Comments on: Was Jinnah Secular ?

By: Raj

Raj — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 07:42:08 +0000

Without comments, as it gets more complicated:

‘Indian Constitution’s author a nominee of the Muslim League’
By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: An Indian scholar on Saturday revealed that author of the Indian Constitution and famous Dalit leader Dr B R Ambedkar was in fact a nominee of the Muslim League in the Council of States (Upper House) of united India’s Constituent Assembly.

Participating in a discussion on a roadmap for the political empowerment of Indian Muslims, noted historian and former vice-chancellor of the Agra University, Professor Manzoor Ahmed said the Congress had refused to support Ambedkar’s candidature for the upper house.

Tracing history, Ahmed, also a former inspector general of police in Uttar Pradesh, said the Muslim League leader Hussain Shaheed Suharwardi had nominated Dalit icon Ambedkar and a tribal leader Joginder Nath Mandal as candidates for the Council of States from Bengal at the behest of the M A Jinnah. “Both seats belonged to Muslim League,” he said.

By: Aurangzeb Khan

Aurangzeb Khan — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:14:34 +0000

Does it even matter if Jinnah was secular or not? How does it affect us? Jinnah’s personal persuasions should not determine our course of action or thoughts. No one is a follower of Jinnah, but Jinnah and we follow Islam. So, if correct the course of our fate where Jinnah may have erred. After all, Jinnah too could make a judgement error.

By: rahul d'mello

rahul d'mello — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:22:42 +0000

@raj…Let Dr.Sarfraz first try to match Ibn Warraq’s scholarly research, intellect and books without making personal allegations. What are you, the doctor-saheb’s alter-ego or worse, his “compounder”?

By: The Power Of History | Random Thoughts of a Demented Mind

The Power Of History | Random Thoughts of a Demented Mind — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:31:05 +0000

[...] repeats the “Jinnah was a secular man” line we have discussed before here on the blog [Link]. Summing of what I had said before, there is nothing much to debate here. Jinnah, in person, [...]

By: Raj

Raj — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:14:03 +0000

It is really sad to see how the fanatics show their real colours – if you cannot win an argument attack decent people like Dr. Sarfraz personally. Anyway, for what it is worth, I share a piece from one of our own, Karan Thaper (TV commentator & interviewer) …an eye opener; only for those who have eyes, obviously.
“Jaswant Singh revises Jinnah —Karan Thapar
There’s a book published tomorrow that deserves to be widely read and I want to be the first to draw your attention to it. It’s Jaswant Singh’s biography of Jinnah. Read on and you’ll discover why?Jaswant Singh’s view of Jinnah is markedly different to the accepted Indian image. He sees him as a nationalist. In fact, the author accepts that Jinnah was a great Indian. I’ll even add he admires Jinnah and I’m confident he won’t disagree.?The critical question this biography raises is how did the man they called the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity in 1916 end up as the Quaid-e-Azam of Pakistan in 1947???The answer: he was pushed by Congress’ repeated inability to accept that Muslims feared domination by Hindus and wanted “space” in “a re-assuring system”. Jaswant Singh’s account of how Congress refused to form a government with the Muslim League in UP in 1937, after fighting the election in alliance, except on terms that would have amounted to it’s dissolution, suggests Jinnah’s fears were real and substantial. The biography does not depict Jinnah as the only or even the principal force behind Partition. Nehru and Mountbatten share equal responsibility. While the book reveals that Gandhi, Rajagopalachari and Azad understood the Muslim fear of Congress majoritarianism, Nehru could not. If there is a conclusion, it is that had Congress accepted a decentralized, federal India, a united India “was clearly ours to attain”. The problem: “this was an anathema to Nehru’s centralizing approach and policies”.??Jaswant Singh’s assessment of Partition is striking. After asserting that it “multiplied our problems without solving any communal issue”, he asks: “if the communal, the principal issue, remains…in an even more exacerbated form than before…then why did we divide at all?” The hinted answer is that no real purpose was served.??Jaswant Singh, however, goes further. He accepts that because of Partition the Muslims who stayed on in India are “abandoned”, “bereft of a sense of real kinship” and “not…one in their entirety with the rest.” And he concludes: “this robs them of the essence of psychological security”.??But that’s not all. He does not rule out further partitions: “In India…having once accepted this principal of reservation (1909)…then of partition, how can we now deny it to others, even such Muslims as have had to or chosen to live in India?”??Where the book compares the early Jinnah and Gandhi, the language and the analysis tilt in the former’s favour. At their first meeting in 1915, Gandhi’s response to Jinnah’s “warm welcome” was “ungracious”. Gandhi insisted on seeing Jinnah in Muslim terms and the implication is that he was narrow-minded. Of their leadership, the book says Gandhi’s “had almost an entirely religious provincial flavour” while Jinnah’s was “doubtless imbued by a non-sectarian nationalistic zeal”. ??Finally, in terms of their impact: “Jinnah…successfully kept the Indian political forces together, simultaneously exerting pressure on the government.” In Gandhi’s case “that pressure dissipated and the British Raj remained for three more decades.”?Unfortunately, I can’t assess the reliability of Jaswant Singh’s viewpoint. I’m a journalist not an historian. But I can assert that it’s courageous and probably a valuable corrective. We need to see Jinnah without the hate or prejudice of the past. It may be uncomfortable to accept suppressed truths but we can’t keep denying them.?This book will stir a storm of protest, perhaps most from Jaswant Singh’s own party. He realizes that. But it did not deter him. Let it not put you off.”

By: Gopal Patha

Gopal Patha — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:27:55 +0000

Given the near identical tone and message, I wouldn’t be surprised if “Darius”, “Ann Marie” and “Karen” all turn out to be none other than the boring “Dr.M.Aamer Safraz.” Pardon me Doctor, but your slip is showing.

And “Doctor sahab”, kindly don’t flatter yourself by mentioning Ibn Warraq in the same line as youself. Ibn Warraq is leagues ahead of you.

I say this with genuine concern for my fellow human brethren across the border …. If Ibn Warraq’s compatriots (including yourself) had heeded his advice or read his books, your country wouldn’t be sinking hopelessly into the quicksand, as it is today. I sincerely hope you can look at Ibn Warraq’s books with a fresh, objective set of eyes. I truly pray that God give you the wisdom and intellectual honesty to bring your country back from the impending implosion. May ALL be Healthy, Happy and Blessed !!!

By: Darius

Darius — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:22:10 +0000

Anjan & YLH – you are a breath of fresh air. I wish we could see more material on these objective lines.
If balanced and civilized people contribute, we may see the likes of Ibne Warraq and Dr. Aamer Sarfraz returning and making this discussion more meaningful.
I suspect the real problem lies with the people who own this site; they try to play intellectuals while pushing their agenda with different names.

By: YLH

YLH — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:20:04 +0000

Jinnah never exhorted Muslims to attack Hindus on direct action day… the events of that day have now been documented enough for honest and reasonable people on both sides to see the facts.

My suggestion- hit the transfer of power papers.

By: Anjan

Anjan — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:55:20 +0000

Wow, what an impassioned discussion. I unfortunately belong to the small minority of Indians who don’t think that the sins of your fathers should be visited upon you. So whether the Muslims or the Hindus killed more people or whether the Hindus started it or the Muslims is absolutely immaterial. However about Jinnah, i cannot but agree that the argument that he turned out to be a monster because Nehru refused to have a coalition in the United Provinces and so on is just bunkum. He had a political aim, that is the creation of Pakistan and he was successful in his aim. To further his aims he was justified in using whatever means he thought fit. If some of his methods were criminal( the great Calcutta killing and so on) it was the responsibility of the British Administration to have stopped him, tried him and hanged him if necessary. That they did nothing of the sort while lecturing us on the rule of law that they had ushered into a lawless subcontinent is a telling comment on the type of people they were.
Quoting one comment or another from the speeches of a politician proves nothing really, because over a period of 30 years politicians who make three speeches a week say so many things that are mutually contradictory that claiming that one particular speech tells us all about them is foolishness. If somebody had kept careful notes of all I had to say on every topic for the last twenty years I am sure that i would be severely embarrassed and the comments would not be a true representation of what i am or what I believe.
When you categorise communities as many of the commenters have done, I am reminded of my reaction on the day that Mrs Gandhi was assassinated. It is not fashionable to admit it but I was a great admirer of that lady and I was working at the SSKM hospital at that time. I came out of the department abusing Sikhs and if I had the means and the opportunity I would perhaps have killed a sardar or two ( provided they were pint sized and unprotesting). But when i came out onto the streets I found a group of young Sikh schoolboys standing in front of the Rabindra Sadan, guarded by the Police and all of them were terrified. I could really smell their terror. It made me realise that they might have had to pay for the stereotyping that even I was doing!( And mind you I prided myself on my intellectual ability) Call it an epiphany or what you will, but I have never ever felt like stereotyping a community or a people ever since. I can hate Prabhakaran, but never the Tamils, I can scream blue murder against a Bihari goon, but never against Biharis. I suggest that all of us who are participating in such discussions do the same. It will lead to more light and less heat.

By: Mihir Chandra Datta

Mihir Chandra Datta — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 05:42:08 +0000

In Reference of Dr. M. Aamer Sarfraz Oponion. I never Criticize anybody cause everybody has the right to comments. Anyway, in you way Jinnah was Seculer.

You think the Riots from Hindu Perspective. As Jinnah were Muslim naturally Muslims people support him whether he was guilty or not. It has been seen from History that Muslim people never apologize if somebody done something wrong.

The Riots in Calcutta, Noakhali (Bangladesh) & in Punjab. Who started first? That was Muslim League.

And now you look at India, Pakistan & Bangladesh where this 3 countries stand. From last 10 years scenerio Pakistan & Bangladesh already gone to HELL. Terrorism & Corruption will kill this 2 countries in future. But India you just see the Communication, Development & Education. We are 100 years fast then Pakistan & Bangladesh.

The meaning of my oponion is to show you that the creation of Pakistan was a great mistake by Jinnah & Muslim League.

Also, the Mass killing in the history of war in 1971 in Bangladesh. In this case also Pakistan Authority lies from top to bottom.

From present scenerio only you people can say that Jinnah was Seculer. Jinnah doesn’t have any future vision.

For study on Jinnah I had collected a lot his biography, life style & Politics. After studying all this thing I am telling you that.

Anyway, don’t misunderstand me. Basicall Blind people don’t see anything. Thats all. I don’t want to say anything more.