Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 26 Aug 2009 15:07

Gurulog: A question, important in my opinion; does anybody know when JS started writing this book?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 26 Aug 2009 15:51

I think JS was keen to be the PM. Keen to be seen 'secularish' like ABV. LKA is over 80. NM and Rajnath Singh have an impression being on the extreme side/ tilts to the RSS side. Considering that i feel he assumed his book would give legitimacy to him as a leader with some standing and understanding on some of India's very core issues. The expulsion caught him totally offguard, and those who watched him in the press conference knew his hurt was very deep. Whatever the merits of the book, i do appreciate his effort in penning down an analysis. Even without readin it there's a major discussion been engendered in the process. For many it would be the first time exposure to discssions on that era. So happy exposure.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 26 Aug 2009 16:05

SwamyG wrote:Gurulog: A question, important in my opinion; does anybody know when JS started writing this book?

Yes, just after leaving office in 2004, and the seed of writing the book was when he had gone to Pakistan first 1999 (before Kargil)

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 Aug 2009 18:43

self-deleted.. OT

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 26 Aug 2009 19:37

Jaswant’s expulsion an exercise in thought control ---- B. G. Varghese.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 26 Aug 2009 19:50

RamaY: Just one disagreement with your post. Al-Braman's (i like that) observation is not derogatory - because being associated with Hindutva is not wrong per se though that is what has come to become now. It was just a wrong attribution to BRF - IMVHO. In the pre-election days some of us BJP sympathisers were just very vocal with our opinions and wishes. The Congress supporters were not that active.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 26 Aug 2009 20:13

RamaY wrote:RayC-ji,

The million $ question you did not answer is why should someone be treated differently in Bharat?

What specialty Indian Muslims, Kashmiris, and NE Indians have that others do not? Why should one “try to understand the culture and history” when it comes to these special cases and why is one so comfortable blaming anything that represents Hindu Majority (I am not talking about me here, I am talking about the people like BT).

You being an ex-servicemen were having issues calling Indian society “Bharatiya Society”. You were quick to jump the gun on BT but were trying to find all the excuses to study and understand JK/NE issues. On one hand we complain that Musharraf was allowed to visit Agra and give speeches to Indian Media and politicians, on the other hand we blame SS/BT for digging the cricket pitch to cancel a Indo-Pak cricket match. That is the intellectual dishonesty and ideological slavery I was referring to

On some other thread, BR Admins were pushing and threatening someone who made generalized statement about Indian Muslims. But the same admins (not individuals) were giving excuses when some RMalohtra(?) made derogatory comments about Hindus. Why this double standard? Why don’t we show such bravado against people like Al-BRaman when they make derogatory comments about BR? Instead we delete all the threads that collected lot of news, thoughts and ideas. Can any admin bring back the discussion we had on Kandhamal issue or Mumbai Terror attacks? Does it mean the Admin/Moderator who created those threads to start with and allowed the discussion to happen for months made a wrong judgment? If Al-BRaman’s observation is correct then why don’t we punish those Admins/Moderators who create threads like “Islam at cross roads” and allow such discussions to happen for months.

Please note that I am not discussing on one BRaman or one RayC here, I am discussing the thought process.

1. Why should the NE people and Kashmiris be treated differently?

No, they should not be. They only wish that they are treated as Indians and not as some specimen in the Zoo.

2. Why should one try to understand the culture and history of these people?

Because you treat them as wax display at Madame Tassuade's

If you are a BT fan, so be it. Such idiots as Bal Tackere (note I don’t use abbreviations or euphemism and am quite transparent and not embarrassed to call a spade a spade). Balu is dividing society!

As far as the Mods and Admins wanting a level playing ground, and not deride non Hindus, is th at wrong? I am not aware that the BRF is funded by the RSS, Since you know more than me, tell me. If so, I quit!

There is no double standard on this forum! I think it is quite fair.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 Aug 2009 21:06

Self Deleted... OT

hasmukh · Post by **hasmukh** » 26 Aug 2009 22:24

1. Why should the NE people and Kashmiris be treated differently?

No, they should not be. Kashmiri Muslims are parasites who live off Indian charity and chant long live Pakistan, They do not want to be treated as Indians , Go and have a good talk with them if ever opportunity arises, whereas they get highest amount of development aid in comparison to other states , at the most liberals among them will tell you that they want nothing to do with India or Pakistan.

The same goes with quite a few NE people though not all of them and many of there grievances are indeed genuine and should be looked into, and more Financial and Social efforts should be made to bring them into mainstream.

If you are a BT fan, so be it. Such idiots as Bal Tackere (note I don’t use abbreviations or euphemism and am quite transparent and not embarrassed to call a spade a spade).

BT is the only one who protected Hindus during riots in 90's and asked his musclemen to prevent any harm to sikh community during 1984 riots about which khushwant singh has written about. Yes, he has his share of faults like kicking Biharis but speaking truth about Islam and standing up to traitors and demanding their execution is something that makes him true leader especially when you compare him to Non resident Italian's Babalog and Manmohini Singh.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 Aug 2009 22:27

Self Deleted... OT

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 26 Aug 2009 22:29

Guys dont take the thread OT. RayC you are a mod for gods sake, please do help in keeping the discussion on topic.

What does BT has to do about JS book -- please lets not derail every thread with same discussions.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 26 Aug 2009 22:31

There is no double standard on this forum! I think it is quite fair.

I perceive the admins go through a lot of trouble to keep this place the place it is now. I imagine it is no easy task. I see enough care is taken to ensure the minorities do not get into takleef. In the attempts to analyse other religions, Hinduism goes through its share of scrutiny too here. Fine and dandy; but I notice that some of your lines are almost hindu-baiting. I would be reading a good post of yours, and suddenly out of the blue you will post a bait. Maybe that is because this forum is filled with Hindus

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Aug 2009 23:01

The decision to prune the archives was made to save the storage space. Ample time was given to archive the threads by members.

The need to create a GD Forum accessible for members and not causal bots was taken for it is s a privilege to partake of the discussions on this Forum and shouldn't be available for casual lurkers who misquote and potentially taint the Forum's credentials. We want to be for all Indians and not any particluar group as was mispercieved by influential lurkers.

Potshot at Al-BRaman:

BTW its no wonder that India's external agency is called by its acronym for its members are mere collectors and not assessors which requires processing or cooking.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 26 Aug 2009 23:55

Can I just ask a question about that disk pruning, though? (I'll be happy to move post to appropriate place). There is perfect logic in pruning threads by content. That stands on its own two feet as an argument. Not sure how pruning due to size is motivated, however.

Let's assume it takes 200KB/page of raw text or 1MB per 5 pages or 20MB/thread of 100 pages. That would be a 100, 100-page threads for 2GB and 100,000 100-page threads for 2TB. If we assume a RAID system and have 2 x2 i.e. 4TB of disk, that is approx. $400.

If on average there is one new thread every day and reach 100 pages, that's 365, 100 page threads per year. So, with 4TB, one can go on for 273 years.

May I propose a donation from people so that we can have six 2TB disks in a raid configuration of 6TB and forged about disk problems?

In a few years, 6 TB can be stuck in a pen drive. Then, we can have people submit pictures, audio and video on disk, rather than just as links...

In a few more, we will be wiring 60TB of nano material to one's brain via tha max-chip fx1000 made in sahranpur, up.

JMT
S
PS: It is an eminently good idea for members to do "backups" too, same logic holds.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 27 Aug 2009 02:37

Xposted from the Partition dhaga

BijuShet wrote:Posted in Full from a TSP newspaper Opinion article by Ahmed Quraishi who works for Geo TV. No Comments.
'Pak-nationalism'
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Ahmed Quraishi

While we should thank India's former foreign minister for his courage in praising Mr Jinnah, we should stop behaving as if we are seeking validation and vindication. Mr Jaswant Singh's book is not a Pakistani victory. It is a sincere attempt by an Indian citizen to probe what is commonly known as partition, which itself is based on the false notion that a sovereign India was wrongly divided. For us in Pakistan, we should realise that our independence – and not "partition" – is steeped in both modern and old histories and requires no explanation.

Pakistani intellectuals continue to be afflicted with low self-esteem that prevents them from fashioning an interpretation of history supportive of the idea of Pakistani nationalism. In this, our intellectuals are far behind the thinkers in Israel, for example, who achieved the impossible by reviving a 2,000-year-old dead language to gel a nation of diverse peoples.

Our politicians and thinkers failed to make something out of Pakistan in the past six decades mainly because of the lack of pride that comes from a sense of being, a sense of destiny, a sense of history. This discussion is important because we have seen brazen attempts during the last two years, especially in the US media, to promote the idea of Pakistan's balkanisation.

Finding a nationalistic motivation, a sort of 'Pak-nationalism' -- is essential.

The first thing Pakistanis need to know is that Pakistan was destined to happen. Mr Jinnah made it happen through his sheer brilliance because he was there. But Pakistan was going to happen anyway, in some shape or form and at an opportune time, because of the force of history. Pakistan was not a historical coincidence that the common historical version suggests and which Mr Singh reinforced. There is no coincidence in the fact that a quarter of a century before Quaid-e-Azam's rise, a poet who wore a Turkish tarboosh (hat) and wrote Persian poetry predicted such a country. Pakistan's rise came exactly 90 years after the formal fall of the Mughal Empire, Pakistan's predecessor, which was the only India the world had known for centuries. Except for that 90-year-long gap, Pakistan had existed in several shapes and forms, and for at least ten centuries.

Our Indian friends have the right to debate the question of India's supposed division. But today's India, born in 1947, was never divided or partitioned. It is a historical fallacy to think that Pakistan was ever part of any united and sovereign Indian state. The only thing that was divided in 1947 was a British colony that, in turn, was based on a defunct Muslim empire. The Indian grievance about the "partition" that is at the core of Indian animosity toward Pakistan is without base.

What is more surprising is how Pakistan's intellectuals were drawn by Mr Singh's book to conclude that Pakistan's founding father was an "Indian nationalist" who did not want Pakistan as a first choice. This is incorrect, because it negates the force of history that favoured Pakistan. Tens of millions of people wanted to be future Pakistani citizens before the country even existed. The leadership of Mr Jinnah was an instrument, not the cause.

Sixty-two years later, Pakistanis shouldn't be discussing details. We know there was a Pakistan independence movement. We know it was anchored in history. We know that the fourth and fifth generations of today's Pakistanis are more integrated than ever.

This is the reality of Mr Jinnah's 'Pak-nationalism'. And this is the only thing that matters.

The writer works for Geo TV. Email: aq@ahmedquraishi.com

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 27 Aug 2009 09:02

hasmukh wrote:1. Why should the NE people and Kashmiris be treated differently?

No, they should not be. Kashmiri Muslims are parasites who live off Indian charity and chant long live Pakistan, They do not want to be treated as Indians , Go and have a good talk with them if ever opportunity arises, whereas they get highest amount of development aid in comparison to other states , at the most liberals among them will tell you that they want nothing to do with India or Pakistan.

One should not shoot oneself in the foot by generalizing. Kashmiri Muslims did vote in large numbers, despite violent boycott campaign by separatists and Pakis. So there are many strands in the narrative, which should not be lost sight of.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 27 Aug 2009 09:11

ramana wrote: Potshot at Al-BRaman:

BTW its no wonder that India's external agency is called by its acronym for its members are mere collectors and not assessors which requires processing or cooking.

Spot on. If you see his articles they are just bullet points of data collected on some incident, group, etc. There is usually no analysis at all. Maybe the analysis cannot be open sourced but then there is not much point in reading his articles for lay readers who won't be able to analyze.

IMHO, Al-BRaman was just currying favour with madam's party since they came back to power. Identifying BR as a Hindutva forum looked to me as if it was done with malafide intent.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 27 Aug 2009 09:13

SwamyG wrote:
There is no double standard on this forum! I think it is quite fair.
I perceive the admins go through a lot of trouble to keep this place the place it is now. I imagine it is no easy task. I see enough care is taken to ensure the minorities do not get into takleef. In the attempts to analyse other religions, Hinduism goes through its share of scrutiny too here. Fine and dandy; but I notice that some of your lines are almost hindu-baiting. I would be reading a good post of yours, and suddenly out of the blue you will post a bait. Maybe that is because this forum is filled with Hindus

"Some" of his lines?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 27 Aug 2009 12:46

RamaY wrote:RayC-ji,

The million $ question you did not answer is why should someone be treated differently in Bharat?

What specialty Indian Muslims, Kashmiris, and NE Indians have that others do not? Why should one “try to understand the culture and history” when it comes to these special cases and why is one so comfortable blaming anything that represents Hindu Majority (I am not talking about me here, I am talking about the people like BT).

You being an ex-servicemen were having issues calling Indian society “Bharatiya Society”. You were quick to jump the gun on BT but were trying to find all the excuses to study and understand JK/NE issues. On one hand we complain that Musharraf was allowed to visit Agra and give speeches to Indian Media and politicians, on the other hand we blame SS/BT for digging the cricket pitch to cancel a Indo-Pak cricket match. That is the intellectual dishonesty and ideological slavery I was referring to

On some other thread, BR Admins were pushing and threatening someone who made generalized statement about Indian Muslims. But the same admins (not individuals) were giving excuses when some RMalohtra(?) made derogatory comments about Hindus. Why this double standard? Why don’t we show such bravado against people like Al-BRaman when they make derogatory comments about BR? Instead we delete all the threads that collected lot of news, thoughts and ideas. Can any admin bring back the discussion we had on Kandhamal issue or Mumbai Terror attacks? Does it mean the Admin/Moderator who created those threads to start with and allowed the discussion to happen for months made a wrong judgment? If Al-BRaman’s observation is correct then why don’t we punish those Admins/Moderators who create threads like “Islam at cross roads” and allow such discussions to happen for months.

Please note that I am not discussing on one BRaman or one RayC here, I am discussing the thought process.

You are right.

No one is special. The circumstances by stupid governance make them special!

Would it warm the cockles of your heart if we lose them?

You have not any issue on that wild an stupid Bal Tahckeray if BT means that.

If Mumbai is for Maharastrians, then why is Jharkhand not only for the tribal emancipation and progress.?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 27 Aug 2009 12:50

Sanku wrote:Guys dont take the thread OT. RayC you are a mod for gods sake, please do help in keeping the discussion on topic.

What does BT has to do about JS book -- please lets not derail every thread with same discussions.

Wake up!

Helps you Sanku?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Aug 2009 15:07

Dumbkoff Quereshi! There was never a "Pakistan" in history on the sub-continent,only Moghul "India"! Even the Moghuls considered themselves Indians,not Mongols or Persians or whatever,despite their ancestry.So what did it matter what religion they practised? Their capitals were in India not in the steppes of Mongolia,the mountains of Afghanistan or in Persian water gardens! In actual fact,"India" has subjugated every invader that stepped into its land! Whether it was the Moghuls/Muslim invaders,the British or Portugese,once they entered our land,they never wanted to leave it.

The Bangladeshis know well that they are Bengalis,but the poor,poor, Pakis,they are desperately trying to find an identity for themselves,not knowing whether they are Arabs,Turks,(never Shiite Iranians/Persians!),Afghans,Central Asians,even perhaps descendants of Alexander's Greeks? To most Pakis,they are either Punjabis,Sindhis,Mohajirs,Baluchs,Pathans, or whatever tribe they are part of,more than a Pakistani! They have indeed forgotten Jinnah's vision of their state,forgotten or wish to forget that they in fact are actually culturally Indians,are geographically part of the Indian sub-continent,part of its religious and cultural heritage of thousands of years.Forswearing their heritage and parentage,and looking for a label in the garbage dump of their recent history,a "Pakistani" today could only be described as a mongrel or terrorist or another word used affectionately in the land of Oz,but not in genteel society!

archan · Post by **archan** » 27 Aug 2009 18:12

Sanku wrote:Guys dont take the thread OT.
.......... please lets not derail every thread with same discussions.

You mean our esteemed members are not interested in speaking their "point of view" about how Isalm is evil and Hindutva is great? what a surprise..

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 27 Aug 2009 18:41

All OT posts edited including mine in reply!

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 28 Aug 2009 04:18

Defence, foreign affairs and communications...

No disrespect to Maulana Azad intended, but this is rather misleading. In Jinnah's unified India (unified on a trial basis only, with the option of creating Pakistan 10 years later) the center that ran defence, foreign affairs and communications would have no fund-raising authority; it would depend on the constituent groups deciding to grant money. It is rather obvious that was an unworkable idea.

The Americans tried this briefly after their war of revolution. It didn't work. They came back and tried again and wrote the current constitution.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 28 Aug 2009 08:37

Ramana: The decision to prune the archives was made to save the storage space. Ample time was given to archive the threads by members.

Samuel: Can I just ask a question about that disk pruning, though? (I'll be happy to move post to appropriate place). There is perfect logic in pruning threads by content. That stands on its own two feet as an argument. Not sure how pruning due to size is motivated, however. Let's assume it takes 200KB/page of raw text or 1MB per 5 pages or 20MB/thread of 100 pages. That would be a 100, 100-page threads for 2GB and 100,000 100-page threads for 2TB. If we assume a RAID system and have 2 x2 i.e. 4TB of disk, that is approx. $400. If on average there is one new thread every day and reach 100 pages, that's 365, 100 page threads per year. So, with 4TB, one can go on for 273 years. May I propose a donation from people so that we can have six 2TB disks in a raid configuration of 6TB and forged about disk problems?

Following is the disk BR admins use

http://popular-pics.com/Photo?photoId=422

So thread pruning is necessary.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Aug 2009 10:54

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Aug 2009 11:10

shravan wrote:==========================

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... 45-9-9.pdf
Printed for the War Cabinet. January 1945.

That evening a press report had been received from which it
appeared that Mr. Jinnah declined all responsibility for whatever
talks there might have been between Liaqat Ali Khan and Desai.
Liaqat Ali Khan had also made a speech reiterating the demands
put forward on behalf of the Muslim League by Mr. Jinnah in the
autumn of 194Q.

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... 45-9-9.pdf

==========================

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... -76-14.pdf
Mr. Jinnah's non-co-operation to hold up progress with the forma
tion of an Interim Government. The telegram had proposed that
the next step should be for the Viceroy to see Mr. Jinnah and
endeavour to persuade him, even now, to allow members of the
Muslim League to enter the proposed Interim Government. The
Secretary of State for India now proposed that a further telegram
(Annex II I to C P . (46) 315) should be sent to the Viceroy I
indicating the policy which he should adopt if Mr. Jinnah was
unwilling to co-operate in the formation of an Interim Government.
The Secretary of State for India reported that since C P . (46)
315 had been circulated a telegram had been received from the
Viceroy to the effect that he was sure it would not be advisable for
him to see Mr. Jinnah immediately. The Viceroy wished to put
on Congress the responsibility for any attempt to satisfy the League.

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... -76-14.pdf

==========================

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... -271-1.pdf
June 27, 1942.
POLIC Y TO BE ADOPTE D TOWARD S MR . GANDHI .

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... -271-1.pdf

==========================

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... 7-50-1.pdf
May 1 9 4 7

While Mr. Jinnah had always claimed that Pakistan would wish to remain within the British Commonwealth, it had been the policy of the Congress Party that India should be a sovereign independent republic and they had seamed a resolution to that effect in the Constituent Assembly.

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... 7-50-1.pdf

==========================

gandharva · Post by **gandharva** » 28 Aug 2009 11:52

Nehru or Jinnah: Who Divided India?

http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/08/27/ ... ded-india/

kumarn · Post by **kumarn** » 28 Aug 2009 16:06

Insisting that a federal India was the dream of both Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi, former External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh has said that the country would have been "a global power" now had it not been "cut up" to form Pakistan.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Aug 2009 16:41

A_Gupta wrote:. . . In Jinnah's unified India (unified on a trial basis only, with the option of creating Pakistan 10 years later) . . .

One of the reasons behind the argument that it was Nehru & Patel who caused Partition and not Jinnah is this 1946 proposal of a federal setup with a very weak centre. Jinnah, IMHO, knew exactly that it would not be acceptable to the INC. Yet, he favoured such an approach because of exactly two reasons:

If the idea was rejected, he could alwas turn around and say that everything reasonable has been tried by the Muslim League and the Congress was stubborn leading to Partition (as it finally happened)
If the idea was accepted, he would have ensured within a matter of no time that the Muslim-majority areas separated citing various reasons that could be easily invented. In fact, had it been accepted, India would have been Balkanised because, Jinnah was hobnobbing with various Muslim rulers like in Bhopal, Hyderabad, Junagarh etc and was trying with other Hindu princesses to give a corridor connecting these faraway kingdoms to either a seaport or to the Pakistani boundary

Having worked assiduously since 1906 for unacceptable Muslim representation in governance, disproportionate to their population, and with Jinnah spearheading for separation by disingenuously proffering a variety of invented reasons for such a separation, and cunningly omitting a mention of Pakistan in the Lahore declaration but openly admitting to it in the Press Meet nevertheless later on, we can well imagine what would have happened even if the Cabinet Committee proposal had been accepted in 1946. It is humbug of the very first order to claim that India would have been saved of a Partition because India would have been broken into smithereens very soon had it been accepted.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 28 Aug 2009 16:55

But using the trial, British could have been removed from the scene, leaving the INC to fight ML alone, rather than fight British+ML. It could be a tactical retreat, followed by rataking the space. In any case Jinnah would have died, Chinese intrustion in Tibet could have been a good cause to unite the nation.

Imaginative ideas were needed to save the national unity, if indeed that was the overriding aim of MKG & JLN.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Aug 2009 17:42

I can't imagine INC being in a position to get a control over the all the Muslim population centers. Neither can I imagine ML agreeing on an detente with INC, which did not give them power.

Sooner or later, the ML would have played the Muslim Card and would have brought everything to an explosive situation to get their way.

The Partition that took place, took place under in an environment where the leadership of the two groups were more or less in agreement on what the parameters of the Partition ought to be. India got a bad deal, but we got a deal. Can you imagine how it would have been if the two parties had been left together in an internally divided nation, and no party was willing to budge an inch, in order not to look weak or to make concessions!

The massacres that would have taken place, would have paled the ones that did take place in comparison. India would never have healed.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Aug 2009 18:20

After the Government of India Act, 1935, the elections took place for the Provincial and Central Legislatures. Jinnah had taken control of Muslim league by then and it won a mere 100 seats out of the 600-odd reserved for them across the 11 provinces and the Centre. That was a complete rout, but Jinnah was not disheartened. The INC formed governments in 8 out of the 11 provinces. Jinnah immediately launched a tirade against the Congress-led ministries saying that the Hindu Congress was discriminating against the Muslims of the country and levelled a series of accusations. Gandhi requested the Viceroy to have the charges investigated by the Chief Justice of India, but Jinnah said that a Royal Commission alone could do justice to such serious charges, knowing fully well that it would never happen. The Viceroy dismissed Jinnah's charges after a prima facie enquiry. But, the damage was already done and the Muslims were gripped with an imaginary sense of grievance, which they are prone to, wrong-doing, and the impression that the INC was a Hindu party. I am recounting this just to illustrate to what depths Jinnah could go and how cunning he could be. In c. 1936, he was not at the peak of his popularity; that was yet to come.

Similarly, after the Cabinet was formed in 1946, he ensured that useful transaction could not be conducted by acting as a stumbling block at every conceivable opportunity.

Jinnah's tactic all along was simple. He waited for the INC to to act on a situation, of which there was no dearth, and he would simply react to that in a way that was beneficial to him and injurious to INC and of course Hindu-Muslim unity. Not being the first to act, he could shape his response accordingly. He had the luxury of doing that because he was unscrupulous, had the unstinting support of the British, whereas the INC leaders went by principles and had the interests of all sections of the population in mind.

In short, had the INC accepted the Cabinet Mission proposal, Jinnah would have subverted that in no time under some pretext or the other. Of course, that is a conjecture but borne out well by his past actions and his burning ambition to be equal to or higher than Gandhi.

As for Jinnah's illness, that was hindsight. I am not sure how many people knew about the seriousness of the illness. Even Jinnah himself might not have known it completely. In fact, if Jinnah had known about the illness himself, he would have not accepted the proposal.

PS: I also agree with Rajesh that the massacres would have been unimaginable and engulfed the whole country because there was no restraining hand of the British, however feeble it had been before.

wig · Post by **wig** » 28 Aug 2009 19:39

kumarn wrote:Insisting that a federal India was the dream of both Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi, former External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh has said that the country would have been "a global power" now had it not been "cut up" to form Pakistan.

I am sure that we will be a global power sooner than later with or without Mr, JS

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Aug 2009 19:59

SSridhar wrote:
One of the reasons behind the argument that it was Nehru & Patel who caused Partition and not Jinnah is this 1946 proposal of a federal setup with a very weak centre. Jinnah, IMHO, knew exactly that it would not be acceptable to the INC. Yet, he favoured such an approach because of exactly two reasons:
If the idea was rejected, he could alwas turn around and say that everything reasonable has been tried by the Muslim League and the Congress was stubborn leading to Partition (as it finally happened)
If the idea was accepted, he would have ensured within a matter of no time that the Muslim-majority areas separated citing various reasons that could be easily invented. In fact, had it been accepted, India would have been Balkanised because, Jinnah was hobnobbing with various Muslim rulers like in Bhopal, Hyderabad, Junagarh etc and was trying with other Hindu princesses to give a corridor connecting these faraway kingdoms to either a seaport or to the Pakistani boundary
Having worked assiduously since 1906 for unacceptable Muslim representation in governance, disproportionate to their population, and with Jinnah spearheading for separation by disingenuously proffering a variety of invented reasons for such a separation, and cunningly omitting a mention of Pakistan in the Lahore declaration but openly admitting to it in the Press Meet nevertheless later on, we can well imagine what would have happened even if the Cabinet Committee proposal had been accepted in 1946. It is humbug of the very first order to claim that India would have been saved of a Partition because India would have been broken into smithereens very soon had it been accepted.

Jinnah had many option at every stage even under united India.
He was not sure of the extent of the support of the elite class and the money people. He had built the relationship with the power center in Britain but was not sure of the final outcome of the group of people.

Between 1940 to 1947 those people came together including the UP Muslim elite and others and put money together to give support for the new state. The adhoc Pakistan was created between 1945 to 1946 after the war.

This alliance did not last until 1970s. A new support group was created with Zia Ul Haq with the help of KSA when he took over Pak in 1977.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 28 Aug 2009 20:00

SSridhar wrote:PS: I also agree with Rajesh that the massacres would have been unimaginable and engulfed the whole country because there was no restraining hand of the British, however feeble it had been before.

That unfortunately is sad summary, it just underscores how deft the British propaganda is: It is an instigator of violence, yet is seen as a restrainer. That is what it projected to the world also. That we would buy this propaganda is a sad reminder.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Aug 2009 20:33

surinder wrote:
SSridhar wrote:PS: I also agree with Rajesh that the massacres would have been unimaginable and engulfed the whole country because there was no restraining hand of the British, however feeble it had been before.
That unfortunately is sad summary, it just underscores how deft the British propaganda is: It is an instigator of violence, yet is seen as a restrainer. That is what it projected to the world also. That we would buy this propaganda is a sad reminder.

The British had certain benchmarks they wanted to achieve, and any violence which assisted them in arriving at that goal was supported, which included many actions by Jinnah. However any violence over and above that criteria was not needed. Britain did act as restrainers on the policies of the elite, including the ML elite, and indirectly on the violence, because the maximum of violence possible would have been much much higher.

Being both instigator and restrainer of violence can be valid characterization of British role.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 Aug 2009 22:02

wig wrote:
kumarn wrote:Insisting that a federal India was the dream of both Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi, former External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh has said that the country would have been "a global power" now had it not been "cut up" to form Pakistan.
I am sure that we will be a global power sooner than later with or without Mr, JS

I am glad he is not Foreign Minister any more. With Jinna and Jinnites india might still be fighting civil war.He cannot perceive India becoming great power with current boundaries then how can he promote Indian interests on World stage.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 Aug 2009 22:09

[quote="Acharya"][seaport or to the Pakistani boundary[/list].

Between 1940 to 1947 those people came together including the UP Muslim elite and others and put money together to give support for the new state. The adhoc Pakistan was created between 1945 to 1946 after the war.
[quote]

These UP walas and Bihari "Islamists" are the main culprit as they ate Indian salt and spat in the very plate they ate from. Same folks created the infrastructure for inistituinalizing the hate across the boundary and unfortunately similar ideological forces are still allowed to exist in India.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 28 Aug 2009 22:34

Was there less violence in British India than just before British takeover? Was there more violence since the time British have left India? Did we have mass-scale Hindu-Muslim riots before British rule? Have Hindu-Muslim riots decreased in frequency & casualties since British left India? Has there been any instance of ethnic cleansing of the level of Partition before or after the British rule? Has any ethnic cleansing and riot happened anywhere in the world (before or after)? Was there mass lyinching of Muslims in Sikh rule or the Maratha rule (i.e. India just before British take over)? How come the threat to Muslims life & property is an issue *ONLY* during British rule (not before not after)?

How can you be an instigator & pacifier at the same time, you can be only one. One of the characterizations has to be wrong.