Discussion on Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah

[John Snow]

** No discussion of present day political parties here. **

[brihaspati]

Sanku ji,
it appears that I will not get the book quickly. However from what you write :

He explores the rise of deoband and Barelawi and how 1857 destroyed the Persio-Islam with its refinements and created a new system where the Ashraf mentality of the Persio-Islam married with with the old Hardline muslim behavior to create a potent brew.

What are the refinemenst he quotes in "Persio-Islam"? There is no such distinct category!There has been an attempt by certain scholars to reconstruct a "refined" Persian Islam that apparently was foisted on India by some elements of the Sultanate and more elements of the Mughal. But the arguments rely on highly selective material - as usual with most published historians on Indian Muslims.

He talks how it was the Maratha's who destroyed the Mughals...

Or they helped themselves to destroy themselves. This again is not a very straightforward conclusion. Does he give arguments to rule out the other factors? Both external and internal dynamics of the Mughal system? How it destroyed its own economic base by being forced to become increasingly coercive in order to sustain their parasitic consumption? There was no refinement in the lead up to 57. It was unadulterated increasingly coercive and increasing Islamization as an attempt to control the populations.

He talks how foolish it is for Muslims to claim that there is a muslim nation when they have many more divisions than the Hindu society.

Why should divisions alone negate nationhood? Nationhood is based on recognized commonalities by different divisions - as long as all the sects of Muslims recognize that they have some commonality in the basic tenets of Islam and more importantly that they share common agenda with respect to non-Muslims or the "other".

He talks how the Brits realized that post 1857 the Muslims joined the rebellion LATER, when they hopped on the bandwagon to try and get back to the past or that vehicle and then used the existing fault lines to keep the Hindu India down (he claims 1857 was planned and spearheaded by High caste hindu's)

How can such sweeping generalizations be made? There were also Indian high castes Hindus who acted in favour of the British! And in fact quite influential ones too!

In the fist hundred pages he is still talking of Syed Ahmad Khan and the Aligarh movement and how Ashrafs moved their loyalties to the British as a move to gain from British without changing the core ideology.

He says the Indic root is core and the reason for separateness of Muslims is that they have refused to integrate them selves to a VEDIC CORE and prefer to seem themselves as different.

What makes him expect that the Muslims would have any incentive in integrating themselves to a Vedic core? Has he not understood what Islam is all about? Or is he attributing to Islam qualities that simply do not exist? He claims this is an academic exercise - so he should not be able to justify such false expectations as a psy-ops for political ends?

[RayC]

Gandhi and Jinnah — a study in contrasts
An extract from the book that roiled the Bharatiya Janata Party and led to the expulsion of its author Jaswant Singh from the party

Comparing Gandhi and Jinnah is an extremely complex exercise but important for they were, or rather became, the two foci of the freedom movement. Gandhi was doubtless of a very different mould, but he too, like Jinnah, had gained eminence and successfully transited from his Kathiawari origins to become a London barrister before acquiring a political personality. Yet there existed an essential difference here. Gandhi’s birth in a prominent family — his father was, after all, a diwan (prime minister) of an Indian state — helped immeasurably. No such advantage of birth gave Jinnah a leg up, it was entirely through his endeavours. Gandhi, most remarkably, became a master practitioner of the politics of protest. This he did not do by altering his own nature, or language of discourse, but by transforming the very nature of politics in India. He transformed a people, who on account of prolonged foreign rule had acquired a style of subservience. He shook them out of this long, moral servitude. Gandhi took politics out of the genteel salons, the debating halls and societies to the soil of India, for he, Gandhi — was rooted to that soil, he was of it, he lived the idiom, the dialogue and discourse of that soil: its sweat; its smells and its great beauty and fragrances, too.

Some striking differences between these two great Indians are lucidly conveyed by Hector Bolitho in In Quest of Jinnah. He writes: ‘Jinnah was a source of power’. Gandhi... an ‘instrument of it... Jinnah was a cold rationalist in politics — he had a one track mind, with great force behind it’. Then: ‘Jinnah was potentially kind, but in behaviour extremely cold and distant.’ Gandhi embodied compassion — Jinnah did not wish to touch the poor, but then Gandhi’s instincts were rooted in India and life long he soiled his hands in helping the squalid poor.

Not so Jinnah: for having been uprooted repeatedly in his childhood, then moved too frequently, he neither easily belonged nor did he relate with comfort. Besides being the quintessential constitutionalist, he had to follow a different course; for him to adapt to the changing times, to the dusty trails of rural India, was not at all easy. That is why he found it so difficult, by around 1920, to maintain his position at the national level given Gandhi’s arrival and rapid ascendancy. Besides, there was no province, not one, not then, not later, that he could rely upon totally as his exclusive parish. His lack of ability to adapt to the integrative politics of the masses always remained a problem. Whereafter, his status as a Muslim, it must be accepted, further handicapped his position at the national level, for in nationalist politics the scene had already got crowded; as a Muslim, yes, there was a role for him to play but only in the second rank. For Jinnah, a secondary status was galling; what he had always sought and mostly attained was the centre stage; yet, now how could he, when so many factors constantly kept pushing him to the periphery of it?

* * *

Gandhi and Jinnah: The two incompatible kathiawaris

We have earlier, though very briefly, considered these two great but incompatible Indians, both born of Kathiawari trading communities but not endowed with much other similarities. One was devoutly and expressly Hindu, the other but a casual votary of Islam. One shaped religion to his political ends; the other shunned it on grounds of principle. Gandhi in a very real sense was deeply under the influence of Tolstoy (it is after Tolstoy that he had named his settlement in South Africa) and Henry David Thoreau; Jinnah recognised the political impress only of Dadabhai (Naoroji) and (Gopal Krishna) Gokhale. Gandhi led his personal life publicly; Jinnah led even his public life close to his chest. These two, in one fashion or another, not just deeply influenced events of those momentous decades of India’s freedom struggle but actually shaped them. Gandhi admitted failure in his quest; Jinnah, it is apocryphally suggested, boasted that ‘he won Pakistan with the help of just a typewriter and a clerk.’ It is a fascinating theme, a study of these two great Indians. This sub-chapter can attempt no more than an outline sketch.

Although the families of both Jinnah and Gandhi had once lived just about 40 miles or so apart in Kathiawar (Gujarat), this adjacency of their places of origin did nothing to bring their politics close together. At their very first meeting, at the Gurjar Sabha in January 1915, convened to felicitate Gandhi upon his return from South Africa, in response to a welcome speech, with Jinnah presiding, Gandhi had somewhat accommodatingly said he was ‘glad to find a Muslim not only belonging to his own region’s sabha but chairing it.’ Gandhi had singled out Jinnah as a Muslim, though, neither in appearance or in conduct was Jinnah anywhere near to being any of the stereotypes of the religious identity ascribed by Gandhi. Jinnah, on the other hand, was far more fulsome in his praise.

Gandhi had reached India by boat in January 1915 when many leaders, including Jinnah and Gokhale, went to Bombay to give him an ovatious welcome. By this date Jinnah had already engaged as an all India leader and was committed to attaining his stated goals of unity, not just between the Muslims and the Hindus, Extremists and Moderates, but also among various classes of India. To receive Gandhi, Jinnah had forsaken attending the Madras Congress meet of 1914. Gandhi, upon reaching Bombay, had been warmly welcomed by Jinnah who wanted to enlist his services for the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity. It was because of his popularity and standing that Jinnah had been invited to preside over a garden party given by the Gurjar Sabha, an association of the Gurjar (Gujar) community, arranged to welcome Mr and Mrs Gandhi, on his arrival on 13 January 1915.

In his presidential address, Jinnah ‘welcomed... Mr and Mrs Gandhi, not only on behalf of Bombay but on behalf of the whole of India.’ He impressed upon Gandhi that the greatest problem was ‘to bring about unanimity and co-operation between the two communities so that the demands of India (from Imperial Britain) may be made absolutely unanimously.’ For this he desired ‘that frame of mind, that state, that condition which they had to bring about between the two communities, when most of their problems, he had no doubt, would easily be solved.’ Jinnah went to the extent of saying: ‘Undoubtedly he [Gandhi] would not only become a worthy ornament but also a real worker whose equals there were very few.’ This remark was greatly applauded by a largely Hindu audience, accounts of that meeting report. Gandhi, however, was cautious and somewhat circuitous in his response. He took the plea that he would study all the Indian questions from ‘his own point of view,’ a reasonable enough assertion; also because Gokhale had advised him to study the situation for at least a year before entering politics. This, too, was all right but then, needlessly, he thanked Jinnah for presiding over a Hindu gathering. This was an ungracious and discouraging response to Jinnah’s warm welcome and had a dampening effect.

Gandhi, somewhat hesitant at first, could, in that early phase, see no other route but of following Gokhale, Jinnah and some of the other moderate leaders. This was also because (Bal Gangadhar) Tilak had also, by then, come around to the moderate line. Gandhi did cooperate with all of them, but only until about 1920, after which he clearly became the prominent voice and position. Besides, by then (1920) Gandhi had won acceptance from the British government too, even though that was through the good offices of Gokhale, who ‘exerted the full weight of his prestige and influence upon the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, to bring the Government of India solidly behind Gandhi.’ This was the period when the British government, very concerned about Jinnah, his Hindu-Muslim unity moves, was endeavouring hard to keep the All India Muslim League away from the Indian National Congress.

In a sense Jinnah’s position goes back by a year, to May 1914, when he had led a Congress delegation to England to lobby with the secretary of state and other members of Parliament for opening up the Council of India to at least three non-official Indians, who could be elected by the Imperial and Provincial Legislative Councils. He appeared then as a kind of potential political heir to the great trio of the early years of the twentieth century: Naoroji-Mehta-Gokhale; and, of course, of the leadership of the Congress, too, certainly in India’s West. The India Office, however, rejected these demands outright. It was in any event an ill-timed initiative for just about then the First World War had broken out. While Jinnah was so engaged, Gandhi, upon the outbreak of war, urged his countrymen to ‘think imperially.’ He also took the lead in organising a Field Ambulance Training Corps, in London, to help the Allies. One hears echoes of similar efforts by him in South Africa and during the Boer war, but this was in a sharp contrast to Gandhi’s approach and policy during the Second World War. In any event, Gandhi’s leadership at this time had almost an entirely religiously provincial character. Jinnah, on the other hand, was then doubtless imbued by a non-sectarian, nationalistic zeal.

EXTRACTED FROM THE BOOK JINNAH: INDIA-PARTITION-INDEPENDENCE; BY JASWANT SINGH; PUBLISHER: RUPA & CO; PP: 669; PRICE: RS 695
Telegraph

[faraz]

If we start discuss present day politics, the discussion goes wayward from the topic. John Snow, I think that is why your post was deleted.

[brihaspati]

So far, from the excerpts that we are getting - JSji is actually providing ammunition for an alternative hypothesis that no one has considered. So far he is providing support for my thesis that the Congress was intrinsically uneasy with the Islamic and was basically scared of it, and never thought of the IM as family. But to get over it they decided to construct a false image of Islam that they thought would be subservient to their own power structure.

However, I have a feeling that JSji is heading towards a position that does not consider an alternative explanation for Jinnah's switch. Is it possible that Jinnah switched becuase he realized that to gain ascendancy and power he needed the IM behind him? The fact remained that whether the Congress kept the Islamic separate or not, the Islamic itself had remained in its position of a separate nationhood. Jinnah used this and in the process sharpened its teeth aiming for personal power and pre-eminence.

The Congress contributed yes, but why should personal recognition matter so much to a true "nationalist"? In translating lack of recognition of personal authority by the Congress top-brass - as lack of recognition for the "Muslim", is not Jinnah proving himself not a nationalist in the first place, and at the same time identifying himself as "Muslim" first where he equals "Indian Muslim"?

[Sanku]

What are the refinemenst he quotes in "Persio-Islam"?

Preference for material comfort and cultivation of senses. Too comfort loving to be interested in taking forth the evangelizing sword any more. (his words)

He talks how it was the Maratha's who destroyed the Mughals...

Or they helped themselves to destroy themselves. T

Well there are 100 pages covering India and Islam, of a 1000 years, so he does not go into details, he is quickly sketching out history, so there is no deep exploration of end of days of Mughals

I quoted it only because this particular example is a typical example of distorted history quoted often on BRF and not usually seen in mainstream history books.

The fact that he talks about issues which are verboten in Indian middle class itself is delicious.

Why should divisions alone negate nationhood?

Quite, however the context is that he ridicules the claims that Muslims have any rights based on a common thread any more than any other Indian. It is "you are not special"

How can such sweeping generalizations be made? There were also Indian high castes Hindus who acted in favour of the British! And in fact quite influential ones too!

Again that is ofcourse referred to. He talks of how 1857 was first and foremost a Hindu movement which also coopted Muslims later.

What makes him expect that the Muslims would have any incentive in integrating themselves to a Vedic core? Has he not understood what Islam is all about? Or is he attributing to Islam qualities that simply do not exist? He claims this is an academic exercise - so he should not be able to justify such false expectations as a psy-ops for political ends?

He does not have any expectations. He merely mentions the past as this was so -- any expectation of how things should be is meta reading.

You can read it either way -- he expects that the Indic should be first Indic then muslim and that way is integration, he is making some demands for unity.

[ramana]

Maybe BRF ideas shaped the narrative of his book. From what Sanku posted its a BRF jingoes version of history.

[John Snow]

I say delete the entire garbage from strategic threads and post in book reviews. so some revisionist resident strategerry gurus can vax eloquence with out deletions and to their tastes.
tia

[svinayak]

So far, from the excerpts that we are getting - JSji is actually providing ammunition for an alternative hypothesis that no one has considered. So far he is providing support for my thesis that the Congress was intrinsically uneasy with the Islamic and was basically scared of it, and never thought of the IM as family.

This is exactly we should be discussing. ALso we need to discuss if Jinnah had a long term plan for Pakistan to survive as a independent state. (of course with the help of western and arab donors)

However, I have a feeling that JSji is heading towards a position that does not consider an alternative explanation for Jinnah's switch. Is it possible that Jinnah switched becuase he realized that to gain ascendancy and power he needed the IM behind him? T Jinnah used this and in the process sharpened its teeth aiming for personal power and pre-eminence.

Gaining power is one thing but having a plan for the future of the country is another.

[ramana]

The first phase of Political Islam is the Arab phase which lasted for ~100 years after Hijra and led to conquests all over Middle East. Persio-Islam is the second phase of political Islam. Its an amalgam of Persian culture and Isalm that started with the Abbasid dynasty and ended with the Mongol sackof Baghdad. With the decline of the Persio-Isalm, political Isalm fell to Turks - Ottomon, Safavid, Chagtai to name a few. And Turkic Islam(third phase) is an amalgam of Genghis Khan's dictat with Islam and is closer to the Mongol barbarianism.

We are now in fourth phase of Political Islam after decolonisation: the Mauddudi, Wahabi and Deobandi phase. To get an idea of where these come from read Wilfrid Scawen Blunt's "Future of Islam" written in 1880s and is a blueprint to create a new non-Turkic Political Islam. Even thoguh this fourth phase is ~ 100 years old, scholars like Bernard Lewis do not acknowledge it, for then the role of Anglo-Saxon West in "shaping the future" will come out.

[svinayak]

The first phase of Political Islam is the Arab phase which lasted for ~100 years after Hijra and led to conquests all over Middle East. Persio-Islam is the second phase of political Islam. Its an amalgam of Persian culture and Isalm that started with the Abbasid dynasty and ended with the Mongol sackof Baghdad. With the decline of the Persio-Isalm, political Isalm fell to Turks - Ottomon, Safavid, Chagtai to name a few. And Turkic Islam(third phase) is an amalgam of Genghis Khan's dictat with Islam and is closer to the Mongol barbarianism.

We are now in fourth phase of Political Islam after decolonisation: the Mauddudi, Wahabi and Deobandi phase. To get an idea of where these come from read Wilfrid Scawen Blunt's "Future of Islam" written in 1880s and is a blueprint to create a new non-Turkic Political Islam. Even thoguh this fourth phase is ~ 100 years old, scholars like Bernard Lewis do not acknowledge it, for then the role of Anglo-Saxon West in "shaping the future" will come out.

Can you explain how this is connected to Jinnah.
Did Jinnah supporters knew this. The UK and other powers who supported Jinnah knew this and Jinnah was only a tool in the history to this goal.

[sanjaychoudhry]

He talks how the Brits realized that post 1857 the Muslims joined the rebellion LATER, when they hopped on the bandwagon to try and get back to the past or that vehicle and then used the existing fault lines to keep the Hindu India down (he claims 1857 was planned and spearheaded by High caste hindu's)

This is correct. The revolution was mostly planned by high-caste Hindus of Bihar and eastern UP (the area tradtionally known as Hindustan, later called Awadh -- a corruption of the word "Ayodhya.").

Do you know what is "Pandey's hornpipe"?

The Bengal army which was responsible for the Mutiny of 1857 was heavily staffed by high-cast native soldiers, mostly Brahmins, who hailed from the area now known as Eastern Uttar Pradesh. A majority of them carried the surname of “Pandey” (like the famous Mangal Pandey, the first sepoy to pick up arms against the British).

All rebellious sepoys were therefore nicknamed “Pandeys” by the British soldiers. And when their limbs twitched on the gallows when they were hanged after the rebellion, they were said to be dancing “Pandey’s hornpipe.” Other derogatory name used for them was "poorabeyeh" (“people hailing from the east”) or "Matadeens."

The hardy tribe of Gujjars spread across the countryside was a source of constant harras-ment for the British during the Revolt since they used to loot and plunder mail-carts, government transport and anything valuable passing by. All things so robbed were said to have been “Goojured.”

[RayC]

X posting from Look Back at parition

Quote:
There are complex historic, anthropological, psychological, sociological, economic, and political reasons for Muslim-Hindu conflict and apathy, some of which are very obvious.

Muslims came to India came as conquerors. The vanquished were the Hindus. On the other hand, Christians initially did not come as conquerors but as missionaries and hence were accommodated to some extent.

Islam structured on the Arabic culture is totally different from Hinduism which is indigenous. The attitude, behaviour, civility, food, language are different. This chasm makes integration problematic since the human psychology is averse in accepting anything unfamiliar.

The political boundaries of India either in the Mugal times or during the British was not the same as it is now, even though the British through the Doctrine of Lapse and other devious instruments did assemble India in some extent the physiognomy of what is India today.

The McCaulayisation of India made Hindus in certain parts of India emancipated and aware of their political identity. Muslims, on the other hand, because of their insular characteristic and possessing a superiority complex of having been the conquerors were sullen having become the vanquished. This was more humiliating since the Islamic scriptures convince them that they are the sole inheritors of the Earth and that is when Peace shall come. This attitude and their impotence to right their perceived wrong shunned interaction with the British. This obviously gave an upper hand to the Hindus, who thrived in all affairs of the State, even if subordinate to the British. This added insult to injury to the Muslim psyche. Hence, another reason for the animosity and the divide.

The Hindu caste system did not permit inter caste unions and obviously no inter faith unions. Islam, however, allowed inter faith unions, provided the non Muslim changed the faith to Islam and that was acceptable since Islam encourages increase in its rank. This was another inhibitor to cohesion and coalescing of minds. There was no inter faith marriages having distinct religious difference even after marriage.

It is evident that the theological and social assumptions of Muslims and Hindus are different. The differences of convictions generated contempt or, at best, indifference toward each other. Muslims and Hindus felt and even now feel no need to learn about or from each other.

Inclusivism often generates indifference, whereas exclusivism often generates intolerance and violence. Hindus are critical of the intolerance and violence of Islam. Hinduism as a tradition believes in the transformative quality of religion. Transformation, according to Hinduism, implies a change of personality from fear to courage, from anger to love, from violence to nonviolence. Although an individual or a group of Hindus may not be less violent than an individual or a group of Muslims - as the history of their encounter indicates - nevertheless, in Hinduism nonviolence is considered a cardinal virtue. Hence, Islamic jihad is looked upon with contempt by Hindus. Hindus, even the liberal and educated, look upon Islam as an essentially militaristic tradition.

Therefore, while there may be have been semblance of peace with the neighbours and even friendship, during the period of pre Partition, it was superficial at best and the twain could never meet as a singular psyche in mind, soul and body.

This, if applied, to the events of the Partition could possibly explain the rationale of events and the cause of the Partition.

[pgbhat]

Jaswant’s art of the impossible ---- Ejaz Haider
History! ---- Syed Mansoor Hussain

[Paul]

When I proposed the theory that JS was eulogizing Jinnah as a way to undo partition for the first time on this forum, I also said that these thoughts do not occur in a vacuum. As I said he has a good idea of the ground situation of Pakistan due to his visit to Hunglaj mata shrine in Balichistan. I was ridiculed and this idea was called fashionable.

This line of thought has been in JS's mind for quite some time and it was coming. I am surprised nobody in the political intelligentsia saw it coming.

I think JS has a lot on his mind. Will post more later.

Jaswant Singh puzzles observers

B. Muralidhar Reddy

During his six-day stay, the BJP leader did not visit Jinnah mausoleum

# Cancels visit to Sehwan Sharif shrine after falling sick
# Visit to Mausoleum was never part of the itinerary, say personal staff

ISLAMABAD: Political observers here are intrigued over the decision of the senior BJP leader, Jaswant Singh, not to visit the Jinnah mausoleum though he has been in Pakistan for six days and in Karachi for over four days. The visit of Mr. Singh to Karachi, where the mausoleum is located, was to have ended on Sunday morning as he and his team intended to leave for the Sehwan Sharif shrine back on their journey to India by road.

However, it appears that Mr. Singh cancelled his visit to the shrine after he developed fever and was advised by doctors to take a day's rest. It is believed that he would leave for Jagir on Monday to join the rest of his delegation. After a night's stay there, he would cross into India through the Khokhrapur border by road.

Mr. Singh's personal staff insist that the visit to Jinnah mausoleum was never part of his itinerary. It is in total contrast the statement attributed to Mr. Singh at his press conference in New Delhi prior to his Pakistan yatra and the remarks attributed to the BJP spokesman on the day he embarked on the trip.

At a press briefing on January 21, Mr. Singh was quoted as saying that he would be visiting the westernmost Shaktipeeth of Hinglaj Mata in Baluchistan by road through the Munnabao-Khokrapar route on January 30 and would be returning a week later after paying obeisance at the dargah of Shahbaz Kalandar and staying with his relatives in Jagir and Umerkote.

"Just as people who come here visit Mahatma Gandhi's samadhi, I will certainly go to Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah's mausoleum," he had told reporters in New Delhi.

"He is the Quaid-e-Azam of Pakistan. I am going to fulfil my duty as a guest and I cannot be disrespectful to them by refusing to visit as suggested by my hosts," he said.

Asked whether his visit could trigger a controversy akin to L.K. Advani's trip, Mr. Singh said, "I don't think it will lead to any controversy. I am going on a pilgrimage."

BTW...this article was printed in The Hindu in 2006. Something to mull about.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060122/a ... 751723.asp

Pilgrim Jaswant to salute Jinnah
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
Jaswant Singh addresses a news conference on his Pakistan visit in New Delhi on Saturday. (PTI)

New Delhi, Jan. 21: After L.K. Advani, it’s Jaswant Singh’s turn for a tryst with Jinnah.

The senior BJP leader will visit the Pakistan founder’s tomb early next month during a trip to Sindh and Baluchistan.

“It is a personal visit. I am going with 100 other pilgrims to the temple of Goddess Hinglaj in Baluchistan. This is a pilgrimage that includes a visit to the dargah of Shahbaz Kalandar,” he said.

“I am not about to court any controversy,” he added, refusing to be drawn into the “controversy” that cost Advani his post as BJP president last year.

Jaswant will be travelling by the Munnabao-Khokrapar road. He will set out on January 30 and return a week later.

He thanked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pervez Musharraf for facilitating the pilgrimage and said he would be doing his duty as a guest by visiting Jinnah’s tomb.

“They (the Pakistani authorities) have been helpful and warm. You cannot possibly abuse their hospitality by refusing to pay respects to the founder of Pakistan,” he said.

“Just as people who come here visit Mahatma Gandhi’s samadhi, I will certainly go to Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah’s mausoleum.”

Jaswant said he was writing a book on Jinnah. “I have been researching the subject. I am not a historian but a student of current affairs. The book would be a political biography.”

He, however, refused to comment whether Jinnah was secular. “We should not shut our thought processes. We need to keep these doors and windows open,” he said.

Pressed to share his views on Jinnah, Jaswant said: “I will answer that question at an appropriate time.” so why now

He said most of his research was being done in India but he had received a lot of material from institutes in Pakistan.

Asked if he was aware of forcible conversion of Hindus in Pakistan, he said: “I am not immune or negative to my party’s concerns.”

Jaswant will be taking 20 Muslims in his 100-strong group to Pakistan. “In my part of the world, the visit to the shaktipeeth of Hingalaj mata is considered sacred duty. Everyone is eager to participate in it.

“But the border is sealed and people have been denied their traditional right for over 60 years. It is a historic and emotional journey. Let us not look at it cynically,” he said.

Jaswant said the BJP was aware of his visit. Party spokesman Prakash Javdekar said: “It is his personal visit. We have no comments to make.”

[Paul]

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090823/j ... 397035.jsp

Gandhi and Jinnah — a study in contrasts
An extract from the book that roiled the Bharatiya Janata Party and led to the expulsion of its author Jaswant Singh from the party

Comparing Gandhi and Jinnah is an extremely complex exercise but important for they were, or rather became, the two foci of the freedom movement. Gandhi was doubtless of a very different mould, but he too, like Jinnah, had gained eminence and successfully transited from his Kathiawari origins to become a London barrister before acquiring a political personality. Yet there existed an essential difference here. Gandhi’s birth in a prominent family — his father was, after all, a diwan (prime minister) of an Indian state — helped immeasurably. No such advantage of birth gave Jinnah a leg up, it was entirely through his endeavours. Gandhi, most remarkably, became a master practitioner of the politics of protest. This he did not do by altering his own nature, or language of discourse, but by transforming the very nature of politics in India. He transformed a people, who on account of prolonged foreign rule had acquired a style of subservience. He shook them out of this long, moral servitude. Gandhi took politics out of the genteel salons, the debating halls and societies to the soil of India, for he, Gandhi — was rooted to that soil, he was of it, he lived the idiom, the dialogue and discourse of that soil: its sweat; its smells and its great beauty and fragrances, too.

Some striking differences between these two great Indians are lucidly conveyed by Hector Bolitho in In Quest of Jinnah. He writes: ‘Jinnah was a source of power’. Gandhi... an ‘instrument of it... Jinnah was a cold rationalist in politics — he had a one track mind, with great force behind it’. Then: ‘Jinnah was potentially kind, but in behaviour extremely cold and distant.’ Gandhi embodied compassion — Jinnah did not wish to touch the poor, but then Gandhi’s instincts were rooted in India and life long he soiled his hands in helping the squalid poor.

Not so Jinnah: for having been uprooted repeatedly in his childhood, then moved too frequently, he neither easily belonged nor did he relate with comfort. Besides being the quintessential constitutionalist, he had to follow a different course; for him to adapt to the changing times, to the dusty trails of rural India, was not at all easy. That is why he found it so difficult, by around 1920, to maintain his position at the national level given Gandhi’s arrival and rapid ascendancy. Besides, there was no province, not one, not then, not later, that he could rely upon totally as his exclusive parish. His lack of ability to adapt to the integrative politics of the masses always remained a problem. Whereafter, his status as a Muslim, it must be accepted, further handicapped his position at the national level, for in nationalist politics the scene had already got crowded; as a Muslim, yes, there was a role for him to play but only in the second rank. For Jinnah, a secondary status was galling; what he had always sought and mostly attained was the centre stage; yet, now how could he, when so many factors constantly kept pushing him to the periphery of it?

* * *

Gandhi andJinnah: The two incompatible kathiawaris

We have earlier, though very briefly, considered these two great but incompatible Indians, both born of Kathiawari trading communities but not endowed with much other similarities. One was devoutly and expressly Hindu, the other but a casual votary of Islam. One shaped religion to his political ends; the other shunned it on grounds of principle. Gandhi in a very real sense was deeply under the influence of Tolstoy (it is after Tolstoy that he had named his settlement in South Africa) and Henry David Thoreau; Jinnah recognised the political impress only of Dadabhai (Naoroji) and (Gopal Krishna) Gokhale. Gandhi led his personal life publicly; Jinnah led even his public life close to his chest. These two, in one fashion or another, not just deeply influenced events of those momentous decades of India’s freedom struggle but actually shaped them. Gandhi admitted failure in his quest; Jinnah, it is apocryphally suggested, boasted that ‘he won Pakistan with the help of just a typewriter and a clerk.’ It is a fascinating theme, a study of these two great Indians. This sub-chapter can attempt no more than an outline sketch.

Although the families of both Jinnah and Gandhi had once lived just about 40 miles or so apart in Kathiawar (Gujarat), this adjacency of their places of origin did nothing to bring their politics close together. At their very first meeting, at the Gurjar Sabha in January 1915, convened to felicitate Gandhi upon his return from South Africa, in response to a welcome speech, with Jinnah presiding, Gandhi had somewhat accommodatingly said he was ‘glad to find a Muslim not only belonging to his own region’s sabha but chairing it.’ Gandhi had singled out Jinnah as a Muslim, though, neither in appearance or in conduct was Jinnah anywhere near to being any of the stereotypes of the religious identity ascribed by Gandhi. Jinnah, on the other hand, was far more fulsome in his praise.

Gandhi had reached India by boat in January 1915 when many leaders, including Jinnah and Gokhale, went to Bombay to give him an ovatious welcome. By this date Jinnah had already engaged as an all India leader and was committed to attaining his stated goals of unity, not just between the Muslims and the Hindus, Extremists and Moderates, but also among various classes of India. To receive Gandhi, Jinnah had forsaken attending the Madras Congress meet of 1914. Gandhi, upon reaching Bombay, had been warmly welcomed by Jinnah who wanted to enlist his services for the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity. It was because of his popularity and standing that Jinnah had been invited to preside over a garden party given by the Gurjar Sabha, an association of the Gurjar (Gujar) community, arranged to welcome Mr and Mrs Gandhi, on his arrival on 13 January 1915.
Jaswant Singh after he was expelled from the BJP

In his presidential address, Jinnah ‘welcomed... Mr and Mrs Gandhi, not only on behalf of Bombay but on behalf of the whole of India.’ He impressed upon Gandhi that the greatest problem was ‘to bring about unanimity and co-operation between the two communities so that the demands of India (from Imperial Britain) may be made absolutely unanimously.’ For this he desired ‘that frame of mind, that state, that condition which they had to bring about between the two communities, when most of their problems, he had no doubt, would easily be solved.’ Jinnah went to the extent of saying: ‘Undoubtedly he [Gandhi] would not only become a worthy ornament but also a real worker whose equals there were very few.’ This remark was greatly applauded by a largely Hindu audience, accounts of that meeting report. Gandhi, however, was cautious and somewhat circuitous in his response. He took the plea that he would study all the Indian questions from ‘his own point of view,’ a reasonable enough assertion; also because Gokhale had advised him to study the situation for at least a year before entering politics. This, too, was all right but then, needlessly, he thanked Jinnah for presiding over a Hindu gathering. This was an ungracious and discouraging response to Jinnah’s warm welcome and had a dampening effect.

Gandhi, somewhat hesitant at first, could, in that early phase, see no other route but of following Gokhale, Jinnah and some of the other moderate leaders. This was also because (Bal Gangadhar) Tilak had also, by then, come around to the moderate line. Gandhi did cooperate with all of them, but only until about 1920, after which he clearly became the prominent voice and position. Besides, by then (1920) Gandhi had won acceptance from the British government too, even though that was through the good offices of Gokhale, who ‘exerted the full weight of his prestige and influence upon the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, to bring the Government of India solidly behind Gandhi.’ This was the period when the British government, very concerned about Jinnah, his Hindu-Muslim unity moves, was endeavouring hard to keep the All India Muslim League away from the Indian National Congress.

In a sense Jinnah’s position goes back by a year, to May 1914, when he had led a Congress delegation to England to lobby with the secretary of state and other members of Parliament for opening up the Council of India to at least three non-official Indians, who could be elected by the Imperial and Provincial Legislative Councils. He appeared then as a kind of potential political heir to the great trio of the early years of the twentieth century: Naoroji-Mehta-Gokhale; and, of course, of the leadership of the Congress, too, certainly in India’s West. The India Office, however, rejected these demands outright. It was in any event an ill-timed initiative for just about then the First World War had broken out. While Jinnah was so engaged, Gandhi, upon the outbreak of war, urged his countrymen to ‘think imperially.’ He also took the lead in organising a Field Ambulance Training Corps, in London, to help the Allies. One hears echoes of similar efforts by him in South Africa and during the Boer war, but this was in a sharp contrast to Gandhi’s approach and policy during the Second World War. In any event, Gandhi’s leadership at this time had almost an entirely religiously provincial character. Jinnah, on the other hand, was then doubtless imbued by a non-sectarian, nationalistic zeal.

EXTRACTED FROM THE BOOK JINNAH: INDIA-PARTITION-INDEPENDENCE; BY JASWANT SINGH; PUBLISHER: RUPA & CO; PP: 669; PRICE: RS 695

[chetak]

pakistani legal ledgermain---- from shia to sunni at the stroke of a pen!

We have ancestry of Jinha from Wikipedia as under:

:"Jinnah was the eldest of seven children born to Mithibai and Jinnahbhai Poonja. His father, Jinnahbhai (1857–1901), was a prosperous Gujarati merchant who had moved to Sindh from Kathiawar, Gujarat before Jinnah's birth. His grandfather was Poonja Gokuldas Meghji, a Hindu Bhatia Rajput from Paneli village in Gondal state in Kathiawar. Jinnah's ancestors were Hindu Rajput that converted to Islam. Jinnah's family belonged to the Ismaili Khoja branch of Shi'a Islam, though Jinnah may have converted to Twelver Shi'a Islam.This is disputed, and the Karachi High Court in 1984 ruled that "the Quaid (Jinnah) was definitely not a Shia" but a Sunni Muslim."

[Masaru]

He asks -- why is the Muslim invasion called the muslim invasion but the British and the Spanish Colonisalism not called the Christism invasions when they were clearly similarly motivated by faith.

Sanku Sir,

Not an apologist for the British, but JS claiming equivalence between British occupation and Moslem invasion is quite OT and betrays a lack of scholarly rigor which should be a given for such a book. For all the ills that the British did, there is no evidence to suggest that they went on a temple destroying, church building (on top of destroyed temples), and kufr beheading frenzy stoked by religious fervor. They came here primarily motivated by trade and then grabbed political power exploiting the prevailing political situation to further their trade interests. The history of Moslem depredations and the motivations behind those are well documented here in various threads and need not be repeated, unless one is totally sold on Thapar/Habib schools' theory that Mahmud of Ghazni came primarily for looting and the rest of the beheading, temple destroying, slave taking piety that he showed was just collateral damage from medieval shock and awe. If JS has forgotten we got our independence from the British in 1947, is there any possibility of the country getting some respite from the brotherly love being showered by the Moslems for last 1400 years?

BTW what do the forum members who have read or are reading the book think about the research that has gone into writing this book (in terms of historical references, books etc.) that warrants a re-look at this thorny issue? Or are we just hyperventilating about the opinion and thought of a failed politician turned (amateur) wannabe historian seeking to prolong his 15 mins of fame?

[John Snow]

Precisely!

[ramana]

One of the banned books" Evolution of British Empire and Commonwealth after the American Revolution" By LeRoy Burt very clearly states that the 1857 War of Independence aka Mutiny upset the British plans to Christianize the heathen natives of India in Chapter XXV. Its a long book of ~ 950 pages so read on.

OK. There is a spelling mistake in the author's name for the book

"Evolution of British Empire & Commonwealth from American Revolution". The author is Alfred Leroy Burt. The book is ~950 pages long and is oft quoted by American scholars. Its available for <$5 used.

He is Canadian Rhodes scholar.

OK here it is:

Evolution of British Empire Leroy Burt.

Now lets find out why it got banned!

[SSridhar]

I am re-posting from Ms. Margaret Bourke-White's (of LIFE magazine) article immediately after the Partition, taken from here

No one would have been more astonished than Jinnah if he could have foreseen thirty or forty years earlier that anyone would ever speak of him as a "savior of Islam." In those days any talk of religion brought a cynical smile. He condemned those who talked in terms of religious rivalries, and in the stirring period when the crusade for freedom began sweeping the country he was hailed as "the embodied symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity." The gifted Congresswoman, Mrs. Naidu, one of Jinnah's closest friends, wrote poems extolling his role as the great unifier in the fight for independence. "Perchance it is written in the book of the future," ran one of her tributes, "that he, in some terrible crisis of our national struggle, will pass into immortality" as the hero of "the Indian liberation."

In the "terrible crisis," Mahomed Ali Jinnah was to pass into immortality, not as the ambassador of unity, but as the deliberate apostle of discord. What caused this spectacular renunciation of the concept of a united India, to which he had dedicated the greater part of his life? No one knows exactly. The immediate occasion for the break, in the mid-thirties, was his opposition to Gandhi's civil disobedience program. Nehru says that Jinnah "disliked the crowds of ill-dressed people who filled the Congress" and was not at home with the new spirit rising among the common people under Gandhi's magnetic leadership. Others say it was against his legal conscience to accept Gandhi's program. One thing is certain: the break with Gandhi, Nehru, and the other Congress leaders was not caused by any Hindu-Muslim issue.

In any case, Jinnah revived the moribund Muslim League in 1936 after it had dragged through an anemic thirty years' existence, and took to the religious soapbox. He began dinning into the ears of millions of Muslims the claim that they were downtrodden solely because of Hindu domination. During the years directly preceding this move on his part, an unprecedented degree of unity had developed between Muslims and Hindus in their struggle for independence from the British Raj. The British feared this unity, and used their divide-and-rule tactics to disrupt it. Certain highly placed Indians also feared unity, dreading a popular movement which would threaten their special position. Then another decisive factor arose. Although Hindus had always been ahead of Muslims in the industrial sphere, the great Muslim feudal landlords now had aspirations toward industry. From these wealthy Muslims, who resented the well-established Hindu competition, Jinnah drew his powerful supporters. One wonders whether Jinnah was fighting to free downtrodden Muslims from domination or merely to gain an earmarked area, free from competition, for this small and wealthy clan.

The trend of events in Pakistan would support the theory that Jinnah carried the banner of the Muslim landed aristocracy, rather than that of the Muslim masses he claimed to champion. There was no hint of personal material gain in this. Jinnah was known to be personally incorruptible, a virtue which gave him a great strength with both poor and rich. The drive for personal wealth played no part in his politics. It was a drive for power. ......

[svinayak]

Jaswant’s art of the impossible ---- Ejaz Haider
History! ---- Syed Mansoor Hussain

Good psy ops for the Pakis

We are running footage on local tv channels, some, not all, of Sangh Parivar cadres frothing from the mouth, bringing out rallies, beating Mr Singh’s pictures with shoes and cursing him for presenting Mohammad Ali Jinnah in a favourable light. Our take: partition was right and had a rationale then; it is right today. Forget the fact, caught in the deadly vortex of national narratives, that Mr Singh until some days ago was a BJP leader and yet wrote a book about how and why Mr Jinnah of 1916 became the Quaid-e Azam of Pakistan.

[svinayak]

He asks -- why is the Muslim invasion called the muslim invasion but the British and the Spanish Colonisalism not called the Christism invasions when they were clearly similarly motivated by faith.

Sanku Sir,

Not an apologist for the British, but JS claiming equivalence between British occupation and Moslem invasion is quite OT and betrays a lack of scholarly rigor which should be a given for such a book. For all the ills that the British did, there is no evidence to suggest that they went on a temple destroying, church building (on top of destroyed temples), and kufr beheading frenzy stoked by religious fervor.

Probably the British were the worst in successful indoctrination of the Indian elite.
Their policy killed 40 million Indians in 100 years of rule.

BTW what do the forum members who have read or are reading the book think about the research that has gone into writing this book (in terms of historical references, books etc.) that warrants a re-look at this thorny issue? Or are we just hyperventilating about the opinion and thought of a failed politician turned (amateur) wannabe historian seeking to prolong his 15 mins of fame?

Exact similar conclusion and history has been written by other Indian authors.
They were not as famous as JS

Jinnah : Man of Destiny
Prakash Almeida, Kalpaz, 2001, 292 p, ISBN : 81-7835-016-5,

Jinnah and Punjab : Shamsul Hasan Collection and Other Documents 1944-1947
Edited by Amarjit Singh, Kanishka, 2007,

Pakistan : From Jinnah to Jehad
S.K. Datta and Rajeev Sharma, UBSPD, 2002

Mohammad Ali Jinnah : The Great Enigma
Sheshrao Chavan, Authorspress, 2006, lxii, 320 p, ISBN : 81-7273-380-1

The Emergence of India and Pakistan
Edited by Suresh K. Sharma, Pentagon Press, 2007, xiv, 500 p, map, ISBN : 81-8274-253-6

Prelude to Indian Independence (2 Vols-Set)
Suresh K Sharma, Pentagon Press, 2008, xxxvi, 968 p, 2 Vols, ISBN : 81-8274-316-8
"The period of eight years between the World War II and the Transfer of Power, demonstrates political convulsions in the history of Modern India. It was during this span that two important events, viz., The Cripps Mission and The Cabinet Mission had taken place and with their occurrence, it was felt in every circle, that it was no longer for Indian people now to remain in the clutches of British imperialism.

It is a hard core fact that, over the years, the study of this crucial period is attracting the interaction of an increasing number of scholars all over the world. Hence, viewing these years in a global perspective, the present theme Prelude to Indian Independence has been systematically and carefully conceived and finally categorized into two volumes, viz., Vol. I -- The Cripps Mission and Vol. II -- The Cabinet Mission. This academic venture will meet a long-felt need of the scholarly community all over the world." (jacket)

The Paradoxes of Partition (1937-47) Volume 1: 1937-39
Edited by S.A.I. Tirmizi, Manak for Hamdard IHR, 1998

Pathway to India's Partition, Vol. II. A Nation within a Nation 1877-1937
Bimal Prasad, Manohar, 2000, 470 p, ISBN : 81-7304-249-7





http://www.vedamsbooks.com/no61788.htm

[chetak]

This is what jinnah always was and always will be no matter any which way you slice it.

This is exactly what the pakis continue to do even today.

Where does the foolish rantings of the BJP leaders and secularism of jinnah come into the equation?

hitler is defined by the holocaust as jinnah is defined by the partition.
The enormity of the evil perpetrated by hitler is not lessened because he once kindly patted a stray dog. Why seek excuses to lessen the evilness of a malevolent jinnah? This is how a "secular" leader of muslims went about his business. This is what is endorsed by millions upon millions of muslims worldwide.

Why do we continue to be blind?


From todays Pioneer, quoted from an article by Praful Gorardia

Later in 1946 his brother Ahmed Ali gave an insight into his elder brother’s psyche to his friend Dharamdas Vora, my grandfather. He said that from a comparatively young age his brother Mohammed aspired to be the badshah of India. In order to be one, he had to be seen to be secular, impartial between Hindus and Muslims. This was not difficult for him since culturally the family was more Parsee than anything else. He had married a Parsee and his daughter is Parsee. In his own words: Neither of us brothers knows how to offer namaz. We have no food restrictions so long as we enjoy the meat — whether of a pig, a cow or a lamb. We both enjoy, although separately, a sundowner every evening. I still do not have an achkan or a churidar and my brother had the same problem until his return from England as life president of the Muslim League. By then his decision was to go flat out to try and become sultan of a part of India since he could not be the badshah of all India. The point that came through Ahmed Ali’s conversation was that he was personally upright, religiously indifferent, kind to his sibling, politically a Muslim or otherwise as the situation suited him.

Ahmed Ali was in Bombay at the time when his brother ordered Direct Action commencing on August 16 in Calcutta. The Quaid was known to be a constitutionalist who had no faith in violent street politics and yet the Great Calcutta Killing was engineered by the League. In his brother’s opinion, Jinnah had no option if he wanted to convince the British that Hindus and Muslims could not coexist and that they should partition the country before leaving India. And the Quaid became the sultan of Pakistan on August 14, 1947.

' Jinnah. He had a pistol. He used it. ’

Tarun Vijay Wednesday August 19, 2009

"I am not prepared to discuss ethics. We have a pistol and are in a position to use it." So said Mohammad Ali Jinnah while delivering his presidential speech at the Muslim League convention on July 19, 1946.


What followed was an unimaginable massacre of Hindus in Kolkata on August 16, 1946. Six thousand killed, twenty thousand raped and maimed.


Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the then leader of Hindu Mahasabha had said, "Jinnah is out to destroy the very soul of India."


If one single instance should be cited to understand what Jinnah really was, it would not be his speech in the Constituent Assembly, Karachi, often quoted by Indian Hindus, but his call for "Direct Action".


That was August 16, 1946, known as the day of "great Calcutta killings". After the "Direct Action" resolution was passed by the Muslim League on July 19, 1946, its president, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, said in his valedictory speech: "What we have done today is the most historic act in our history. Never have we in the whole history of the League done anything except by the constitutional methods and by constitutionalism. But now we are obliged and forced into this position. This day we bid goodbye to constitutional methods…. Now the time has come for the Muslim Nation to resort to direct action. I am not prepared to discuss ethics. We have a pistol and are in a position to use it."


Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the then leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, who had said, "Jinnah is out to destroy the very soul of India", organized Hindus fearlessly and foiled Jinnah’s plan to oust Hindus from Kolkata. He formed a volunteer group of the Hindus named the Hindusthan National Guards, resisted horrendous goondaism of the League and moved in the riot-affected areas giving courage to the victims of a planned slaughter and orgy of violence by the League’s marauders.


Syama Prasad Mookerjee was traveling all over India awakening the masses to rise against the partition plot. On October 8, 1944, at a United Provinces Hindu Conference, he said, "The sooner Mr Jinnah understands that Pakistan in any form or shape will be resisted by Hindus and many others with the last drop of blood, the better for him, for he will then quietly descend on realities and himself plead for a just and equitable settlement. None but an agent of imperialism will so block the path of Indian unity and freedom as Mr Jinnah is doing."

[Sanku]

He asks -- why is the Muslim invasion called the muslim invasion but the British and the Spanish Colonisalism not called the Christism invasions when they were clearly similarly motivated by faith.

Sanku Sir,

Not an apologist for the British, but JS claiming equivalence between British occupation and Moslem invasion is quite OT and betrays a lack of scholarly rigor which should be a given for such a book.

And when did JS claim equivalence for British occupation and Muslim invasion, or did I say that he did? The quote was "when the spanish and the british earlier expansions were also very similarly motivated by religion why only call it Islamic invasion and not Christism invasions?"

So if you see
1) Its a question not a claim of equivalence, it is an attempt to find answers. (A similar question would be why say Christianity and not Chirstism)
2) The Spanish and Portuguese (and British in some areas ) did precisely do idol/mosque breaking etc in many parts of the world including India.
3) It is but one paragraph in the book.

So you post is precisely symptomatic of all the analysis which come about claiming "lack of scholarly rigor which should be a given for such a book" by taking a piece completely changing the context and extrapolating it and then making a completely unconnected judgment.

As to the sources he has referred, nearly each page has 3-4 cross references to other works quoted (most of them original papers) It would be very nice if at least a cursory look at the book is taken before making such statements.

[Philip]

Since I do not have the issue with me,at home,the latest India Today has several well known commentators on their views of the book and the issue.One of them,put it perfectly with regard to the perpetrators of Partition.
"First Accused...British,Second Accused..Jinnah,Third Accused Nehru & Co."

The masterplan as many have said ,also echoed in Sarila's book (Wavell's Partition map already ready),was drawn up in London,discussed no doubt over cigars and cognac..or port,in the fashionable clubs of London.When Wavell was vcieroy,the priority was to win WW2.The future of India was put aside until the war was won,but with the victory,achieved at horrendous cost of lives and money,the British Empire had actually won a pyrrhic victory!For after the war,the empire unravelled at astonishing pace,with the tired and exhausted Britishers unable to even contemplate keeping the natives
under control in further bloody conflicts around the globe.The method of withdrawing had to first succeed in India and the model then could be used in other colonies to British advantage."Dominion" status was one such method,but divide and rule was the key policy that was the foundation both for ruling the empire and then for departing from it.

Wavell's military background and uprightness did not endear him to the mandarins of Whitehall,who wanted skullduggery to be the instrument with which to achieve Partition.The "bluest of blue blood" as one wit has put it,Mountbatten,was flown out to achieve this objective.His "blue blood" and showmanship of which he was the epitome of,was meant to dazzle the native leaders of the time,especially Jinnah and Nehru,both well versed in the protocol of the white man.A quick fix,speedy partition,which was already in the can was to be thrust upon the two key figures Jinnah and Nehru.Jinnah had already been assidiously built up by the British when the Congress leaders were imprisoned during the war years,allowing him and the ML to build themselves into a political force that could not be ignored.

Jinnah demanded "equality/parity",strangely,a similar demand was made in the last two decades by another "splittist",the fuhrer of the LTTE,Vellupillai Prabhakaran! He also did not want accomodation within a united Sri Lanka,but wanted his own equivalent of Pakistan,"Eelam"! Unfortunately,the demand for Eelam was 50 years too late,but the British still belatedly worked on his behalf to try their best for him to achieve it and are at this very moment still gnashing their teeth and gnawing at their fingers for having failed in their mission ! Afghanistan is the next nation where this insidous policy is being played out.Having lost its eastern half (..and thereby hangs a famous tale.In '71,at the height of the Bangladesh/E.Pak crisis,Nixon and Kissinger were in deep discussion as to how to help Pak avoid defeat by India.Nixon reportedly asked for a map.When shown the two halves of Pak "east and west",he famously exploded,"then what the F**K is India doing in the middle?!"),Pakistan is now trying to acquire Afghanistan to make up for lost land.
This "moth-eaten" Pakistan is what Jinnah was ultimately given by perfidious Albion.It was not what he had expected,that is certain.Had Jinnah known in advance the countours of the miserable moth-eaten state he was to get,it is quite possible that he would've rejected it and the British plot would've collapsed.The date of transfer was fixed,the butcher's blade had already partitioned ancient India.How we accepteed this insidious plan I've described in "Part 1",where Wavell wrote to his king in wodnerment that the "momentum" of British prestige,"approachign impotence",still had the ability to determine events.Thus the two sides,Congress and ML, had to be hoodwinked into accepting "The Mountbatten Plan for Partition" and only the formal unveiling of the diabolic deed remained.

[SSridhar]

Joy because of Jaswant
Many letters have appeared and a few op-eds have been written welcoming Jaswant Singh's discovery of Jinnah. I wonder if the tactical Pakistanis understand the true import of what the book says. They may not have the ability though.

[RajeshA]

India does not need Jinnah or hate for Jinnah in order to survive. Pakistan is however founded on his efforts and persona. If India controls the discourse over his history and persona, and a broad public opinion in Pakistan accepts the image of Jinnah as projected by India, then India controls the discourse of Pakistan's place in the world.

Be it an image of Jinnah as The Demon or as The Patriot or as something else, the image should be controlled by India.

[svinayak]

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=218298

Banishment of Jaswant Singh exposes so called democratic face of India

Thursday August 20, 2009 (0018 PST)



ISLAMABAD: Sectary General Pakistan Muslim league(Q) Mushahid Hussain Syed said that banishment of jaswant Singh had exposed the actual face of democratic India in the world adding democracy in India was more bitter than dictator ship.

Talking to a private TV channel here on Wednesday, Sec General PML(Q) said that the book written by Jaswant Singh should be published in the country because it contained the facts about the events happened during the partition and also about the founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah .

He held civil society in Pakistan and India was surprised over this decision of BJP as party could not tolerate the truth about the Quaid-e-Azam after 62 years as they torched the books and expelled him from the party .

Mushahid further told that, few years back L .K Advani had visited Pakistan and he also praised Quaid-E-Azam and was also forced to resign from the party membership.

He maintained India claimed to be democratic country in the world but democracy was nowhere seen therein. There was no difference between democracy and dictatorship in India. This decision has exposed the democratic face of so called democratic India .

Mushahid Hussain condemned the decision and called upon the intellectuals in India to condemn it as well . He appreciated the role of vajpaye government who started peace process between Pakistan and India . He suggested that intellectuals of both the countries should read this book as the writer had authored the book with free mind with laying bare actual facts of partition.

Intellectuals form both the country should come together and sit at the mausoleum of Quaid-e-Azam!

[SSridhar]

Jaswant may visit Pakistan to promote his book

The bookshop flew in a couple of hundred copies immediately from India, and despite its high price tag – Rs. 1995 (Indian Rs. 1167 approximately) – they are all gone.

The owner was apologetic about the price but said he had incurred heavy costs transporting the books from India to Pakistan via Dubai. There are only two weekly flights from Delhi to Lahore, and the quickest way to ship in the books was through a third country, he said. Another big bookshop in the capital, Saeed Book Bank, said it was expecting a consignment of 500 copies on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Mr. Singh has shot to iconic status in Pakistan for what newspapers here have described as an act of courage on his part in writing a book that goes against the grain of received wisdom in India.

[vijayk]

[edited...]ramana

[SSridhar]

Warning to all posters

Don't discuss present day politics in this thread. This thread will be closed if that happens.

[ramana]

I propose we ban the psoter and delete the post. The reason is anyone not wanting the discussion will post political stuff to get us to close this thread.

ramana

[John Snow]

ramana is that all you have gained in administering the forum as experience, are you not being Advani here, banning people?
Banning shoul be the action when a member abuses another member, or racism or irrational posts about religion. All this after carreful thought and enough opportunities are given by way of explanations.

Looks like regimentation is the doctrine, we dont want to prove mavericks and raman of the world to be correct about BRF. Not worth it having done so much.

Gyan not Ban

[sukhdeo]

I propose we ban the psoter and delete the post. The reason is anyone not wanting the discussion will post political stuff to get us to close this thread.

ramana

There you go again !

[ramana]

When sama, dana beda are vyarth, then only danda is left. Can you look in the mirror and say you have not been trying your best to disrupt and let off flame posts here and there? An sukhdeo what is there to laugh?

[negi]

JMT... lock this until someone has read the book ; to be honest most of us started posting on this based on DDM excerpts now that things have cooled down unless people read the book what exactly are we supposed to discuss here ?

[Philip]

I agree with Ramanna.JS's book gives us an opportunity,as well as our "friends" across the border to re-examine many myths of Partition.A better understanding gives us a better way of dealing with current events.If a psoter brings current politics into it,the "eraser' is the solution.

Having read the book I''ve been quoting from the key passages when crucial decisions were taken.Part 1 was earlier,this is part 2A.

PArt 2A:

JS at the book's outset took a look further into history,the events of 1857,"The Great Indian Mutiny,or First War of Independence",as a starting point to understand British paranoia about Hindu-Muslim unity,a unity that could throw them right out of India.They were most surprised to see "Mohameddans" uniting with their "caste Hindus" to fight unitedly against them.From 1857 onwards they carried this baggage with them.From 1857 onwards,they were pro-active in using the "divide and rule" policy into force.This must be remembered when discussing the "end-game" of Partition.

I come back to the events of 1947 .Wavell is unceremoniuosly sacked "with a month's notice" by his PM on 4th Feb.Mountbatten as successor is announced on 20th May,in the Commons,along with the British govt's White Paper on India ,with a date not later than June 1948 for the transfer of power.This was roundly criticised by many members of the opposition,saying that it was "far too early" and "smacked of haste and panic".In the Lords,Campbell Johnson wrote,that a "galaxy of names famous in the annals of Indian administration addressed themselves...to Lord Templewood's stern declaration that the time limit was a breach of faith imperilling the peace and prosperity of India".It was a masterful speech by Lord Halifax,where he stated that he was not prepared to condemn HMG unless he could come up with a better solution,that saved the day and prevented a division of the Lords.

Churchill's speech in the Commons debate on March 6th was eagerly awaited.He sarcastically asked if the new viceroy was to "restore the situation,or is it merely Operation Scuttle..?"
He then prophetically said that "India is to be subjected not merely to partition but fragmentation and to haphazard fragmentation....handing over to men of straw ,of whom in a few years no trace would remain".Churchill's bias and prejudice against Indians can clearly be seen here.He wanted the empire to remain at any cost if it were possible.But Churchill's words were in vain and the Commons passed the India act of 1947.

*He was also wrong,the "men of straw" of India held forth to rule for decades,the nation survives despite several wars and their names are carved in gold in free India.

Events rapidly unfolded,the carnage in the Punjab saw the Congress Working Committee pass a resolution on 8th March 1947 in which they acknowledged for the first time the division of the Punjab between Muslim and non-Muslim areas.The fact that it was passed when both Gandhi and Azad away,is significant.Gandhi later wrote to both Nehru and Patel about the Resolution asking for an explanation.Patel replied that it was adopted after the "deepest deliberation" and Nehru lamely replied that the proposal to divide the Punjab arose from "our previous discussions".

*This clearly shows that the CWC wanted to pass the Resolution for dividing Punjab (and also Bengal ) in the absence of gandhi and Azad who were opposed to it.Thus did the CWC ditch Gandhi and Azad,the two men who had they been present would've prevented the Resolution from being passed.

The Resolution enabled Mountbattten who had just assumed charge to be jubilant and further his plans,as accepting partition of a province,meant accepting in principle the partition of India.Within a month of Mountbatten's arrival,even Nehru who had been opposed to partition,became its advocate!

This amounted to accepting Jinnah's "two-nation" theory,that "destructive basis of fracturing India's goegraphy,society and polity".JS further says," A sad comment on the party which 30 years before had opposed even the partition of Bengal and was now proposing the partition of India ".Another resolution "invited the ML for talks",but to what purpose as Jinnah was "so embittered" with the "Congress double-talk" on the Cabinet Mission Plan.Nehru then famously said on 21st April 1947,"those who demanded Pakistan could have it",on condiion that they did not coerce unwilling parts of India to join.Dr.Rajendra Prasad then on the 28th April addressing the house said that it should be prepared "not only for a division of India but also some provinces too.."

On May 2nd.Ismay and Abell left for London with Mountbatten's plan for independence..."to transfer power unilaterally without the willing consent of the party leaders ,and with a federal rather than a string central govt."
JS says that what follwed was "comic opera"."India's independence being reduced to farcial casualness ".VP Menon who was then the reforms commissioner,told Patel that he "should face the fact that Jinnah had the support of influential British opinion in his claim for Pakistan and more importantly,he was supported by most of the high officers of the Army in India".

*This is a vital clue to the plans of the master strategists of the Raj.It was also the desire of the British Army to want Pakistan!

Menon also reportedly told Mountbatten that if immediate pwoer was transferred at once on the basis of "Dominion" status,he would "use his influence to see that Congress accepted it".Menon discussed an outline with Patel,which made Mountbatten "ecstatic" when he heard of it! However Mountbatten's own plan was in London and when in Simla,(strangely,the same place today where the controversy about his book has reupted within the BJP),the Viceroy accompanied by Nehru and Menon ,he strangely cabled London that his plan sent to them should be cancelled and his new "revised plan" (Menon's "ad hoc" plan) be approved instead.
VP Menon took just 4 hours to draft it ,"changing the face of India and the world" and and JS remarks sadly that "It is deeply troubling to even acknowledge the questions that surface:Is that all it took to break the ancient unities of India?"

More later.

[sunnyP]

I propose we ban the psoter and delete the post. The reason is anyone not wanting the discussion will post political stuff to get us to close this thread.

ramana

Not telling the mods how to do their job however Jaswant Singh's book has major ramifications for Indian democracy and the way Government functions. The opposition are in the process of imploding and it's a shame we can't discuss it. We are all adults after all.

Didn't Ray C start a thread a few days ago where we could discuss the other implications of JS's book? I take it that thread is gone?

Anyway you guys make the rules and I apologise if this post breaks any.

Regards....

[Rishi]

Arun Shourie's take on JS's book:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-few ... k/506752/0

Now, it so happens that I profoundly disagree with Mr. Jaswant Singh’s assessment of Jinnah. Ever since I read the multi-volume Jinnah Papers — brought out by the National Archives of Pakistan; the two-volume, Foundations of Pakistan, edited by Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada; and the four-volume History of Partition of India, edited by the Pakistani historian, K.K. Aziz, Jinnah has seemed to me a pinched, narrow-minded, diabolic schemer — one who used and was used by the British to divide India. To use his words, he ‘forged a pistol’, the armed thugs shoring up the Muslim League. He unleashed them in his ‘Direct Action’ against Hindus. He paralysed the Interim Government through Liaquat Ali. From 1937 onwards, he worked stealthily and continuously with the British to thwart every scheme that might have preserved a united India. His contemptuous characterisations of India, of Hindus, of our national movement and its leaders, make one’s blood boil to this day. That he talked Islam and drank whiskey, ate ham, and the rest, that he hardly knew the Quran to say nothing of living by it, do not prove his secularism to me, they make him out to be a hypocrite. In a word, far from being ‘attracted’ by Jinnah, as my senior Jaswant Singh is, I am repelled by him.

And book after book that I have read regarding those decades since I wrote about him and his stratagems twenty-five years ago has etched that image even deeper. My perspective also differs for another reason from the one that informs Jaswant Singh’s book, and that, if I may add, of those who still dream of a ‘grand confederation of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh’, of those who still talk of Akhand Bharat. Having waded through the writings of Islamic leaders and clerics of the period, and seeing the direction in which Pakistan and Bangladesh have evolved — have inevitably evolved, given the principles on which they were founded, principles that Jinnah articulated and insisted upon incessantly — I have come to realise that Girilal Jain was the one who was right. You are dead wrong, he told me, after reading what I had written about Jinnah. The best thing that has happened for us is the Partition. It has given us breathing time, a little time to resurrect and save our pluralist culture and religions. Had it not happened, we would have been bullied and thrashed and swamped by Islamic fundamentalists. So, my lament is the opposite of Jaswant Singh’s today. And it also so happens that I am an adorer of Sardar Patel as of the Lokmanya, and a worshipper of Gandhiji.

...