Hindu groups? Hence what Maulana Azad said in this regard makes sense.

The creation of Pakistan continues to be a strategic achievement of the British and US later. It helped them to be a superpower by defeating the USSR and continued to provide a foothold in S. and Central Asia. I would differentiate between what the PAkistani people want because they are ofcourse certainly opposed to it. But the ruling elite both military and civilian have perpetuated the strong US "relationship".

 

[EjazR]

@toxic_pus

Some interesting points you have raised.
However, like I mentioned earlier, he was qualifying the theory of India is one nation. IMO this was a pointed argument to Ghandiji's insistence to Jinnah that India is a single nation consisting of various communities, while Jinnah would say that no negotiations are possible until unless this core "fact" was accepted.

Hence, he was not insisting like Jinnah or Sarvarkar that Hindus and Muslims are two seperate nations, but rather that there is no need to insist like Gandhi was doing that India consists of just one nation when a section of Muslims led by Jinnah was to insist otherwise. Like I said, it was a dispassionate analysis.

IMO what his book really did was remove the veil of superfluous arguments raised by the ML and Hindu Mahasabha. That is he showed that if ML really cared for muslims--particularly muslims in minority as they calimed--then partition is to their detriment. While on the other hand he showed the duplicity of the HIndu Mahasabha by showing that if as they claimed that they wanted to protect Hindus and were deeply suspicious even hostile of muslims, then partition was in their interests as they would be able to get rid of a vast chunk of muslim electorate as well as majority of the muslims in the army who constituted more than half of the British Indian Army.

The thing is that Ambedkar didn't know that Partition had already been decided by Wavell down to the boundary lines in 1942 itself. That both ML and Hindu Mahasabite youth workers were given a free hand by the British while Congress leaders and workers would be jailed. Still Ambedkar's final chapter on "Must there be Pakistan" is what I believe truly captures his passion in the book and to me was the most forceful of all the chapters and IMO the thinking that he displayed at various levels on this issue.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dear Sir,

I shall wait for your reply, naturally, since this is an interesting line of questioning, provided it continues to have a direct bearing on the issue of Muslim affinity for the TNT.

Your most recent observations have been increasingly difficult to answer, as views converge. It appears now that we both agree that something happened in Madras Presidency, later in Tamil Nadu, but we both have differences of interpretation of what exactly this was.

To summarise, we differ on what constitutes sufficiently different thinking to be seen as different from the rest of society; what constitutes a sufficient cross-section of society to legitimise a social movement; and what constitutes a sufficient mass of people to be recognised as a social movement.

You find that there were not sufficient differences of belief and of sentiment to warrant labelling as 'minority sentiment' what might better be described as 'concerns and conditions'; I have offered several formulations, the final one being 'minority sentiment', but none of them seems acceptable to you.

You find that the differences were in any case confined to specific castes, and therefore the whole mass of Tamilians cannot be said to be party to this concern or condition, or 'minority sentiment', or whatever other descriptions we can find for people organising as a political party, ruling the entire region on a particular political platform, fighting elections, and memorialising the colonial government to give them greater autonomy. From my location, I see a well-defined movement which became something else over time and due to the circumstances which guided its development over that time.

Finally, you find that there was never sufficient numerical support for secession, and I find that I have no corresponding card to play, never having claimed that a sufficient number of adherents existed for secession, only that a minority sentiment existed.

Please go ahead and conclude your trip successfully, and we can review the situation thereafter. Meanwhile, to await your return, I will try to respond to the second point as much as possible in Rajagopalan's words.

Bon voyage, and all good wishes,

'Joe'

@ Joe Shearer

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your response; I understand why you think that this paper supports your view. I never denied that there was no alienation amongst certain segments of the Tamil society, there was; however, I would not call it inclusive. I also never denied that there was a fear amongst certain segments of the Tamil society that their culture is under threat, there was; however, I would certainly not categorize them as minority sentiments.

Let us take some of you points from your previous posts and see how much they agree with the paper by Rajagopalan



I did not found anything in the paper that says that the feeling of alienation and domination are universal. The paper was more from a security and state building perspective than from the movement per se. However there are some sentences, which I am quoting below, regarding the inclusiveness of the movement.

“The origins of the Dravidian movement lay in the championing by merchant-princes and landed professionals of South India of an expansion of representation and political access. These men came from every ethnic group found in the Madras Presidency and they were members of land-owning and commercial castes “.

I never denied that there was no alienation; however, my point is the movement is restricted to certain groups and castes.

“In this period, several things happened. First, in the rural areas, a deteriorating relationship between untouchables and the local dominant castes (which happened to be the castes from which the JP drew its membership) led to conversions to Islam, costing the Justice Party its base from among both the untouchables and Muslims”.

This clearly, again, proves that all segments of the society were not represented by JP.




I did not found anything in the paper that actually compares Pakistan Movement and the Dravidian Movement. The paper was from a peninsular point of view and dealing exclusively with Dravidian Movement. The paper only alludes to the fact that evolution of both movements could have happen at the same time and around identity issues.



I never found in the paper Rajagopalan describing the Tamilians as Minorities or Tamil sentiments as minority sentiments.

There is an important conclusion which Rajagopalan has made at end of the paper and that I am quoting below that should clear whether Rajagopalan is even alluding Tamil sentiments as minority sentiments.

"Is it possible that what we are postulating as a particular, regional view is in fact a view that is plausible and possible among people in any peripheral region? After all, the same concerns and conditions might be said to obtain in North-east India or Kashmir or even West Bengal, as we have listed here."

She goes even further saying them as ‘concerns and conditions’ rather than ‘sentiments’

This statement should clear all. If all were minority sentiments, then what is a majority sentiment in India; hence, I would advocate a broader definition of what constitute a majority.


Regards


PS: As I am leaving the country for some official work for a week, I may not be able to reply to you

 

[toxic_pus]

Reasonable. If this is not a show-stopper, let us get that out of the way before returning to this. A word from the experts, first:

The great merit was that in such a federation 'Pakistan' would have equal status with Hindustan in those two matters over which a rather emasculated all-India centre was to be given authority. There was to be no union legislature and any question at the centre on which the two federal units failed to agree would be referred back to their respective group legislatures. Agreement would not be imposed by central dictate, but by agreement between two federated governments.

'Sole Spokesman-Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan', Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Regardless that you chose to quote the very author, I quibbled against, I, at the risk of sounding airheaded, remain unconvinced. I admit that I do see the ‘great merit’ from Jinnah’s point of view. I, however, fail to see that merit, let alone its greatness, in an inherently weak centre, which could only deal with ‘foreign affairs, defence, and communications’ (connected with defense), with ‘the powers necessary to raise the finances required for the above subjects’ without resorting to taxation, from Congress’ point of view.

Between a union, with weak centre which could subject each ‘federation’ to each other’s blackmail and eventually to potential secession at a future date; and a partition now, creating two unions with at least one having a strong centre, Congress chose the later as the lesser of two evils.

But, lest this veers off to another unnecessary detour, let our disagreements stand as they are.

Fair enough.

Would you join me in calling him an indecisive idiot?

In Simla, he agreed to the May 16 plan; in Bombay, he whirled in his tracks, and on July 10, sank everything without a trace.

Why did he agree?

The answer is: none of the Congress were in ignorance. Cripps was not being the cool but distant Englishman of legend. He was constantly in touch with the two delegations. He was sending out notes, meeting people, even trying risky expedients (not here, some other time, some other place).

Jinnah was neither ‘indecisive’, not was he an ‘idiot’. Of all the protagonists of partition, he was probably the only one who knew what he wanted, and how he wanted. There is no reason to deny that.

But all that is beside the point, that your response is anachronism, once again. Jinnah’s speech, in Madras, 1942 had nothing to do with CMP, which in any case happened 4 odd years later, and hence can’t be explained away by behind-the-scene activities at the time of CMP debate.

I had quoted that speech in response to your assertion that Jinnah had never promoted ‘an idea of separate state’. Actually, it was precisely through promoting ‘an idea of separate state’, that Jinnah was maneuvering into a position of strength from where to call the shots.