1.Srinivasa-Raghavan - writes in his column about some historical facts
which I'm sure not many indians know about it. His article is an eye
opener on this recent controversy whether Jinnah was Secular or not.
His article can be read here
is a little-known fact that the secularists of the Congress, and its
sympathisers in the extended Left parivar, have been trying to
obliterate for the last 60 years.
In the 1937 election, when the
time came for what would be called seat adjustments today, Jawaharlal
Nehru, who was in charge of UP, had the option of tying up with the
Muslim League or the Jamaat-e-Islami. Guess who he chose?
tied up with the League, the course of history may well have been
different. Certainly, when it came to what is called communalism now,
the League at the time was no patch on the Jamaat.
It was only
because Nehru was adamant about not having anything to do with Jinnah,
rather than generally with any overtly Muslim organisation, did Jinnah
pull out all the stops.
The usual ifs and buts of history aside,
did that decision make Nehru communal? Or did it not make his politics
as communal as that of Jinnah?
Why, the Congress still ties up
for elections with Muslim political organisations and yet claims to be
secular. Does that make, say, Mani Shankar Aiyar communal?
it is important to draw this distinction in the case of Jinnah too, we
Indians have never been taught to do so. His politics, that too only
after 1937, may have been based on exploiting communal differences. But
as a man he was as secular as Gandhiji and Nehru.
elementary point has never been understood in India because our
politicians have not told us any differently. The result is that
political postures and personal beliefs are treated identically. This
is responsible for 99 per cent of the confusion about Jinnah.
has the Congress allowed the blame for the partition to be placed where
it properly belongs: British policy. It has, instead, always tried to
project itself as the saviour of Indian Muslims (or should I say Muslim
Indians?) and kept the wedge driven in by the British in place.
result is that instead of the blame being directed outwards, it has
been directed inwards. Is it not ironic that Indians and Pakistanis
hate each other but love the British as though they were completely
blameless? For this, all political parties are responsible.
many Indians have heard of Harcourt Butler? How many have heard of
Principal WAJ Archbold of the Anglo-Oriental College of Aligarh? How
many know about the role played by these two in the formation of the
Muslim League in 1906?
Here are also some facts that the Sangh
Parivar has not heard of, such as the role played by Jinnah in the
Lucknow Pact (1916). It brought the Hindus and Muslims together in a
joint scheme for postwar reforms by conceding Muslims the right to
separate electorates. No less a person than Sarojini Naidu then called
him “the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity”.
How many Indians know Jinnah started out as a Congressman, as private secretary to
Dadabhai Naoroji? How many Indians know that he worked and worked and worked to bring about formulae that would lead to Hindu-Muslim unity? Let me give you a list.
There were his “Proposals” of 1927. In 1928 he begged and pleaded for basic Muslim demands to be included in the Nehru Report. In 1929 he formulated the “Fourteen Points” as minimum Muslim demands for a constitutional settlement.
He participated in the Round Table Conference that started in 1930 in London. Finally, fed up with the Congress, he quit politics altogether. This was not a “communal” man.
Nor has it taught Indians that Jinnah’s political career had two phases here, one before 1931 and the other after 1935. Few Indians know that Jinnah retired from politics in 1931 and went off to England to practise law.
Fewer still know why he came back at the end of 1934 after Liaquat Ali pleaded with him to return to lead the League in the elections that were to follow the passing of the Government of India Act in 1935.
What brought him back was not the fear that the Congress would defeat everything in
siht. It was the fear that the liberal Muslim political opinion in
India would go unheard. The Muslim League at that time was actually the
least “communal” of the Muslim political outfits.
It was notuntil 1940 that Jinnah asked for Pakistan. And that was a result of Congress policies over ministry formation in UP, where it refused to
take League ministers unless the League was dissolved.
It is worth noting in this context that the Congress tried to split theLeague when Nehru sought to entice some major UP Leaguers by offering
them ministerships! But he had a pre-condition: they must quit the
League and denounce it. None did.
The import of all this was notlost on Jinnah. Even so, as Ayesha Jalal, the US-based Pakistanihistorian, has asked: when he demanded Pakistan, did he really want a
theocratic state, or was he just using it as a bargaining chip to get the Muslims a better political deal?
Nor is the class dimensionof the Hindu-Muslim antagonisms taught properly. How many Indians knowthat Muslim separatism was fuelled largely by the big zamindars of Punjab, Bengal, and UP?
How many know that they determined toget a separate country only when the Congress turned explicitly“socialist” at the behest of Nehru after the Nowgong Congress of 197,when land reform became an integral part of the programme?
Hathey known that land reform would stop in India in 1950, they may not
have asked for a separate country. How many know that they used Jinnah
as an interlocutor with the British?
Does any of this make Jinnah communal?
Letme end by giving another little-known fact, one that the Congress has
been at pains to downplay. How many Indians know that when the time
came to choose a Prime Minister in the interim government of 1946, out
of the 20 DPCC members who voted, 19 voted for Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
and that it was only after Gandhiji asked him to stand down in favour
of Nehru that the latter became Prime Minister? But that is another
The short point is that Jinnah was no more communal than
Nehru or Gandhiji was. He became an instrument of forces that he
thought he could control but could not eventually. But that is not so
unusual, is it?
2.You are twisting historical facts to show that Bengali Hindus objected partition of Bengal to maintain their supremacy over Muslims. As I have stated in “Discussion” against chapter “War of independence”, British rule introduced their own system of education in Bengal since middle of eighteenth century, i.e. after battle of Pallesy. This education system, whose original purpose was to create clerical staff or writers for British administration in India, in the process, exposed it’s students to revolutionary developments of Germany, England and France. This imparted nationalistic feeling in them and made them bold enough to organise movement against imperial British rule. They started dreaming to become master of own destiny by getting independence from British Rule. British understood that their education system had given birth to a Frankestine. But, there was no way for them to go back, as knowledge is not a thing, which the giver can take back at it’s own will. In the mean time, movement for independence turned towards anarchism. But, most of the Bengali Muslims remained unaware of these developments in own land, due to lack of interest in education. Some of the prominent Muslim leaders did blunder by advising Muslims to remain away from politics, till they know it’s tricks. But, they did nothing to train Muslim community to enter politics. They went on provoking Islamic fundamentalism, because, they were afraid that their own charisma as leader would vanish if their followers get enlightened. Anyway, British also understood it. To encourage division between Hindu and Muslims, they conferred knighthood on Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, who always advocated in favour of friendship with British and was originator of two nation’s theory. British rule created Indian National Congress to give a platform to Indian people to let out frustration, so that entrapped frustration does not lead to revolution. But, British kept Muslim community out of Indian National Congress by branding it as shelter of Hindu fundamentalists with the help of some Muslim leaders of that time. It is really surprising why learned people like Sir, Syed could not see through British politics. Bengali Hindus in the mean time became ready to make supreme sacrifice for the nation. Even two Hindu Bengali girls took the risk of assassinating a British District Collector in East Bengal. Bomb was thrown on District collector of Midnapur by two Hindu Bengali boys. They loved to go to gallows for national cause. So, British decided to partition Bengal to break backbone of nationalistic movement. In fact, most of the Muslims at that time in East Bengal were illiterate and used to feel happy by living a quite life earning daily breads by hard toil. They were indifferent to movement for independence, because they looked at it as something alien to their life style. It was same to illiterate Bengali Hindus also. Since, number of educated Bengali Hindus at that time in Bengal was many times more than that of Bengali Muslims, Bengali Hindus had to take the burden of spear heading the movement. Hence, partition of Bengal was proposed by British to curb nationalistic movement by making Bengali Hindus minority in certain locations, so that they could be socially and economically ruined. It was never out of any sympathy for Muslim community. Sanjoy Ghose, Kolkata
3.What happens if Pakistan takes over Kashmir. They would drive out all Kashmiri Hindus or massacre them triggering hindus in India. The obvious retaliation would be on Indian Muslims. What harm did Indian muslims do to Pakistani muslims? Thay took our support till they got separate state. They want Kashmir but not Indian Muslims. Pakistan is always at loggerheads with India. By taking over Kashmir howmany muslims can you save(believe you are saving them!)? Why you have no sympathy to Indian Muslims. If Pakistan makes friendship with India, Indian Muslims would be at very comfortable stage. What happened to your concern to South asia muslims? Only Kashmir falls under south asia. Can't you at least shut up and allow us to live in peace in India?
4.From your presentation, it appears as if then Indian leadership intervened in Kashmir, while helpless Pakistan leadership looked on. May I ask how could Pathan tribesmen could infiltrate in kingdom of Maharaja Hari Singh from Pakistan side without concurrence of then Pakistan leadership? If they say that they had no control over Pathan tribesmen, does not it sound similar to what King Dahir told to then Hajjaj bin Yousaf, governor of the Eastern Provinces during reign of the great Umayyad Caliph Walid bin Abdul Malik, on looting of the eight-ships caravan by Sindhi Pirates near seaport of Daibul on voyage from Ceylon to Baghdad? In reprisal Muhammad Bin Qasim campaigned against Sind and initiated advent of Islam on Indian Subcontinent. If that was not wrong on part of Umayyad Caliph Walid bin Abdul Malik, what is wrong on part of then Indian leadership to send army to defend kingdom of Maharaja Hari Singh, on his request, from onslaught of Pathan tribesmen?
5.It was the OIC meeting. Sultan Qaboos of Oman was in chair. Pakistan’s PM made a scathing attack on India and request approval of its inclusion in the final declaration.
Since it could be done only by consensus, everybody looked to see who dissented. Yes, the chair and PLO, being friends of India remained neutral. The lone voice of dissent came from none other than the ruler of Iraq. Libya’s Gaddafi stood up and encouraged Hussein to relent. Instead, the Iraqi made a very sentimental speech,”Remember, when our forefathers didn’t have oil and lived in tents in the desert, it was Al Hind (India) that helped us by selling their goods to be sold to Europeans. So even if you forget them, I won’t”. A happy Sultan Qaboos jumped in and declared that, “Since our brother feels strongly for his friends in Al Hind, let us not press the issue this time.”
6. The Hindus remained under double jeopardy - from their not only being non-Muslim but also sharing the religion with the Indian majority. During times of tensions with India - as over Kargil during 1999 - they became even more vulnerable. The plight of the so-called scheduled castes adds a third jeopardy of extreme poverty. A minority member of the parliament and parliament secretary, Kishen Bheel, once told the National Assembly that the Hindus were being looted wherever they were: in Sindh it was generally the dacoits, elsewhere the police. If the government wanted to drive out Hindus, he said, it should say so. ·
Violations against temples In Karachi, a tenant of a part of the 200-year-old Shri Punch Mukhi Hanuman Mandir, Ghulam Rasool, got the piece leased in his name with his name with the connivance of some KMC officials, and then started construction on it. The pujari (priest) of the temple petitioned the court which ordered an enquiry. In Mirpur, a fire was started in Darbar Guru Nanak Saheb Mandir in Goth Garhi Chakar. The roof was burnt down, religious literature was gutted Hindus put all shutters down and called off Holi celebrations.
In Lahore the official auqaf department decided to convert Krishna mandir on Ravi Poad into a dispensary.(…) When in reaction to the destuction of the Babri Masjid in India in 1992, a large number of Hindu temples in Pakistan were sacked, the government had promised to reconstruct and restore them. The historic Prahlad Temple in Multan, amongst many others, still remain in debris.
Pg 127 ·
Violence against Hindus rarely made even local newspaper headlines. Few of a dozen or so incidents that occurred in the space of one-and-a-half months in July and August did. On July 17, dacoits hijacked a bus with 56 passengers in the Guddu police stations jurisdiction. A ransom was only demanded for the release of the abducted Hindus - a price of one million rupees was paid by their family for their release.
On July 27th Nikal Chand, 18, assistant at a medical store in Umerkot was kidnapped and killed. Two days laterin Khaan city in Mirpurkhas a boy called Gagan Mingwar was raped by the factory owner Latif Ramgar and then killed. Another boy, Ranjhan Oad was held in Khaanji or Nijj Jail, a private jail of Haveli Arisar near Chhor in Umerkot. He was released when the SDM raided the place on July 28th.
On July 29th, Bhiman Das Eidanman, 28, was murdered in Kandhkot, reportedly by dacoits. Mashau Kolhi, 16, was raped before and after her marriage by her zamindar and kamdar in Deh 255, village Chonro Bhurgri near Digri. They also made pictures and video cassettes of her without dress, and had her husband and father-in-law arrested on false charges of possessing hashish.
Daanu Weenjholi was robbed of all valuables in his home and then killed by dacoits who posed as policemen, in Ghotki village in Nagar Parkar, on August 8. Ratri and her pregnant daughter- in- law were raped in Qadir Bux Talpur village in Matli in Badin in August 12th. Three armed men had entered the house and tied up the male members.
Chanu Wishram, a farmer boy, was kidnapped by armed men of a Digri feudal. On August 26th Pushpa, 45, a widow, was robbed and murdered in her house in Naudero. Two days later, Teekarn Das, a business man, was kidnapped for ransom near Kandhra, in Sukkur. Raju, an intermediate student kidnapped with four others while worshipping in a Mandir in Pir-jo-Goth, was killed for the demanded ransom not being paid for him. Jaivan, 10, was kidnapped, raped and killed in Kunri. Early in August minority MPA from Sukkur, Mehru Mal Jagwani, said that in addition to these four Hindus picked up from Pir-jo-Goth, four months earlier, three Hindus had been abducted from each of Kashmore and Sanghar. They were all missing and fear had gripped all Hindus. Three of them were later reported to have been released on a ransom of Rs, 1 million.
There were no reports of serious pursuit of such cases by the police or of any redress provided to the victims.
Pg 128 ·
The Kargil crisis fuelled anti-Hindu suspicions. A word was once spread that Indian agents were looses in the border areas of fairly high minority-concentration, such as Bahawalpur and Rahimyar Khan.
In July, four Hindus of Sindh, Sajan, Qaisariya, Rura Ram and Gekha, came to Islamabad to obtain visas for India and stayed in a temple. The CIA rounded them from there claiming suspicion of their being spies. After prolonged interrogation, and after extorting heavy bribes, it released them late in the night. Earlier in the same month, (Pakistani) Intelligence services were reported from Dharki to have sent a report claiming 'anti-state activities' relating to Kargil against 200 Hindus of Sukkur and 28 of Gotkhi. Including several businessmen.
A constitutional petition was filed in the Supreme High Court against Hindu judge, Justice Rana Bhagwandas, arguing that a non-Muslim could not be a member of superior judiciary in an Islamic republic. The petition was referred to a full bench. The judgemnet was still reserves wgen the judge, who was in fact next in line to be the chief justice of the Supreme High Court, was transferred to the Supreme Court.
· Kavita, daughter of a cloth mercahnt of Jacobabad, Ghanumaf, was kidnapped, converted, then married to a Muslim, Jusuf Rajput. She was brought out in a procession to the court and made to read out a statement that she was in love with Yusuf and had converted to his faith. There was no effort by the court to ascertain her independent will, or circumstances of her initial abduction.
"Triumph of love," chanted an ecstatic crowd showering rose petals on the couple. "Where was this devotion to love just four or five months ago," asked Hindu Dr. Heera Lal Lohano, an anguished but devout Pakistani citizen, "when a Muslim girl, Shabana Mahar, had fallen in love with a final year Hindu MBBS student of Chandka Medical College, Pawan Kumar. The boy and girl were both killed (…) and disappeared without a trace.
7. My most horrifying moment was on Remembrance Day (November 11, 1953) at Leconfield. We had a parade with us foreign students relegated as supernumeraries to the back of the dais of Gp Capt Mermagen. The shock came when after the march in review order, the Church of England (Protestant) priest was to read the Lord’s Prayer. The officer commanding the parade asked Roman Catholics and Jews to fall out! We three Indians were aghast and glanced at each other surreptitiously. It was just not done in our air force or any other Indian service.
People now-a-days talk in a very derogatory manner about our caste system. But I was in the St Andrews High School Gorakhpur for three years. All students recited the Lord’s Prayer at every morning assembly without a single person of any religion or caste raising a voice against it. We also studied the New Testament in English and Hindi without corrupting our own faiths. I still think that this falling out on thye basis of religion was just madness. Right now France and to an extent Britain are having lots of trouble accepting the Muslim code of dress or other practices. This encourages fundamentalists to be even more awkward and run off to the courts. You will note that our amorphous faith Hinduism is not as rabid. I attended this year’s (2005) Remembrance Day at Bangalore’s famous St Mark’s Cathedral. And I had no problem with it, though I could not keep up with some of the hymns.
You said Gandhi took inspiration from the Gita. The central message of Gita is to resist evil and act in the path of Dharma. How does this square with the way Gandhi dealt with Hitler.
In his rather infamous letter to Churchill, Gandhi asked him to drop all arms, not to fight and accept the Nazi treatment(not the exact words but the sentiments are spot on). He wanted him to follow the path of ahimsa, which everyone knew would have led to the extinction of UK. Gandhi said such display of ahimsa would "melt" the heart of Hitler and the war would end. Which made Aurobindo quip" It would require a furnace".
The fact is Gandhi spoke a lot of Gita(and Bible and Quran) but never understood any of those books. If he had, he would not have have written the silly letter he wrote to Churchill. He had a few flawed ideas and stuck with them , no matter what. That led him to make mistake after mistake which proved disastrous for India in the end.
8.The writer asks why muslims are in conflict with everyone in all parts of the world. And he answers himself.
Its because muslims think of themselves as the chosen people , are a closed community and regard all the rest as infidels. Quite absurd but its true. Just read Dawn and Pakistan Link, and you will get the message ie Islam is the best religion providing a kit to solve all lives problems..How it is superior to all others and so on. Any insult to Islam means thousands of muslims are willing to go into a state of madness, and threaten to kill the guilty ones .
Faruki never answers any questions raised by me, but starts raveing and ranting. Jinnah himself suggested that since hindus and muslims were so different it was better to devide the country. Further on he said that he would have India devided or India destroyed. All muslims in India supported him- True or false. Today Kashmiri muslims have done the same thing. True or false.Muslims in Thailand, Phillipines, Sri Lanka, China want to form independent homelands, and the muslims in India would also want the same ,if there was a realistic option.
Faruki you fail to adress these questions.
Was Jinnah right in asking for Pakistan, or did he have a neanderthal mind. Write this in any Pakistani or muslim paper and you will get a Fatwa asking for your head.
And why considering your attitudes do you want to live in a multicultural society when you are obviously obsessed by your faith.
9. GF>>Why do American Jews have Bnai Brith and American Jewish Congress to constantly guard and advance their interests.
American Jews/Muslims don't have separate laws like Talaq, Multiple Marriage, Sharia. One common Civil law is enforced by everybody. Neither they force govt to spend Billions of Dollars on establishing Madrassas/religious Schools on tax Payers money. They have every rights to establish that, but from their own pocket. US Govt don't spend billions of Dollars on funding Haj Pilgrimage. US Govt doesn't provide separate laws for a particular state because people's religious faith, like we have in J&K.
We have all these crap in the name of Secularism, which itself was forced into constitution during Emergency period. Bonus is: In India, pseduo Sec parties rally Muslims and Xtians regiously for grabbing their vote. Its unimaginable, that 15% minority will ever be able to hostage the national Govts in US, like they are in India.
US Govt doesn;t nationalise their Churches like Hindu temples in India. The huge money from Hindu temples is given to Muslims/Xtians to upkeep their religious places, and furthering their religious cause:)- Quite extra-ordinary indeed!
Lastly, US mainstream press doesn't lie, spin the news like in India. US press is balanced, and provide both sides of the picture. here in India, one side is projected. Often the otherside is spinned to the opposite.
If a Train compartment with full of people, children is to be burnt, stoned so nobody can come out from that stopped train, for alleged misbehviour of few guys, I think its extreme justification of Violence. Remember the Mou incident? An important Hindu religious procession was objected by local Muslims, and some Hindus accepted to postpone it. Some hardliners didn't agree to the postponement, and took it out the next day. Thus the riot started. So, its fault of these Hindu hardlines. Why they took it out when Muslims objected!
Question is not raised why Muslims objected to a traditional religious procession taken out every year. Question is raised: Why hardliners didn't agree to Muslims demand.
This is not a balanced argument, and is skewed in favor of minorities. It never happens anywhere in the world. This absurdity, that people will have to accept whatever Muslims are asking/demanding -- is going to be very costly for the society.