Was Jinnah Secular ?

80 Comments

Lal Krishna Advani. The man who brought Rathayatra into Indian political lexicon after 2,000 years. The gleaming, bald pate crisscrossing the cow belt, bringing communal frenzy in his wake—-sprewing venom and baying for blood. If Vajpayee was the gentle somnolent face of BJP interspersing poetry with periods of pregnant silence, Advani was its virulent, uncompromising underbelly– a blunt weapon of saffron passion.

But now Advani desires to be the Prime Minister. And as Oprah would say—he needs a makeover. An image makeover. Which is what Advani endeavoured to do, rather successfully, by his recent statements in Pakistan. By calling the destruction of the Babri Masjid as the “worst day of his life” he stopped short of an explicit apology but it had enough of “mea culpa” to drive home the point. If that was not good karma enough, he went ahead and called Jinnah secular. Yes the same Jinnah the Pakistanis accuse Advani of having tried to assasinate.

Now the irony is this. Jinnah is as secular as Advani is. Jinnah then and Advani now both use two tongues depending on what audience they are addressing. Put Advani in front of a marauding Karseva crowd and he will shout “Ek Dhakka Aur Do” and demand communal, unconstitutional hate from his minions. Put Advani in front of a group of Pakistani parliamentarians—and the same man will be oozing peace and goodwill.

Jinnah—the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.

Jinnah—“Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual but in the political sense as citizens of the state.”

Jinnah —Exhorts Muslims to attack Hindus on Direct Action Day and triggers a hellish bloodbath in the streets of Calcutta.

Jinnah creates Pakistan as a homeland for Muslims—a state whose foundation is religion. And yet wants Pakistan to be a secular country with a vision of India and Pakistan co-existing like USA and Canada. Truly, so many Jinnahs.

The reason why there are so many Jinnahs is because there is a fundamental disconnect between Jinnah the person and Jinnah the politician. Jinnah the person flouted all the rules of conventional Islam, detested Gandhi’s approach of associating religion with politics and had a well-documented aversion to the unwashed. Jinnah the politician saw politics through the prism of Islamic nationalism only because it was politically expedient. Hence he espoused separate electorates, collaborated with the British to push his Islamist agenda and when pushed to the wall, openly condoned violence targetted at Hindus as “Direct Action”.

The disconnect is present in Advani too. By all accounts he is an agreeable, enlightened person who is a capable administator, reasonably corruption-free and is PM-material. He is different from people like Togadia and Modi who reek hatred and whose politics are an accurate reflection of their own deep wells of intolerance. Advani , by all indications, only puts on masks based on convenience—sometimes of a Hindu nationalist and sometimes of an enlightened secular. Just like Jinnah.

Jinnah intitially opposed the Two Nations Theory. Then in 1937, the Muslim League under him were wiped out in the elections even in the Muslim seats. All Jinnah wanted was to get the crumbs of power despite having been trounced but Nehru, no less power hungry himself, refused to give Jinnah anything. This was when Jinnah took to the streets ( a form of political mobilization he despised personally), played the communal card and unleashed violence on Hindus with the aim of totally polarizing India on the basis of religion. Gandhi, who knew Jinnah’s true reason for the Two Nation Theory, even offered him the Prime Ministership of an undivided India circa 1946 but Nehru would not budge. Jinnah also was too far committed to Pakistan to back out by then.

So when Jaswant Singh supports Advani and says what Advani said was a historical fact, then he is not wrong. The speech of Jinnah that Advani used was one delivered by Jinnah the person. There are hundreds of other speeches delivered by Jinnah the politician which would show him to be communal.

Just like Advani’s espousal of Jinnah can be quoted, fifty years later, as an indication of Advani’s secular character.

But we know he is not. And neither was Jinnah.

Advertisements

80 thoughts on “Was Jinnah Secular ?

  1. Nice article. Nice of you to bring out the point about Nehru. If I am not wrong, Nehru was among the earliest congress leaders to ‘ratify’ the 2-nation theory. The irony – One man trying to gain “secular” credentials by calling another man “secular”!

  2. Just like Advani’s espousal of Jinnah can be quoted, fifty years later, as an indication of Advani’s secular character.

    You won’t have to wait that long. Just wait for the next election, and see the BJP going ga-ga over not just their secular leader, but the entire secular nature of the party. After Atal, it’s now Advani’s time to be the new Mukhauta.

    Isn’t there a delicious irony somewhere, in that RSS and Congress are both making anti-Advani statements for once, when for a chg he is stating a partial historical truth. Bloody politics!

  3. Irony thy name is Politics. Or is it Politics thy name is Irony?

    Yes you are right—we wont need to wait 50 years. And SD, I agree—we Indians are loath to blame Nehru for the partition but it was his lust for power and his desire to politically finish off Jinnah which added fire to the Pakistan flame.

  4. Jinnah was not secular in the traditional sense of the word. He was a Muslim at heart who believed in the Quranic principals and not the prevalent Islam peddled by the Moulvies. However, the following is also true which gives you a clue that being a Muslim and ‘secular’ is possible at the same time. I wrote this for Wikepedia:

    Secular and Nationalist Jinnah is a book about Muhammad Ali Jinnah written by Dr Ajeet Javed of JNU Delhi.

    An interesting book which appreciates the ‘greatness’ of Jinnah while claiming that Pakistan was his fall-back position when he failed to convince Congress hardliners about a greater share for Muslims in the Post-British power structure.

    Highlights

    * Jinnah started taking part in politics from the Indian National Congress platform after returning from London in 1904. He delivered his first political speech in 1906 at the Calcutta meeting of the Indian National Congress.

    * Jinnah supported the moderates against hardliners when Congress faced internal split in the Surat meeting in 1907.

    * Jinnah considered politics as a gentleman’s passion: he refused to attend, and condemned the Bombay Bar Association meeting held to celebrate the award of Knighthood to Justice Davar because he had joined the Govt. in convicting a nationalist leader Mr. Talak earlier.

    * Jinnah firmly believed in constitutional struggle for the freedom of India but he refused to condemn Bhagat Singh, a militant nationalist, who had thrown a grenade in the parliament (when Mr. Jinnah was present). Later, he was the loudest voice in the parliament for understanding the route to freedom which Mr. Singh had chosen.

    * Jinnah was offered several high profile jobs during his political career to compromise his integrity but he refused them with contempt. These offers included being a Judge in Bombay High Court, Membership of Central Legislative Council, a Knighthood (‘I prefer to be called Mr. Jinnah’), and Governorship of Bombay etc.

  5. Jinnah was secular [edited out: GB adds–>this is a bit more of religion-driven generalization than I think is appropriate]

    He organised, with Suhrawardy, a completetly unprovoked massacre of innocent Hindus in the great Calcutta killings.

    My uncles told me reports by eyewitnesses on Chittaranjan Avenue, of attacking Muslims nailing Hindu children to doors.

    “Jinnah the secular” is directly responsible for this, just as “Hitler the humane” was for the Holocaust, even though he personally had not even so much slapped a single Semite.

    Perhaps Dr. M. Aamer Sarfraz can add this to his Wikipedia post?

  6. I would advise you to read Prof. Stanley Wolpert (American) or Prof. Ajeet Javed’s (Indian) impartial books on Jinnah before you make up your mind either way. You can Google their names to get hold of these books.
    Good luck

  7. Hi Dr Sarfraz,

    I’ve read other books by Stanley Wolpert, & found them to be highly biased against India.

    You take pain to point out Ajeet JAVED is an Indian; please appreciate that with a name like JAVED he is actually a Pakistani who stayed on in India after partition, even after their (your) people stole Pakistan and Bangladesh & murdered the Hindus out. Many of those (methinks all) shamelessly stayed on in a truncated India to steal India as well.

    Please don’t pull wool over our eyes, even though it is an avowed strategy (even an imperative) of many of your co-religionists. Hitler is responsible for the holocaust. Churchill is responsible of the starvation murder of millions of Indians. Mao is the reason for the death of 20 million Chinese. And Jinnah is the direct cause for the murder of 100s of thousands of innocent Hindus, Sikhs …. & even Muslims. Period.

    It is true that Jinnah merely exploited an existing atavistic hatred in Mulsims of Hindus. The fervent aspiration of most Muslims of the Indian sub-continent at the time was, as it is now, the forced displacement of Hindus. Massacre was the most expedient measure to acomplish this. But even so, Jinnah was the guy who lit the fuse. He is culpable.

    Twisting facts to conceal reality & present the irrelevant motif as the main picture may work for a time, but not for long. Even paying eager foreign universities and writers of modiocre talent to blacken Hindus has only temporary success. Truth is truth.

    Jinnah was secular … yeah right. And Eichmann used to croon Hava Nagila.

  8. I normally do not make comments on old posts but I have to interject:

    please appreciate that with a name like JAVED he is actually a Pakistani who stayed on in India after partition,…Many of those (methinks all) shamelessly stayed on in a truncated India to steal India as well.

    Hara Hara Bom Bom, I do not think you have any right (at least here at RTDM) to make sweeping communal generalizations like this above where anyone with the name Javed (i.e a Muslim) is a Pakistani staying on in India. While you are free to make your point, even forcefully, I would request you to desist from such statements.

  9. Ok. Accepted. Your point is valid.

    It was just the brazen lying always employed by certian people to conceal their true intention that gets up one’s proverbial.

    Is there no limit to deceit?

    Even so, no reason to lose my cool & come out with unacceptable remarks like that.

  10. Great Bong
    What a brilliant site. Pure gold.

    Hara Hara Bomb Bomb
    Hey chill man & take it easy. Ur points are correct but ur impatient tone won’t win u friends. Ur like a 1 man army!

    What can u do? Muslims are spreading all over as our nos. fall. We all know we’re heading 4 Armageddon, but what can u or I do?

    Engage Muslims in more dialog, there are many liberal Muslims out there who need our support to reform Islam from within.

    4 blogging, keep ur tone neutral, & let ur points talk 4 u. U have many valid points, I grant u that, but ur anger, even if justified, is diverting ppl from appreciating that.

  11. Dear all

    I am sorry to respond sporadically; unfortunately I do not get much time to do this stuff. Many thanks for engaging with me. We share a common grief related to partition as many people migrating the other way also lost lives.

    If you are not keen on Prof. Wolpert, try reading ‘The triumph and tragedy of Partition’ by Jaswant Singh or a more balanced account by Ayesha Jalal in ‘The Sole Spokesman’.

    Now a few quotes from Jinnah for your consideration:

    ‘You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State…. You will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”

    ‘Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims-Hindus, Christians and Parsis – but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”

    When asked whether Pakistan would be a secular or theocratic state, Jinnah retorted that “You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.”

    When another journalist suggested that the questioner meant a state run by ‘maulanas’, Jinnah retorted, “What about [a] Government run by Pundits (Pundit Nehru was the PM!!) in Hindustan?”

    Jinnah continued: “Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on duck`s back (laughter). When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago.”

  12. Dear Dr. Safraz,

    Thanks for your comments. Jinnah seems to be a very effective liar.

    Perhaps he was setting up a precedent ….

  13. Dr Safraz (quoting Jinnah) : “When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago.”

    Jinnah was absolutely right. That is why most of the Islamic world today is a paragon of democracy, while kaffir & dhimmi nations, like India, USA, France, UK, Israel, Canada, Australia are wallowing in the abject misery of non-Islamic servitude.

    Indeed it is Afghanistan & Iraq who now vie for being the flagship of the democratic world.

    The more quotes I am learning about this fellow Jinnah, the more his stature and integrity seems to be growing in my eyes. What a great man ! Almost as great as Nero, Hitler & Mao !

    No wonder Advani performs tarpan in his honour every morning. Sighhhhhh … we Hindus have no hope in Hades 😦

  14. Naaa. PBUH’s ‘acheivements’ categorically dwarf Jinnah’s.

    Jinnah’s ‘handiwork’ spread over a nation. PBUH’s magic spans continents and millenia.

  15. @ HHBB

    Some people carry chips on their shoulder – you seem to carry Frito Lay’s annual output. What exactly is it with your points on Jinnah and muslims? GB above anyway made it clear that the man was two-faced, willing to talk love today and hate tomorrow. It’s one thing to disagree with specific accounts of his life, but to compare him to Nazis and extend that comparison to all Muslims is downright wrong (fallacious would be the academic word but the structure of logic does not seem to appeal to you)

  16. @ Akasuna no Sasori :

    (Rheotorical) apology for having to start our conversation with me correcting you, but :

    (a) by error in ‘structure’ of logic, you are referring to a ‘formal fallacy’. A formal fallacy is where the very composition of the statement is logically inconsistent (e.g. Jinnah was a Hindu because he was a Muslim).

    (b) what you are referring to is an ‘informal fallacy’, i.e. the structure is not wrong, but the premises are.

    Now for your points :-

    “GB above anyway made it clear that the man was two-faced, willing to talk love today and hate tomorrow.”
    I agree with GB. Fully. I disagree with the good Doctor above when he says Jinnah was a ‘great’ and ‘secular’ man.

    “but to compare him to Nazis”
    The comparison is apt. Jinnah’s actions caused untold misery on millions. And they were intended to (a la Great Calcutta killing). He was a clever man. Clever and evil.

    Who do you want me to compare him with? Nelson Mandela?

    “to extend that comparison (of Nazis) to all Muslims is downright wrong”
    I did not do that. This is your fanciful and contrived interpretation.

    PS : I stay away from “chips” as I don’t like them. They have too much cholesterol.
    🙂

  17. @ Akasuna no Sasori

    Friend:
    I was the one who extended HHBB’s comparison of Jinnah to Hitler and Mao to include Mohammad (the Prophet of Islam).

    That does not mean that ALL Muslims are as bad as Jinnah.

    That did mean-
    that Islam’s message as professed by Mohammed is bad.

    You can see detailed analysis in the comment section of one of GB’s previous post titled, ‘Banana Republic’.

  18. Dear all

    I find myself unable to match you wisdom and knowledge. I leave this site with my best wishes to you and your families.

  19. You are the best HHBB; it takes guts to swim against the tide when there are so many keen ‘secular’ people around

  20. Dear all,

    Actually the basic thing is of civilization is “respect for people”. Those who are not tolerant are uncivilized; sometime they become even worse then the beast. Please study human mob behaviour you will get some most brutal events of the history.

    Some argument to share with you:

    1. In those riots, who were killed most? (Hindu Muslim or Sheiks?) Ans: Muslims

    2. Why they were killed? Ans: They were not prepared for the riot, they were attacked by big knifes and other weapons (built by local black smith in good time, strangely police was not aware of it; tough massive production was going on, and above a certain size limit knife was band in British India), including the modern weaponry the Marwari business men purchased arms and ammunitions from American solders. Sheik shoulders trained their village people use of modern weaponry and also the traditional weapons. To defend all these Muslim League supporters were given petrol bottle and iron rod! What a shame!!

    3. If you just think the weapons INC (The Indian National Congress) supporters, Sheiks and Muslim League supporters use you can see the difference. It is called politics my friend, INC took preparations for the riot and Muslim League declare it. It was an absolutely organized and well planned attack on Muslims. No it was for purify the nations. Cause Hindu Musilem Shieks lived together in India for hundreds of years. There was no any problem. Mughal Emperor Shahjahan married Hindu women. During the Muslim Emperorship a lot of Hindu and Sheik’s were in various top positions of the government. Every citizen of Mughal Saltanat had equal right. Guru Nanak was accountant of a Muslim Land Lord. This attack was to fulfil some people’s thirst of absolute eternal power of India, to remove competitors from the field. In the underground INC equipped their followers, spread racial hate (some of the victims exist even today). They agitate Muslim politicians by there attitude and speech. Please continue your research, I hope you will find the truth (if you want). It was stated that if a Muslim become Chairman of INC and if INC goes to power still the Muslim guy can not be the head of government. Those discriminations lead the Muslim League to dream for a separate country. Ghandi understood that, but unfortunately he did not had the power or the position to stop it, for this he offered Jinnah to be the first prime minister of India. But it was too late. Actually if Netazi Suvas Chandra Bosu were present, I believe the story would be some what different. In his absence some of the INC leaders start dreaming for eternal and absolute power of India. Do you know Sheik leaders realized who was behind that division. That senior INC leader was attacked by Sheiks when he travelled to India controlled Punjab. Finally was killed by the people who was the victim of his evil did.

    4. Just to remind you “when a civilized man goes anywhere, rules of law go with him. Please do not spread racial hate. Be civilised be responsible. Never think you are becoming smart by saying bad thing to some body. People are good together, please do not divide the world with religious believe.

    5. If you really want to talk about any religion, please study. And be sure it is not a matter of “guts” to write something rubbish irrelevant words. Perhaps what was not the tropic? Say Jinnah what ever you experienced of him it is your right. But do not attack any religion here; please keep it beyond the bloody politics.

    6. HHBB when you say Muslim stolen Bangladesh and Pakistan it shows your position. You don’t believe in other people’s right. Before English, India was ruled by Muslim Emperors. Shamelessly you are saying Hindus were the elite class. Shame on every lie and liar. Even if India were divide honestly based on Hindu and Muslim population, Kashmir, Bihar, West Bengal (i.e. Calcutta, Mursidabad) was to come in Pakistan. Don’t you know India was divided in two countries; Muslim Pakistan and Secular India (Please study your history text properly). Based on this concept the division was made. Just after the partition India was changed to “Hindustan”. Secular India was covered with poster “Ham Hidu Hai, Hindustan Hai Hamara”. HHBB and Rishi Kujur you people are not secular. You do not respect your fellow citizens, your different religious people you call different country men! Where is your Secularism? Hope majority Hindu people are not like you.

    7. If you say about riot, I had hundreds of relatives in Soabazar. HHBB please ask your uncle what happened in Soabazar. They cut off every individual of my family. There was a heavily pregnant woman. They cut her tummy and bring the unborn child out, then cut the child’s throat and put the blood in the moms’ mouth. They nail every young child of the family cut every adult. Only one person survived. A Hindu Art student who painted a lot of pictures of the riot at Punjab. In his statement he was saying “When they bringing the school girls in the road and raping in group on the street, I was looking at their eyes to find any mercy of any feelings for human being I couldn’t find any” (he was saying about India controlled Punjab)

    8. What happened at this riot was a shame on humankind. Please do not misunderstand me. I do not support Muslim Leagues “Direct Action Day”. I hate it. No matter what the situation was, I never agree a chief minister declare “Direct Action Day” It was criminal. I feel for my relatives almost every night, I feel for every individual died at that time, I weep for every women raped, every people had to leave there home. At present in Europe I live with Hindu neighbour. I never feel any difference between him and a Muslim friend. My Kabita Vabi takes care of me, I guarantee you she never treat me different as I am Muslim. No matter what you comment in this discussion. I guarantee that majority of Hindu Muslim and Sheik treats each other as neighbour. I hared many experience Hindu people were saved by Muslim neighbours, many Muslim people were saved by Hindu and Sheik neighbours.

    9. Sorry every body I am writing too much. Please investigate, people died in that riot they deserve truth. Those who did the riot (all Hindu Muslim and Sheik) was our predecessors and those who saved there neighbours even by putting there own life in risk, was our predecessors as well. Then why we follow who did the evil? Why can’t we pick the good things! Why and how you forget our predecessors who fought and died together for the freedom of their motherland? Now after 60 years of an evil event, if the dark evil esprit enter in us and lead us to hate each other, wont it be shame of civilizations? The World has gone long a head. We should always look back to learn and to teach next generation peace prosperity and guide them correct way. Will it not be a shame if still we allow “divide and rule”? In Europe European Union formed with a common currency, why we can not make SAARC an effective organization? The answer is it will take a while. I believe this day is not too far when politicians of the subcontinent will not be able to divide people, create and nourish conflict.

    10. At last I salute and sympathize every individual who suffered in the riots in subcontinent irrespective of there religious belief. I curse every individual who caused those conflicts from 1946 to till date, directly and indirectly irrespective of there religious belief. I wish peace and prosperity for every individual under the sun.

  21. Jinnah was a secular man because he felt that ISLAM and POLITICS should be separate. He did NOT want Pakistan to be under the rule of Islamic law. He wanted a country where Muslims did NOT have to live beneath anyone. If you read history, Jinnah at first did NOT ask for the partition of India. He wanted the protect the rights of Muslims in India. That was his goal. He was a loyal Indian who did not turn his back on his community. Why did the Indians reject his 14 point amendment, which was called a “bare minimum” which protected Muslim rights? Why dont Indians mention the ill treatment of Muslims that existed during that time period? I suggest to all that they read the SACHAR REPORT which shows the disgraceful state of Muslims in “secular India.” Another charge that Indians level against Jinnah is the Direct Action day. This was a crime against humanity but was not Jinnah’s fault. Jinnah called for boycotts and peaceful demonstrations. He never called for rioting and looting. Unfortunately, a small minority of the Muslims began rioting, looting, and slaughtering people. This lead to larger communal violence.

    Jinnah’s dream: A land for Muslims where they would not have to live under the tyranny of Hindus. He had no intentions of this land being under Sharia law.

  22. @ Hamza

    It would be interesting to see actually what exactly Jinnah wanted in his 14 point amendment for Muslims.

    Here are 3 points

    1. In the Central Legislature, Muslim representation shall not be less than one third.

    2. Representation of communal groups shall continue to be by means of separate electorate as at present, provided it shall be open to any community at any time to abandon its separate electorate in favor of a joint electorate.

    3. Any territorial distribution that might at any time be necessary shall not in any way affect the Muslim majority in the Punjab, Bengal and the North West Frontier Province.
    Full religious liberty, i.e. liberty of belief, worship and observance, propaganda, association and education, shall be guaranteed to all communities.

    Dear Hamza….
    These three points effectively amount to creation of Pakistan within any larger constitutional setup.

    But cant really blame Jinnah or any other Muslim…i guess that is how secularism is defined by the Koran.

  23. How are those 3 points unfair may I ask? It grants MINIMUM representation of Muslims in a HINDU dominated land.

    May I also ask, how does this disprove that Jinnah was secular? Jinnah did not want the rights of Muslims to be diminished. He NEVER in any of his speeches said that Pakistan will be under Sharia law, there will be beheadings, enforcement of Burqas, etc etc.

    Also please address the fact that Muslims were not and are not treated equally as Hindus today.

    Secular means separation of State and church. Asking for rights for a specific community does NOT make him a religious leader.

    If your definition of Secular is so strict then India is far from a secular state. The government is dominated by Hindu dogma and there are radical relgious parties such as Shiva Sena that want to demonize the idea of secularism even further.

  24. The form of the future constitution should be federal with the residuary powers vested in the provinces.
    A uniform measure of autonomy shall be granted to all provinces.
    All legislatures in the country and other elected bodies shall be constituted on the definite principle of adequate and effective representation of minorities in every province without reducing the majority in any province to a minority or even equality.
    In the Central Legislature, Muslim representation shall not be less than one third.
    Representation of communal groups shall continue to be by means of separate electorate as at present, provided it shall be open to any community at any time to abandon its separate electorate in favor of a joint electorate.
    Any territorial distribution that might at any time be necessary shall not in any way affect the Muslim majority in the Punjab, Bengal and the North West Frontier Province.
    Full religious liberty, i.e. liberty of belief, worship and observance, propaganda, association and education, shall be guaranteed to all communities.
    No bill or any resolution or any part thereof shall be passed in any legislature or any other elected body if three-fourth of the members of any community in that particular body oppose such a bill resolution or part thereof on the ground that it would be injurious to the interests of that community or in the alternative, such other method is devised as may be found feasible and practicable to deal with such cases.
    Sindh should be separated from the Bombay presidency.
    Reforms should be introduced in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Baluchistan on the same footing as in the other provinces.
    Provision should be made in the constitution giving Muslims an adequate share, along with the other Indians, in all the services of the state and in local self-governing bodies having due regard to the requirements of efficiency.
    The constitution should embody adequate safeguards for the protection of Muslim culture and for the protection and promotion of Muslim education, language, religion, personal laws and Muslim charitable institution and for their due share in the grants-in-aid given by the state and by local self-governing bodies.
    No cabinet, either central or provincial, should be formed without there being a proportion of at least one-third Muslim ministers.
    No change shall be made in the constitution by the Central Legislature except with the concurrence of the State’s contribution of the Indian Federation.

  25. Those are the 14 points of Jinnah. Sorry if I couldnt space them out properly. These rules seem perfectly alright to me.

    If these points had been granted there would not have been a partition because Jinnah from the get go wanted ONLY to safe guard the rights of Muslims.

    For anyone wondering, I am not a Muslim but I defend Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

    After doing research on the history of Indian politics I have concluded that India is NOT a secular nation and oppressed minorities. It is a land for Hindus. Everyone else is a foreigner.

  26. Dear All,

    The comments in this blog are far more entertaining than the blog itself. Of course, going through them is like reading a large compendium about the man’s life. So many insights into the true mind & nature of Jinnah in one place? Nowhere else.

    Though the real mystery is after leaving all of you & your families with his good wishes, did Dr M Amer Sarfraz continue to (secretly) visit the blog to see what was transpiring?

    Venky

  27. Dear Hamza:
    In a secular society, the state is NOT supposed to take religion into consideration IN ANY OF ITS FUNCTIONAL ASPECT.

    A separate electorate and compulsory Muslim representation, as demanded by Mohammad A. Jinnnah, is a direct contradiction to a secular state’s existance.

    As for treatment of followers of Koran is concerned in India, you should actually take the time to see for yourself that Muslims and religios minorities are given special and favourable constitutional perks, some of which can be even deemed unsecular.

    Now, it is a completely different issue that a person, who has allegiance to the Ummah and believes in The Koran, will find it difficult to see reason or respect in his/her immediate socio-cultural context or national identity.

    India is a democratic, diverse society, majority of whose people have Hindu ethos, which if you cared to know a little bit about, fundamentally does not support absolutism.

    Have you ever wondered why inspite of being the same people, a Hindu majority India continues to be a democratic society, while every other Islamic Pakistan or Bangladesh, takes 1/2 a second to turn into Islamic dictatorship?

    Hamza, I did not claim that you are a Muslim, and even if you were, it is not important to our conversation.

    The important point is, that Jinnah may have been a good person, a great thinker and a hot husband,
    BUT his initial 14 point demand and the eventual demand for Pakistan, were based on Islam and its followers’ separate identity and aspirations within the subcontinent.

    That certainly cannot be called secular by any standard….:)

    Btw, Jinnah was a cherubic angel when compared to the big Kahuna, Mohammad (p.b.u.h) and what he exacted from the people of Mecca 🙂

  28. According to your definition of Secularism, majority of today’s western nations were founded on religious dogma. America was founded by pilgrims to fled presecuation from England and wanted to live in a nation founded on judeo-christian values. Same concept applies for Jinnah’s view of Pakistan.

    Jinnah was not an Islamic scholar or Theologians. However he was a member of the Muslim COMMUNITY. At the time of the partition his worry was that the rights of the COMMUNITY would be usurped by the Hindu majority. Therefore he proposed the 14 points amendment and after it was rejected he called for outright partition.

    Just like the pilgrims who settled at Plymouth rock, they wanted religion to stay out of politics BUT wanted to live in a nation where they would not have to live under anyone.

    My definition of secular is the separation of religion and state. Meaning that if Jinnah was vocally supporting SHARIA LAW, he wouldn’t be secular by any stretch of the imagination. I dont think that being loyal to your community, even if religion is the unifyin factor in the community, Jinnah was non-secular. Again the main factor is that the Hindu majority treated Muslims as second class citizens during that time period. That is why Jinnah wanted partition. IT IS ASLO WORTH NOTHING THAT THE REAL ISLAMIST PARTIES, THE JAMAAT ISLAMI, WAS SUPPOSED TO THE CREATION OF PAKISTAN AND MUHAMMAD ALI JINNAH. NOW WHY WOULD A RELIGIOUS PARTY OPPOSE THE CREATION OF A MUSLIM LAND BY THE HANDS OF A NON SECULAR LEADER? IT IS BECAUSE JINNAH WAS SECULAR AND THAT IS WHY HE WAS HATED BY THE RELIGIOUS GROUPS.

    Now if present day India is so secular, then why are parties such as Shiv Sena allowed to operate? The leading party, BJP, is driven by Hindutva or Hindu nationalism. The Hindu religion plays a MAJOR part in the politics of India. That is my mind is not secular. Many Indian Marxist sociologues have described the Hindutva movement as fascist in classical sense, in its ideology and class support specially targeting the concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony.

    As far as equality goes, I present the Sachar report which shows the pathetic state of Muslims in India. There are over 138 million Muslims in India by recent estimates.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachar_Committee

    The presence of Muslims has been found to be only 3% in the IAS, 1.8% in the IFS and 4% in the IPS.

    Muslim community has a representation of only 4.5% in Indian Railways while 98.7% of them are positioned at lower levels. Representation of Muslims is very low in the Universities and in Banks. Their share in police constables is only 6%, in health 4.4%, in transport 6.5%.

  29. I also would like to ask you if you think that if India hadn’t partitioned in 1947, do you think such a nation could have existed? Could 500 million Muslims and close to a Billion Indians live in harmony? This “super” India would be extremely unstable due to the fact that it would be composed of too many different ethnic groups and too many religious differences. I think that the partition of India was inevitable. If it hadn’t happened in 1947, it would occur in the not too distant future.

  30. I think the best choice for all of us is to live in harmony. Pakistan needs to stabilized and transformed into a secular, liberal democracy. I would also like to address the radical Indians who would like to see Pakistan divided or taken over by a Taliban like group. If Pakistan were to be divided, you would have 4 individual states under the control of radical Islamists. How do you think they would feel about India? After destroying Pakistan these people would happily move into India and start causing havoc. If the Pakistani government falls, India will be in a great deal of trouble because if you thought that the Indo-Pak wars were bad, how do you think the Indo-Taliban wars would play out? So please lets all hope that these radical religious groups are defeated.

  31. Dear Hamza:

    Please go and read what secularism means in a dictionery.
    America certainly DID NOT begin as a secular state (hope that takes it out of the discussion, now since you have been trying hard to compare Jinnah’s dream of Pakistan to the US).

    There is atleast a century of gap between the America that was thoroughly colonized (under puritanical Christian ideas) and the America that had a secular constitution. Atleast a 100 years.

    The problem with followers of Koran is that, they are taught, that any place, that has a majority non Muslim-population; the followers of Islam are naturally being persecuted. But as I have said before, its not their fault.
    I would think the same way too, if I followed the Koran.

    It is not surprising that due to this very reason, followers of Koran cannot acquire a stable equilibrium in their co-existance with people of other faiths, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, even if they are their own brothers. In the case of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, it is the Hindus WHO HAVE BEEN AT THE RECIEVING END OF THIS HATRED and violence.

    Hamza, you say, “This “super” India would be extremely unstable due to the fact that it would be composed of too many different ethnic groups and too many religious differences”.

    Na na Hamza….ethnic groups and religious differences are not the problem, when it comes to Hindus….

    South Asia had always been a multi-ethnic, multi linguistic region with a stable political equilibirum until the disease of exclusivism as espoused by the tenets of Islam started infecting this unfortuate land.

    You need to look at the pre-Islamic history of present day Pakistan itself, to find proof of that.

    As for the numbers you ran about the employment level of Muslims in India, the law of the land and the people who enforce them, have ensured more than enough safegaurds to ensure their upliftment.

    In fact, it would actually help the Muslims improve their chances of mainstream contribution to nation building, if they start going to schools and get mainstream education, RATHER THAN SPEND THEIR LIVES ROTING THE KORAN IN MADRASSAS.

    So rather than counting the percentage of IAS and IPS recruitments, it would serve you better if you counted the number of Madrassas promising 72 virgins and 28 young boys to our future nationbuilders.

    That applies not just to India, but also Pakistan and Bangladesh. Infact, more so the latter two.

    I find your last message quite interesting. I also appreciate the fact that you realize the threat that Islam poses to humanity and the destruction it has brought about to both believers and nonbelievers alike.

    I promise you all possible suport in your quest for a secular Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan have suffered enough because of the Koran…. and it is time that we unite as 1/5th of humanity to deal with this menace. Please feel free to write to me at rishi_khujur@rediffmail.com

  32. Hamza,

    Let’s summarize the true designs of a certain world-dominating cult on South Asia:

    – The blood-soaked partition of India was forced on the Hindu masses, against their wishes.

    – “Secular” Jinnah was just the instrument, the symptom (not the problem) and a sure sign of things to come.

    – In his stubbornness to paint everyone with the “noble” brush, M.K.Gandhi may have unwittingly served as a useful idiot, a Dhimwit if you will, for Quranic supremacists.

    – A large Quranic beach-head was formalized on Gandhi’s motherland after having raped her into submission for 1300 long, excruciating years.

    – As we speak, this Quranic beach-head, that squeezes India from both sides (Pakistan and Bangladesh), gradually links up with a Fifth Column and gains fresh territorial and demographic victories (Kashmir, several districts of West Bengal and Assam, Malappuram and Hyderabad).

    – The Anschluss creeps steadily and bloodily, till the Western beach-head (Pakistan) is linked up demographically with the Eastern beach-head (Bangladesh) through the formation of a Quran-dominated belt called “Mughalstan”, that will then run through Jammu, Mewat, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and Assam.

    – In the next 20-30 years, we will have the pleasure of seeing the Islamic theocracy of “Mughalstan” – a Mughal-Muslim state in the Indian subcontinent, by merging Pakistan and Bangladesh through a large corridor of land running across the Indo-Gangetic plain, the heartland of India

    See the Map of “Mughalstan” here: http://www.ourkarnataka.com/images/others/mughalstan3.gif

  33. – This Mughalstan will provide a contiguous, strategic corridor to link the Ummah into a geographical Islamic crescent (between two disparate mini-Ummahs: Islamic Middle-East to Islamic South-East Asia) stretching from Morocco and Bosnia in the West to Indonesia in the East.

    See the map: http://www3.baylor.edu/~Charles_Kemp/mapmuslim.jpg

    – Until “Mughalstan” is achieved, you Indians will see serial bomb-blasts, attacks on Hindu festivals and temples, killings of Hindu activists, conversions and cow-slaughter that will continue unendlessly until the Hindu mind becomes too numb and shell-shocked to look at the bigger picture, or comprehend the future – that Mughalstan is inevitable.

    Mughalstan Paindabad.

  34. Partition wasn’t too bad after all. You Indians just postponed the inevitable outcome. Lessons of history have been quickly forgotten. Indians have become twisted “politically correct” escapists who prefer to turn a blind eye, or worse, even blindly support the totalitarian cult that caused partition to be forced on your proud nation.

    But then….. “Stockholm Syndrome” afflicted Indians and Pakistanis are not alone. Just look at how the Turks, for example, went from being victims to butchers with a vengeance, thanks to a violent change of belief systems.

    http://www.islam-watch.org/HistoryOfJihad/

  35. Yes Venky; I visited a couple of times but went away disappointed… until today. I find Humza, Ibne Warraq (the one with some ‘sponsored’ books to ‘his name’?) and others, which excites me. I will be back as soon as I find time …and the discussion moves to the next level.

  36. Ahhhhhh. Nice to see Abu Hamza has persuaded the good doctor to venture back, goody bag of falsehoods and all (Jinnah was secular … Islam means peace … In reality so called Hindu genocides were nothing of the sort. They were mass suicides by oppressed Hindus eager to rid themselves of vile Brahmins in order to gain the 66 pleasures of Islamic heavens).

    Welcome back, daktar-babu. We vile kaffirs welcome the opportunity to expose undiluted mendacity … in whatever ‘level’ it is presented at.

  37. @ Hamza

    It would be great if people like you, who strive to see a “secular” Pakistan, work to help Hindus from all over the world visit their holy shrines and pilgrimage spots within the territory of what is now the Islamic state of Pakistan.

    You will have to agree, it would be a important step in helping Pakistan’s secularization process.

    Hindu pilgrim centers like the Shaktipeeth at Hinglaaj (in Balochistan) and Sharadapeeth, Neelum Valley (in the part of Kashmir which is with Pakistan) are very important historical centers of pilgrimage for the Hindus.

    Progressives like you can build a movement to allow the World Hindu Council(VHP) or other Hindu social groups to develop these places and invest in their infra-structure.

    I am just thinking out loud…and you never know, we can achieve a lot, if we think positive.

  38. Hello Indian friends,

    I hope you remember me (an Indonesian fellow GB reader, currently living in China), from my previous comments on ‘The Sound of Inevitability’ post on this blog.

    As always, I am thankful to Arnab for facilitating this discussion on Indian history and not shying away from “politically incorrect” topics.

    What I do beg to differ from is fellow-reader Suhail’s rationale for believing (and writing) that the [Secular Nature of Jinnah] is a Partial Historical Truth.

    Suhail, please tell me how you can propagate this white-washing theory about Jinnah and his crimes against humanity, without as much as a look at history? Is it due to your smug indifference to history?

    In his book “BEYOND BELIEF”, Nobel laureate Naipaul attributes this indifference in part to “the Muslim convert’s attitude to the land where he lives. To the convert his land is of no religious or historical importance; its relics are of no account; only the sands of Arabia are sacred.”

    Suhail, I see that in your blog profile, you proclaim yourself to be a “Bombayite Forever” but go on to write that your current goal is to “Learn to speak and write fluent Arabic”. This makes me wonder aloud:

    Why Arabic? Why not learn to speak and write fluent Sanskrit, may I ask?

    After all, isn’t Sanskrit your heritage and the legacy of your ancestors? As an articulate, well-educated software engineer, would you not plan on learning the ancient language of your Indian forefathers FIRST, before even thinking of learning the language that was imposed on India by jihadi invaders?

    Where is your sense of priorities and affinities? Do you feel closer to Arabic than Sanskrit?

    In that case, fear not, my friend, you are in good company. Many of my fellow Indonesians are just as obsessed with becoming Arabic at heart and mind.

    For the benefit of all readers, I quote below from an article by Ali, who maintains a popular website in Bahasa Indonesia, the national language. (“Bahasa” is derived from the Sanskrit word “Bhasha”) :

    “Islam made Indonesian Muslims born out of Hindu/Buddhist ancestors with a 4000 year culture feel more Arab than the Arabs themselves. Our last most civilised 16 century Hindu kingdom (Majapahit) was destroyed by the crown prince who became a jihadi and called his own father, the tolerant and most revered king Brawijaya, a ‘Budha kafir kufur’. Yet this part of our history had been completely concealed from the classrooms for fear of upsetting Muslims.

    The country once world famous for its Hindu culture is now slowly becoming Arabized. Mecca has replaced our ancestors’ Hindu temples. Headscarves replaced flowers in women’s traditional ‘kondes’ (hair in buns). Even hair is now condemned as ‘jahiliyah’, i.e. from the pre-islamic ‘ignorant’ age.”

    I shall look forward to comments and feedback.

    Om Swasti Astu.

    Sriyanto

  39. Jinnah a Hypocrite ?
    When he wants to marry Ruttie.
    “In 1918, Jinnah married his second wife Rattanbai Petit (“Ruttie”), twenty-four years his junior, and the fashionable young daughter of his personal friend Sir Dinshaw Petit of an elite Parsi family of Mumbai. Unexpectedly there was great opposition to the marriage from Rattanbai’s family and Parsi society, as well as orthodox Muslim leaders”
    source wikipidea

    When his daughter wants to marry
    “Dina’s relationship with her father became strained when Dina expressed her desire to marry a Parsi-born Christian, Neville Wadia. Jinnah, a Muslim, tried to dissuade her, but failed. Mahommedali Currim Chagla, who was Jinnah’s assistant at the time, recalls: “Jinnah, in his usual imperious manner, told her that there were millions of Muslim boys in India, and she could have anyone she chose. Reminding her father that his wife (Dina’s mother Rattanbai), had also been a non-Muslim, the young lady replied: ‘Father, there were millions of Muslim girls in India. Why did you not marry one of them?’ And he replied that, ‘she became a Muslim'”.
    from wikipidea.

    It is hard for me to imagine that Jinnah was secular. However it
    supports the authors theory.

  40. Shan “Can we just say he was personally secular, but politically communal?”

    Hmmm, yes; most ‘good Muslims’ are. That’s the crux of the problem.

  41. Hi,
    watching this blog’s comment space growing is fun.
    Nevertheless, a suggestion to GBda.
    The day you decide to save these things for posterity in an abbreviated form, the only comment which is owrth storing alongwith the blog is the first one by sd
    Venky

  42. Here there are somany views and opinions about Jinnah saheb.People can agree or disagree. I think the truth is in the middle. Jinnah wanted a seperate nation. It is true. But some other leaders who has been considered as secularists also were the flag carriers of partition. Yes, it was for political benefits both Jinnah and they wanted another nation, not for religion.

  43. Dear Riyas,

    How are things at Pallikkulam in Kannur district, Kerala?

    Kshamikkanam. From now on, I will refer to Jinnah respectfully as “Jinnah Saheb”, as you do. Please forgive me for my egregious mistake.

    I forgot that the powerful Muslim League party and the “Fifth Column” in Kerala are very touchy and continues to adore our beloved “Father of Pakistan” Jinnah Saheb…..even 60 years after Jinnah Saheb brutalized and raped his motherland by hacking off 22.5% of her body to consolidate alien occupation of the Indian subcontinent.

    Why do you (a Keralite), who has never even set foot in Pakistan, respect “Jinnah Saheb” so much? 😀

    OK. Pinne kanam, cheta.

    Hujur

  44. Dear Riyas,

    Hope things are going well for you in Kerala.

    Kshamikkanam. From now on, I will refer to Jinnah respectfully as “Jinnah Saheb”, as you do. Please forgive me for my egregious mistake.

    I wasn’t aware that the Muslim League party (IUML) is very powerful in Kerala and continues to adore our beloved Jinnah Saheb.

    OK. Pinne kanam, cheta.

  45. Arnab,

    I have to admit.. this time you have hit it right in the center. I will reconsider my impression of your rightist leanings :).

    Jinnah’s true counterpart in the disconnect between political and personal personas would be Veer Sarvarkar the atheist who laid the foundations of Hindu nationalism.

    That is what rankles me most about this kind of politics and these politicians. Their personal values breathe easy and they choose to suffocate the unsuspecting masses with their set of heavy, uncompromising moral policies. Give me a Gandhi anyday. You could disagree with his views, call him a quirky budhdha but you could not accuse him of double standards.

    Another interesting observation vis-a-vis the partition and percieved losses…. The muslims think they were at a disadvantage, the hindus think they were, the truth is that both were equally barbarious. The scars of partition still have not healed. I suspect it will take another century before the memory starts to fades away. That the legacy of Jinnah, Congress and the British left behind for the sub-continent.

    And yes, also have to admit to another thing. Reading the comments on this thread makes me feel sad. Sad and ashamed. I am a hindu, a proud hindu but I cannot subscribe to this flavour of religious goondaism exhibited here. Half the commentators on this thread would do good in the Bajrang Sena. Flexing your fingers in cyberspace is waste of you passion folks!

  46. Dear Hujur,
    ????????? ?????? ??????????????????? ?????????? ????????? ?????????????????.?????? ????? ??? ?????????????????? ??????????? ???????? ??.??.?? ??????? ????????????. According to Advani, Jinnah was the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.

  47. Dear Hujur,
    The IUML leaders have already mentioned that it was not Jinnah’s league.It was Advani, the senior most leader of Bharatiya Janata Party told that Jinnah was a secularist.According to Advani, Jinnah was the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.

  48. Dear KPM Riyas,

    We all know what Advani said.*

    What’s YOUR excuse for refering to Jinnah adoringly as “Jinnah Saheb”?

    Since you claim that Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) is not Jinnah’s Muslim League, then why do you refer to “Jinnah Saheb” with utmost reverence?

    Veritably, “Jinnah Saheb” and his mandate still continue to be very popular in Kerala (especially in Malappuram district and large swathes of Kannur, Kozhikode and Palakkad districts)

    It’s obvious that the key sections of the Muslim League have stayed behind in India to complete Jinnah’s unfinished work of partition i.e. Complete Arabisation of Kerala and the rest of India by the year 2020 by over-breeding, conversions, massacres and terror attacks.

    – Hujur

    P.S: *GB readers can get an interesting glimpse into Advani’s psyche by perusing his autobiography: “My Country, My Life”.

    Excerpts from all the chapters of Advani’s book can be read online at (the very bottom of this website):

    http://www.MyCountryMyLife.com/index2.html

  49. I am not an adorer of Jinnah.But I don’t want to widrow my reference as ‘Jinnah Saheb’.Because Calling a muslim as Saheb is usual.I think You are loving and following Advani. That Advani too respecting Jinnah. We all know Advani very well.He want to be the next PM.So he is trying to make a secular image like Vajpey.

  50. This particular Mr Jinnah — was he Hindu or Muslim? I am reading about his comments and activities, but no clear picture is emerging…

  51. @ shovonc : “This particular Mr Jinnah — was he Hindu or Muslim?”

    Whatever he as, he was a MASS-MURDEROR. His antics are responsible for the genocide of as nearlay as many people as Eichmann.

    “HOLOCAUST DENIAL IS A CRIME IN GERMANY. INDIA SHOULD MAKE IT A CRIME TO DENY 1,300 YEARS OF GENOCIDE IN INDIA”

  52. I completely agree with Ritu. People like rishi_khujur, Hara hara bom bom, Yaaaahoo and rishi_khujur are a disgrace to India and Hindu community. There should be a way of excluding such individuals (I wonder if they own the site!!) so that this discussion remains informative and insightful and people like Dr. Sarfraz and Ibne Warraq could take it to the next level.

  53. @Ann Marie:

    Sorry, I disagree, why should ‘people like Hujur/Rishi’ be excluded? As far as I see, they have presented certain facts/data (as did Dr. Sarfaraz and others) — that is taking the discussion further, isn’t it?
    .
    And I don’t know how long have you been reading this site, but I have been reading for some time and such ‘religious’ discussions have taken place a number of times before. It always starts with Rishi (or his ilk, as you’ll probably call them) presenting certain facts, which are ‘countered’ by (so-called) ‘secularists’, as the discussion goes on, they notice that mostly, all they have is a ‘firm (mis)belief’ (as opposed to facts/logic on their side) and start abusing and calling Rishi and others ‘fanatics’ and other names. I might be wrong but this is how it seems to have ended a lot of times before this.
    .
    Having said that, looking forward to Dr. Sarfaraz and others to come back and continue the discussion.

  54. I have followed this site for a while with interest. I am afraid I agree with Ann Marie: people like rishi_khujur, Hara hara bom bom and even Ibne Warraq are fanatics and give a bad name to India and particularly the Hindu community. Data/facts from these heavily biased individuals?. … that is a serious joke. Excluding them would not help either because they would appear with different names. These kinds have their agenda of hatred to pedal either due to ignorance (Rishi or Hara) or by design (Ibne Warraq). People like Ritu, Sabbo Shachi, and Dr. Sarfraz are a breath of fresh air; they should be encouraged to write more. I googled their names: I doubt Dr. Sarfraz (a serious academic) or Ibne Warraq (writer/author with an agenda) would ever return.

  55. I read this blog from time to time. I must confess that I met Dr. Sarfraz once at Murdoch University (Asian Night) 6 years ago. Since then, I heard, he has moved to London where he heads a think-tank and writes on politics/religion and mental health matters. Last year I saw him on TV with Jemima Khan. In WA, he edited a mental health journal, moved in the higher circles, and was a close friend of Pipin Drysdale (famous local artist). I remember talking Indian history with him in a circle of Hindu friends. He knew it like the back of his hand and his views were most balanced and praiseworthy. I wish he returns….you will all enjoy that. Meanwhile, wherever you are Dr. Sarfraz…best wishes from me and my wife.

  56. @ Karen:
    I appreciate your comments.
    But just giving prejudiced opinion is not fair, is it?

    I do back my comments with historically documented facts as well as verifiable data, that is available publicly.

    I would love to discuss with you in detail and hope you do the same too.

    @ David:
    Woww….appreciate your detailed description of Dr. Sarfaraz. But that does not help the discussion, does it?

    I have nothing against any individual or their job description.

    If you or any other person would like to talk about issues, please do so.

    To understand Jinnah and what Islam did to his intellect one must deeply, I repeat, deeply analyze this quote by Jinnah,

    “The seeds of Pakistan was sowed, the day the first Hindu was converted to Islam, a thousand years back”.

  57. Hi Karen,
    I enjoyed your hilarious post. Some facts on the apostle of peace, Jinnah, for you. I am typing off the cuff (all my notes are back at home in India), so feel free to corroborate the below. I’d like to believe any errors creeping in are minor.

    Also, when you have adopted an Anglo-Saxon nomme-de-plume, please ensure you do not fall into silly traps that no Anglo-Saxon would ever, ever make, even under the influence of Rohypnol. In your comments, you mention Rishi & HHBB’s “hatred to PEDAL”. That should be to “PEDDLE”. This is not a typo or a spelling mistake or an error of grammar or syntax. It is a fundamental error “that no Anglo-Saxon would EVER make”. A

    JINNAH’S PAST SECULAR CREDENTIALS
    Jinnah had displayed a smattering of secularism in his past. He was Dadabhai Naoroji’s secretary. It was he who tried dissuading Gandhi from charging Islamic extremism by inflaming the Khilafat movement. On many occasions he had spoken as an Indian rather than a Muslim.

    But all of these count for nought. The final avatar defines a man. And Jinnah’s final identity is that of a rabid leader of fanatic hordes calling for what is tantamount to the massacre of hapless and innocent Hindus.

    THE CALL
    =========
    Now let us see how the svengali put the chain reaction in motion. Jinnah held a press conference in July 1946 at his Bombay home, where he declared (a) his intent to create Pakistan, (b) the Muslim league was “preparing to launch a struggle”, and (c) the fact that “a plan had been chalked out”.

    On 29 July 1946, the All-India Muslim League passed a resolution in Bombay calling on ‘the Muslim NATION to resort to DIRECT ACTION to achieve Pakistan’.

    Maulana Hasrat Mohani declared to wild cheering that Jinnah had but to give the word for Muslims to “rise in revolt at a moments notice”.

    When a correspondent (Daily Telegraph?) sought clarification of Jinnah’s words, Jinnah replied, “There would be a mass ILLLEGAL movement”, which he then changed to ‘unconstitutional movement’.

    When pressed, Jinnah retorted: “Go to the Congress and ask them their plans. When they take you into their confidence I will take you into mine. … I ALSO AM GOING TO MAKE TROUBLE”.

    On the very next day, Jinnah announced August 16, 1946 would be “Direct Action Day”. His chilling choice of words betray the state of his vicious mind. “If not a divided India, then a DESTROYED India”.

    THE BUILD UP
    ============
    Jinnah’s local Muslim League corps, led by Suhrawardy, started making arrangement at fever pitch in Bengal.

    – The League mobilised all frontal organisations (read murderors and goons) to make the Direct Action Day a success.

    – Special coupons for gallons of petrol were issued in the names of League ministers for use by party functionaries. This petrol was used to burn Hindu businesses.

    – One month’s food ration for 10,000 people was drawn in advance to feed the League activists.

    – Suhrawardy declared a three-day holiday, ensuring Muslims would be able to efficiently mobilise while the Hindu babus lazed at home before realising the horror.

    Everything was put in place for the jehad to proceed like clockwork.

    On that terrible day, the League staged a rally at Shahihd Minar. The meeting proper commenced at 4 pm, while Muslim groups from all parts of Calcutta had started assembling since noon. Estimates range from 100,000 to 300,000 strong; it was the LARGEST MUSLIM gathering, and many attendants were wielding iron bars.

    Suhrawardy openly declared to the assembled mobs, “I have made all arrangements with the police and military not to interfere with the Muslims”.

    These were tha magic words, and the planned attacks began as soon as the meeting ended. Many listeners, as soon as they left, started killing Hindus and looting Hindu shops. Trucks came down Harrison Road with Muslims armed with brickbats and broken bottles as weapons. This was pre-planned. On Chittaranjan Avenue, Hindu house after Hindu house was systematically attacked and every inhabitant murdered. There were reports of Hindu children being nailed to doors.

    And this is the precious legacy of your beloved Jinnah.

    THE ACTUAL RIOTS
    ================
    I shall not dwell upon the developments. There are blood-curdling tales of massacres of Hindus, spirited tales of how Hindu resistance organised itself under the luminaries of the likes of Bidhan Chandra Roy, and patriotic goondas like Gopal Patha. And slowly the battle truned in favour of the Hindus.

    It’s not a joyous victory. Hindus perpetrated gory killings as well as well in the process. No Hindu is happy about it. But fighting back and inflicting misery on your unprovoked merciless attackers is the right of every community and individual, from Abba Kovner in Vilna to Gopal Patha in Calcutta.

    Interestingly, to consolidate his remote-control of the riots, the Chief Minister of Bengal (Suhrawardy) and his aides practically set up their camp in the Police Control Room, making it impossible for the Commissioner of Police, to issue balanced, clear actions to control the riots.

    Calcutta saw an overwhelming majority of Hindus being massacred in the early phase. But after Hindus started retaliating very effectively, Gandhi panicked and started another one of his famous hunger strikes. The embers in Calcutta died down, as the Hindus, clearly now with the upper hand after their successful counter-attacks, decided not to press their advantage.

    Phew, thought the Muslim league; we shall start the massacre elsewhere. And the holocaust of Hindus began in Noakhali.

    THE SECOND PART OF THE JIGSAW
    ==============================
    Muslims started an unprovoked massacre of Hindus in Noakhali from 10 October 1946. There is no record of exactly how many Hindus were killed in Noakhali and adjoining Tipperah (now split between Tripura & Bangladesh). Hindu sources claim 50,000. The League estimates, true to their devious and mendacious character, only admitted to 500.

    The truth is somewhere in between.

    The Muslim master plan of step-by-step, systematic rioting all over India, starting with Bengal, in a set-piece jehad, had been put in motion.

    This is Jinnah’s legacy.

    SPANNER IN THE WORKS
    ====================
    Alas for Jinnah, his Jehad could not materialise as planned. Those confounded Hindua and Sikh ‘fanatics’ now started fighting back, instead of laying down and allowing themselves and their kith & kin to be trampled and murdered as the good book (Koran) and Gandhi instructs all kaffirs to do. Bihar ‘exploded’ in Hindu fire. Rulers like the rajah of Ramgarh came out of their purdah to retaliate as well as pre-empt any jehad.

    Direct action seemed to have backfired, as Jinnah realised it would be trench warfare with the Hindus, and not the Muslim Blitzkrieg of his reverie. Besides, the Muslim League still had two secret weapons up their sleeves; British complicity 🙂 and Gandhi’s obtuseness :-(.

    BRITISH COMPLICITY ?
    =====================
    Evidence is emerging that the British may have been complicit with Jinnah. While the all clinching proof is not there .. yet …, disturbing questions are arising.

    One source claims a viceregal official clearly warned Wavell that a “universal Muslim hartal” suggested “possibilities of working up mass hysteria”. Wavell silenced him, stating that “Jinnah had no real idea what to do”.

    When Suhrawardy had firmly ensconced himself plum middle in the police HQ, the governor Burrows had the power to remove him from there. But why would they?

    My grandfather, before his passing away, told me how the British removed top Hindu police officers by sending them on ‘training’ and ‘leave’ a few days before the riots.

    More disturbingly, Jinnah and Churchill may have been writing love letters to each other throughout the whole gory episode.

    http://www.expressindia.com/messages.php?newsid=52299

    It will be interesting to follow future developments on this.

    OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF JINNAH
    =============================
    He managed to carve out a nation for Muslims from India. In the process, he caused untold misery for hundreds of millions of Hindus. That is his legacy.

    He created a hodge podge theofascist state, a state that brutally killed off or threw out nearly all its Hindu citizens, so that a vibrant pre-partition population of 35% has dwindled to 1% today. That is his legacy.

    He inculcated a venomous idealogy that led to the WITNESSED AND ATTESTED massacre of 3 MILLION people in Bangladesh in 1971. Primarily Hindu. But all (East)-Pakistani. That is his legacy.

    And finally, he assembled a Frankenstein that is the epicentre of world terrorism today. That is his legacy.

    If this is the idea of secularism according to you, Jinnah and the good doctor, you can keep it. I am just interested in stopping the gory saga of a 1,300 year massacre of my poor, hapless, innocent, peace-loving, cultured, literary, once-prosperous, pluralistic gentle and tolerant Hindu community. I can’t do it physically. But I can do it by highlighting facts, and clearly refuting blatant and evident lies.

    If that makes you call me a fanatic, SHRUG.

  58. The Roots of Partition aren’t that complicated – It is not permitted for a “Believer” to live under the leadership of a “non-Believer”.

    Any doubts? Read on.


    Roots of Partition

    By Prafull Goradia, Daily Pioneer, 9 Mar 2003

    Islam is unique. Its logic is infallible. And its symmetry is so perfect that it can neither mingle nor coexist with any other system. Little wonder that the religion is continuing to win more and more followers especially in the African continent. It is not surprising that Muslims have the courage to take on the rest of the world, if necessary, in the defence of their faith.

    Islam’s self-confidence is first and foremost reflected in the division of humanity into two – momins and kafirs. If there be a third kind of people, they would be ahl-e-kitab, namely the Jews and Christians. The kafirs are targets of being converted to accept the message of Allah; by persuasion if possible, by coercion if necessary and with the help of jihad, if inevitable.

    The flip side of this confidence is that the flower of Islam cannot blossom except in the garden of sharia, or Dar-ul Islam. The writ of sharia does not run in Dar-ul harb or a country of dispute. Such a country must be conquered. If that appears impossible, the ordainment is hijrat or migration to a Dar-ul Islam. The perfectness of this premise into the practice of Islam deserves study. But before that it is important to record what several Muslim luminaries, through history, have claimed.

    As early as the 18th century, the Waliullah religio-political movement had openly sought to enthrone pristine Islam. It gave a call for a moral, social and political regeneration of Muslims. Its political face was represented by Shah Wali’s invitation to Ahmad Shah Abdali (1722-73) to invade India to stem the rising tide of Maratha supremacy. Shah Abdul Aziz’s fatwa, which declared British India as a Dar-ul harb or an abode of war, was the religious face of the movement.

    The Mujahideen Movement (1820-63) founded by Sayyid Ahmad Shahid of Rae Bareli was a continuation of the same separatist movement. It has been described by Prof Sharifal Mujahid, in his monumental work Qaid-i-Azam Jinnah, as the outward expression of the first religious nationalism of the Indian Muslims.

    Professor Aziz Ahmad, in his Studies In Islamic Culture, has written that Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan “was the first modern Muslim to suggest that Hindus and Muslims constituted two separate nations in India”. In reply to an invitation by Badruddin Tyabji in 1888 to join the Congress, Sir Sayyid cited the Holy Quran by saying: “The command of God was that the Mussalmans could not be friends of non-Muslims” (page 204 of Badruddin Tyabji, a Biography, by Hussain B Tyabji).

    Another leader who felt that the two communities constituted two separate nations was Syed Amir Alt. As Aziz Ahmad has put it: Amir Alt, who founded the Central National Muhammedan Association in Calcutta, pressed similar views. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, although a Congressman for the greater part of his career, had early founded a journal called Al Hilal or The Crescent. In his own words, his paper “wants to see the Mussalmans only as Mussalmans. We have learnt all our policies from religion. We believe that every ideal which is derived from any source other than the Quran is patent heresy. This applies to politics also”. The Mussalmans need not join any party. They are the ones who, for centuries, made the world join their party and follow their path. They constitute the Party of God, the Arabic expression being Hizbullah.

    “The Khilafat Movement was an assertion of the Muslim identity in India. In words of Professor Sharif al Mujahid, the movement revolutionised Muslim outlook, stirred Muslim India to its very depth. He went on to write that “because the movement itself was basically anchored in religion, it had the ultimate effect of intensifying the Indian Muslims’ loyalty to Islam. In strengthening this loyalty, the Khilafat Movement had significantly contributed towards the subsequent Muslim assertion of a separate religio-political identity under the Pakistan plank.”

    Although Sir Mohammed Iqbal was the poet who wrote the anthem, Sare jahan se achcha Hindustan hamara, he was also the originator of the idea of Pakistan. Addressing, as president, the annual session of the Muslim League in 1930 at Allahabad, he said that the Muslim demand for the creation of a Muslim India within India is justified. This is quoted in the book Indian Muslims by Ram Gopal.

    Chaudhri Rahmat Ali crystalised the idea of Allama Iqbal in 1933 when he was at Cambridge. He circulated a four-page leaflet called Now or Never to the third Round Table Conference. The leaflet read: “There can be no peace or tranquility in this land if we, the Muslims, are duped into a Hindu-dominated federation where we cannot be the masters of our own destiny and the captains of our own souls.”

    It was claimed the memorandum was presented on behalf of 13 million Muslims who lived in Pakistan or the land of the pure. The leaflet stated: “We do not inter-dine, we do not inter-marry. Our national customs and calendars, even our diet and dress are different.” In July 1935, Rahmat Ali proclaimed himself the founder of Pakistan National Movement and circulated another leaflet. It said: “While Burma is being separated from Hindoostan, it remains a mystery to us why Pakistan is to be forced into the Indian federation. The choice now facing the Muslim community is between reconstruction in Asia and redestruction in India.”

    Dr SM Ikram in his book Modern Muslim India And The Birth of Pakistan stressed how inseparable separatism was for the Muslims in a non-Muslim country. On the first page of Chapter I, he states: “It is true that the ground for Muslim separatism was prepared when Islam entered the subcontinent, and all efforts to provide a bridge between Hindus and Muslims failed. For practical purposes, however, the gradual crystallisation and realisation of the idea of Pakistan is related to the period of British rule.”

    Partition of India was traumatic to the Muslims of North India, especially those in Punjab. Nevertheless, majority of Indian Muslims remained where they were and overcame the shock in no time. Their mindset remained unchanged. Currently, it is articulated by a number of leaders who call themselves and their community Muslim Indians as distinct from Indian Muslims. The clear assertion is that they are Muslims first and Indians later. These leaders express themselves frequently in the newspapers. In one of his submissions to a national daily, Syed Shahabuddin wrote that the Muslim Indians were prepared to undertake hijrat to a new Dar-ul Islam which should be formed from one-eighth of India’s territory.

    How unchanging are the sentiments would be well illustrated if we go back to 1921 when 120 ulema had signed a muttafiqqa or united fatwa wherein they had declared: “It is not permissible for a Mussalman to be under the leadership of a non-Muslim, whether wholly or partly” (page 376, Gandhi by BR Nanda).

  59. Since the extremists are going round the bend now, I suggest this thread be closed unless anyone has anything substantial to add to the existing literature. I guess your legacy would be the opening article insightful contributions made by Sarfraz, Sabbo Shachi, Venky, and Ritu.

  60. Ann Marie,
    I find it a little surprising that you choose to label people as extremist based on your whim.
    If you do not wish to read/comment, it is your prerogative, but please do not presume that what you perceive as ‘substantial’ is also the opinon of others. Merely regurgitating data is one thing whereas actually debating on the basis of this data, quite another.
    In any case, why must any thread be closed because you feel that there is nothing more substantial to be said?

  61. I feel sorry to let the side down…. but I would like to take the opposite position from my fanatic herd…. because we cannot ignore certain historical facts established by unbiased historians.

    • Jinnah was an ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity until we pushed him out of politics and he left for London in the late 1920s.
    • Jinnah never demanded Pakistan until we (Patel & Co) pushed him against the wall and left no other choice
    • Jinnah was a brilliant lawyer and he ‘created Pakistan with the help of his type- writer’. Sarojni Naidu used to say that if only we had Jinnah… and all others were on the opposite side; Pakistan would never be created.
    • When someone presented Jinnah with evidence of Nehru-Edwina affair, he not only rejected it but also made sure it was destroyed; saying ‘politics is gentlemen’s passion and private life is private business’.

    Jinnah never conceived Pakistan to be what it has become; and neither India is what it should be considering what we do to our minorities. We should blame the leadership, which emerged post- Gandhi/Jinnah for the current state of affairs….and the fanatics who run amok on both sides.

    This thread should continue until people have something to say……

  62. @Raj : “Jinnah was a brilliant lawyer and he ‘created Pakistan with the help of his type- writer’”.

    Is this true? What did Jinnah use to Svengali like engineer the mass riots in Calcutta and Noakhali? His fax machine?

    Use your common sense. ‘IF’ the Vienna Art Academy had not rejected a struggling mediocre artist, we could have avoided the holocaust. But you cannot blame Austrian art for the monstrosity of Nazism.

    Similarly, I question your implication that we should be more ‘soft and understanding’ with Jinnah, with all the crimes consequent on his actions, because IF ‘we’ (yeah, me & you personally mate) had not pushed Jinnah out of politics, he may have turned out ‘alright’.

    He did ‘not’ turn out alright. He rained unbelievable pain, suffering and slaughter on millions. That is his final legacy. And that’s what he should be judged on.

  63. 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.

  64. 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.

  65. 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.

  66. 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.

  67. 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 !!!

  68. 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.”

  69. Pingback: The Power Of History | Random Thoughts of a Demented Mind

  70. @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”?

  71. 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.

  72. 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.

Have An Opinion? Type Away

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s