http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/mera-sahib-saadat-hassan-mantos-classic/
September 16, 2009...2:36 pm
Mera Sahib – Saadat Hassan Manto’s Classic
Saadat Hassan Manto wrote this classic in the early 1950s in Lahore.
The translation here is by writer who writes under the num de plume
“Godot”
“It happened in 1937. The Muslim League was in its juvenility. I, too,
was a young man. I wanted to do something. Anything. Besides, I was
healthy and strong, and wanted to engage in a rumble. I wanted to look
for trouble and pick fights. I was at an age when one longs to do
somethingBy something, I mean to say, if not a great adventure than
something!
“After this brief intro I return to the time when Ghalib was young.
Don’t know if he ever participated in any political movements or not,
but Yours Truly was a very active member of the Muslim League. Ghazi
Corps was comprised of youths like me, and I was a sincere member of
it. I stress ‘sincere’ because in those days I had nothing else. “It
was in those times that Mohammad Ali Jinnah came to Delhi. The Muslims
took out a huge and a wonderful procession in his honor. Obviously,
Ghazi Corps participated in this procession with full vigor. Our
leader was Anwar Qureshi sahib. He was a strong young man who has been
given an honor of, and is now known as, ‘Poet of Pakistan’. Our Corps’
youths were singing an anthem written by him. I don’t know if we sang
in tune with each other or not, the only thing I remember is nobody
cared about singing in synch. “This historical procession started from
Delhi’s historical Jamia Masjid and, roaring, passed through Chandni
Chowk, Lal Kewan, Hoz Qazi, and Chawri Bazar and ended at its
destination, meaning at the Muslim League office. In this historical
procession people yelled “Quaid-e-Azam,” which was considered illegal,
for Mohammad Ali Jinnah. A six-horse coach was provided for him. All
members of Muslim League were there in this procession. There were
lots of cars, motorcycles, bi-cycles and camels. But it was
exceedingly well organized. Quaid-e-Azam, who by nature was a very
civil and organized person, seemed very pleased to see such civility.
“I caught many of his glimpses. I don’t know my reaction the first
time I saw him. Now, when I think about it and analyze it I conclude
that, because sincerity is colorless, my reaction too was colorless.
At that time if someone had pointed me to any man and had said ‘there
is your Quaid-e-Azam,’ my adoration would have believed him. But when
I saw him many times there in that crowd of people and cars, my ego
was hurt: my Leader and so skinny…such a weakling! Ghalib has said: He
comes to my house God blesses / Sometimes I look at him and sometimes
I look at my house.
“It was his kindness and God’s blessing that he came to our house. I
swear to God when I saw him and his frail body and then my strong
physique, I wished either I contract or he expands. In the heart of my
heart, to keep him safe from evil eye, I had prayed for him and his
feeble body. The wounds he had inflicted were a common topic among his
enemies. “Circumstances change. Situation arose such that the art bug
that was sleeping in me started to crawl. I felt like testing my
kismet in Bombay in that field. I was attracted to drama ever since I
was a kid. I figured maybe there I could show off my skills. Now, on
one hand a desire to work for the nation and on the other, acting! A
man is weirdly contradictory!
“I arrived in Bombay. In those days Imperial Film Company was at the
top. It was difficult to get in, but somehow I got in. I worked as an
extra for eight anas a day, and used to dream that I will be a top
movie star one day. With God’s blessings, I am very talkative. I am
not a very pleasant talker, but I am not that unpleasant either. Urdu
is my mother tongue, a language the stars of Imperial Films did not
know. Urdu helped me out more so in Bombay than it did in Delhi.
Almost all the stars there had me read and write letters in response
to those that came to them in Urdu. All this reading and writing for
them did not help me, though. I was an extra and remained an extra.
“During this time I became friends with Buddhan, the very special
driver of Saith Ardesher Irani, the owner of Imperial Film Company.
Buddhan paid back my friendship with him by teaching me to drive a car
in his free time. But his free times were brief, and I was always
scared of the Saith lest he finds it out. I never really became a
skillful driver. Without Buddhan I could drive the Buick on an alif-
like straight road. My knowledge about the parts of the car, however,
remained zero.
“I was obsessed with acting. But that was in my head. My heart still
belonged to the Muslim League and Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. At
Imperial Film Company, on the Kennedy Bridge, in the Bhindi Bazar, on
the Mohammad Ali Road, and at the Play House, we used to have a
discussion, with groups of mostly Muslims, about the behavior of the
Congress. Everyone at Imperial knew that I was a Muslim Leaguey and
adored Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. But it was a time when Hindus
did not try to kill anyone who uttered the word “Quaid-e-Azam.”
Pakistan was not yet on the horizon. I think when people at Imperial
Film Company heard me praise Quaid-e-Azam they thought he was a film
star and I was a fan of his. That is why one day the biggest film hero
D. Blemoria said to me, ‘hey, here’s your Jinnah sahib,’ while moving
Times of India towards me. I thought there was a picture of him in the
newspaper. But I didn’t see it. So I said, ‘why, bhaiya, where is his
picture?’ Blemoria’s John Gilbert style thin mustache expanded with a
grin, ‘no photo woto, this is an advertisement.’ I asked,
‘Advertisement? What kind of advertisement?’ Blemoria took the paper
back and showed me a long column and said, ‘Mr. Jinnah needs a motor
mechanic who can take charge of his garage.’ I saw the ad where
Blemoria finger was resting and said ‘Oh!’ as if I read the whole ad.
The truth is I knew as much English as Blemoria knew Urdu. “As I
already told you, my driving was limited to driving a car on an alif-
like straight road. I knew nothing about the mechanism of the car. Why
does the engine start when you press the self, if some had asked me
that question I would have said that because it is the law of motors;
and why it sometimes doesn’t start, then I would have said that is
also the law of motors and human intelligence has nothing to do with
it! “You’d be surprised to know that I noted down the address of
Jinnah sahib I took from Blemoria and decided to go there the next
morning. I neither thought nor expected to get the job. I just wanted
to see him in his residence from up close. Therefore, taking my
sincerity as a diploma, I arrived at his beautiful mansion, located
near the Pleasant Road, on the Malabar Hill. Outside was a Pathan
guard. He was wearing an enormous shalwar and a silk turban, was very
clean, strong, and intimidating. His appearance made me very happy. I
felt strangely satisfied that there was not much difference in his and
my biceps, maybe of half-an-inch or so. “There were many candidates.
They were all standing with their credentials under their arms. I
joined them. The funny thing was, forget about the credentials, I
didn’t even have a simple driving license. My heart was beating hard
just thinking I am about to meet Quaid-e-Azam any moment. I was still
thinking about my heartbeat when Quaid-e-Azam appeared in the porch.
Everybody turned attention. I moved to the side. With him was his tall
and skinny sister whose pictures I had seen in many newspapers and
magazines. On the side was his respectful assistant.
“Jinnah sahib fitted his one-glass round eyeglass on his eye and
started to scrutinize the candidates. When his eye turned to me, I
moved back further. Immediately his piercing voice was loudly heard,
but I only heard “You.” I knew that much English. It meant “Tum.” But
who was that “Tum” that he addressed? I thought it was the guy next to
me, so nudging him I said, ‘I think he’s calling you.’ The guy asked
hopefully, ‘me, sahib?’ Quaid-e-Azam said again, ‘No. Tum.’ His skinny
but iron-like strong finger was pointing at me. My whole body
trembled, ‘Ji, ji, me?’ ‘Yes.’ This three-knot-three bullet ripped
through my heart and brain. My throat, which used to yell “Quaid-e-
Azam,” was completely dry. I couldn’t say anything. But when he took
off his monocle and said “All right,” I felt I might have said
something that he heard, or he understood my feelings and said “All
right” just to save me from further torture. He turned around and said
something to his very handsome and healthy secretary and went inside
with his sister. Totally confused, as I hurried to get out of there
his assistant called me and said that the Sahib wants me present at
ten o’clock tomorrow morning. I couldn’t ask the assistant why the
Sahib wanted me; I couldn’t tell him that I was not at all capable and
not qualified for the job for which Qaid-e-Azam put out an ad. The
assistant went inside and I returned home.
“I was there again at ten the next morning. When informed I was there,
the handsome and very well dressed secretary came out and, to my
surprise, told me that the Sahib had selected me and wants me to take
charge of the garage immediately. When I heard this I felt like
spilling my guts and tell him that Quaid-e-Azam had misunderstood
Yours Truly, and that I showed-up just to have a little fun; why are
you putting this garage responsibility on these incompetent shoulders.
But I don’t know why I couldn’t say all that. As a result, I was
immediately given that responsibility and the keys were handed to me.
There were four cars of different makes, and I only knew how to drive
Saith Ardesher Irani’s Buick, and on an alif-like straight road at
that. There were many turns to get to Malabar Hill, and Azad was going
to carry not only his own self in the car. God knows how many
different places for important work he had to carry this Leader to
whom belonged lakhs of Muslims lives. “I thought of dropping the keys
and running away; run straight to my house, pick up my stuff, and
catch the first train to Delhi. But I didn’t think this was the right
thing to do. I figured tell the truth to Jinnah sahib, apologize to
him, and return to the place where I really belonged. But trust me,
sir, I did not get a chance to do this for the next six months.”
“How so?” I asked. Mohammad Hanif Azad continued, “Listen to this now.
The very next day I was ordered to bring the car. Those things that
fly at times like these, almost flew. I decided that the moment the
Sahib comes, I’d say salam to him, return the keys, and fall at his
feet. But it couldn’t happen. When he came to the porch, I was so
intimidated by him that the incompetent me couldn’t utter a word.
Besides, Fatima sahiba was with him. To fall into someone’s feet in
the presence of a woman, Manto sahib, was too much.” I saw bashfulness
in Azad’s big eyes and smiled, “khair, what happened then?” “What
happened then, Manto sahib, is that Yours Truly had to start the car.
It was a new Packard. I started the car with the name of Allah, and
took it out of the mansion very cleanly. When I got to the bottom of
the Malabar Hill near the red light at the corner…you know what a red
light is, right?” “Yes, yes,” I shook my head affirmatively.
“Well, sahib, that became a problem. Master Buddhan had told me to
just press the breaks and everything should be alright. In confusion I
hit the break with such clumsiness that the car stopped with a sudden
jolt. The cigar fell off Qaid-e-Azam’s hands. Fatima Jinnah jumped
forward two balisht and started cursing at me. A deep fear seeped
through my entire body. My whole body started to tremble. I felt
dizzy. Qaid-e-Azam picked up his cigar and said something in English,
which probably meant ‘lets go back.’ I obeyed the order. He asked for
a new car and a driver and left for where ever he had to go. I did not
get to serve him for the next six months after that incident.”
“To serve him like that?” I asked, grinning. Azad also smiled. “Yes.
You figure the Sahib would not give me another chance. There were
other drivers. They served him. The assistant told the drivers the
night before the car and the driver that were needed the next day. If
I’d asked him about me he couldn’t give me a satisfactory answer. I
found out later what was in Sahib’s mind. No one could say anything
about him with any certainty, nor could ask him about such matters. He
spoke only when he had to, and listened only when he needed to. That’s
why, although being so close to him, I could not find out why he kept
me like a useless car part.” “It’s possible that he forgot about you,”
I said to Azad.
A huge laughter came out of Azad’s throat, “No, sir, no. The Sahib
never forgot anything even if he wanted to. He knew very well that
Azad is breaking free bread. And, Manto sahib, when Azad breaks bread
they are not little bread. Look at this built.” I looked at Azad. I
don’t know what he was like in ‘37 or ’38, but I saw a well built and
a strong man sitting in front of me. You must have known him as an
actor. Before the Division he worked in many films in Bombay. With his
other actor friends he is barely making a living in Lahore these days.
I found out last year from a friend of mine that this big-eyes, dark-
skinned, well-built actor was a driver to Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali
Jinnah for some time. I had been, therefore, eyeing him ever since.
Whenever I met him, I brought up the topic of his Master and collected
his stories in my head. With an intention to write this essay, when I
listened to his stories yesterday, I saw a very interesting angle to
Quaid-e-Azam’s life. What had struck Mohammad Hanif Azad most was that
his Master liked physical strength. Just as Allama Iqbal liked those
things that were tall and majestic, Quaid-e-Azam liked strong things.
That’s why when he picked his servants, their health and physical
strength was the first thing he noticed. In those days, of which
Mohammad Hanif Azad talked about, Quaid-e-Azam’s secretary was a very
handsome man. All of his drivers had exemplary physical built. The
guards for his mansion were also selected based on physical strength.
What could be an explanation for this other than that,
psychologically, although Late Jinnah was physically very weak but
extremely strong from inside, he did not want to associate himself
that was weak and feeble. When a person really likes something, he
takes care of it real well. Quaid-e-Azam made sure all his well-built
servants dressed very well. His Pathan chowkidar was ordered to dress
his ethnic dress. Azad was not a Punjabi, but was at times asked to
wear a Punjabi turban. This headgear is quite impressive and one looks
very impressive in it. Quaid-e-Azam seemed very pleased by it and used
to award Azad whenever he put one on. If one thinks about it, Jinnah
being so conscious of his own frail body was his very strength of his
strong and powerful life. That was evident in the way he walked,
talked, ate, and thought. Mohammad Hanif Azad told me that Quaid-e-
Azam ate very little. “He ate so little I wondered how he is alive. If
I were forced to eat that little my fat would’ve started to melt the
next day. Despite him eating so little, four or five chickens were
cooked every day. But he used to eat only a very small cup of a
chick’s soup. Fruits were delivered everyday, and lots of it; but all
of it used to wind up in the servants’ bellies. Every night after the
dinner, the Sahib would check the list of grocery and give me a one-
hundred-rupee bill for the next day’s dinner.”
“One hundred rupees everyday?” I asked Azad. “Yes, sir, exactly one
hundred rupees. And the Sahib never asked what happened to it.
Whatever remained of it got divided among the servants. Sometimes
thirty rupees remained, sometimes forty, and sometimes even sixty or
seventy. He must have known that we kept the remainder, but he never
asked for it. However, Miss Jinnah was very clever. She used to get
mad at us and say we all are thieves. But the way the Sahib treated us
we used to think of his things as our own. So we kept quiet when she
would lose her temper at us. At times like that the Sahib would say to
her sister, ‘It is all right, it is all right,’ and that would be the
end of it. But once “It is all right” did not end it. Miss Jinnah
kicked the cooks out, not one but both cooks. Quaid-e-Azam had two
cooks at the same time, one was an expert in Hindustani food and the
other in English food. Usually the Hindustani cook was a waste and did
not do anything. He got to cook maybe once in months. Once in a blue
moon he would get an order to cook, but Quaid-e-Azam did not really
care about that food. “When both cooks got kicked out,” said Azad,
“the Sahib did not say anything. He did not interfere in his sister’s
affairs. So he started eating out in restaurants. During this time we
had a ball.
We would take the car out for hours, hang out, come back and tell them
we could not find a cook. Finally, both cooked were asked to come back
by Miss Jinnah.” If a man does not eat much, he either hates those who
eat a lot, or feels very happy to see others eat a lot. Quaid-e-Azam
ate very little but he was very happy to see others eat a lot. That’s
the reason he used to hand out one hundred rupees everyday and forget
about it. It doesn’t mean he was a spendthrift. Mohammad Hanif Azad
recounts an interesting incident. “One evening in 1939, by the Warli
Beach, I was driving the white Packard very slowly with the Sahib in
it. The low waves were touching the shore gently. It was a beautiful
but slightly chilly evening. The Sahib was in a really good mood. I
took advantage of it and started talking about Eid. He knew
immediately what I was after. I saw in the rear view mirror he took
his never-separating cigar out of his mouth and, his thin lips
smiling, said in a broken Urdu, ‘Well, well, you suddenly have become
a Muslim, try to be a little bit Hindu also.”
Four days earlier Quaid-e-Azam had turned Azad into a Muslim, meaning
that he had given him two hundred rupees as an award. That‘s why he
advised Azad to become a little bit Hindu. But that did not affect
Azad. In this Eid Azad came to the film producer Syed Murtaza Jilani
to affirm his Musalmani when I saw him and further interviewed him for
this story. Quaid-e-Azam’s private life is a mystery and will remain
so forever. That is the general feeling. But I think his private life
was so mixed-up with his political life that he had practically no
private life left. His wife had passed away long time ago and his
daughter married a Parsi against his wishes. Mohammad Hanif Azad told
me, “The Sahib was in a great shock because of it. He wished his
daughter had married a Muslim; the skin color or the ethnic background
did not matter to him. His daughter argued that if he could marry to
whom ever he wanted, how come he does not grant her the same freedom.”
Quaid-e-Azam had married the daughter of a very influential Parsi man.
Everyone knows that. But very few people know the Parsi man was very
unhappy about it and sought revenge. Some think he conspired to have
Qaid-e-Azam’s daughter marry a Parsi. When I talked to Azad about it
he said, “Only Allah knows. I only know that this was the second
biggest shock to him after his wife’s death. He was greatly affected
when he found out that his daughter married a Parsi. His face was a
mirror of his feelings, and reaction to even a simple event could be
seen on his face. A simple furrow in his eyebrow could become very
scary. What must have gone through his heart, only the Late One could
tell. What I found out from the outside sources is that he was very
disturbed. He did not meet anyone for fifteen days. He must have
smoked hundreds of cigars, and must have paced hundreds of miles in
his own room. “He walked a lot when he was in deep thoughts. In the
dead of the night he would pace back and forth on the hard and
spotless floor for hours. In calculated steps, from here to there, and
there to here, in the measured distance, his white and black, black
and white, or white and brown shoes used to make a strange tick tick
sound as if a clock is telling the news about its life in a consistent
manner.
Quaid-e-Azam loved his shoes, perhaps because they were always at his
feet and moved according to him. “After fifteen days of constant
mental and spiritual disturbance, he suddenly re-emerged. There was no
sign of shock on his face any longer, although the sadness had left a
slight wound in his neck. But it was still straight and stiff. It did
not mean, however, that he had forgotten the shock.” When Azad started
to talk about this aspect of Qaid-e-Azam’s life a second time, I
asked, “How do you know he had not forgotten that shock?” Azad
answered, “Nothing in a house can be hidden from the servants.
Sometimes the Sahib would order to open a trunk. In this ship-like
trunk were many clothes, of his late wife and of that disobedient
daughter when she was a little girl. When those clothes were taken
out, the Sahib would look at them with an intense quietness. Then a
sudden sadness would cover his thin and very clean face. He would
quietly say ‘It is all right, it is all right,’ take off his monocle
and, wiping it, would walk away. According to Mohammad Hanif Azad,
“Quaid-e-Azam had three sisters: Fatima Jinnah, Rehmat Jinnah, and I
don’t remember the name of the third one who lived in Dongri. At
Jopati Corner, near Chinnai Motor Works, lived Rehmat Jinnah. Her
husband was employed somewhere. Their income was very modest.
Every month the Sahib would give me a sealed envelope that had money
in it. He would also give me a parcel that perhaps contained clothes
and things. I used to deliver these to Rehmat Jinnah. Miss Fatima
Jinnah and the Sahib would pay visit there every once in a while. The
sister who lived at Dongri was married. All I know about her is that
she was well off and did not need anyone’s help. He had a brother. The
Sahib would help him out routinely, but he was not allowed in the
Sahib’s house. “I had seen this brother of Quaid-e-Azam in Bombay. One
evening, in a bar, I saw a man, who looked like Quaid-e-Azam, ordering
half rum. The same feature, the same backcombed hair, almost the same
white striped hair. When I inquired about him I found out that he is
the brother of Mr Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Ahmed Ali. I kept looking at
him. Sipping it slowly, he finished that half a glass of rum in a
royal manner.
It cost one rupee, which he paid as if he is paying a huge amount.
From his attitude it appeared as if he is sitting at a bar in Taj
Mehal Hotel, not in a flimsy and a cheap one. There was a gathering of
Muslims just before the historic meeting between Gandhi and Jinnah. I
had a number of friends at that gathering. They told me that Jinnah
was on the platform giving a speech in his typical style, and far, at
a distance, his brother Ahmed Ali, wearing his monocle, was standing
in such a way as if he was chewing his brother’s words.
“Billiards was the only indoor game Quaid-e-Azam liked. He would order
to open the billiards room when sometimes he felt like playing the
game. Although every room was cleaned every day, the servants made
sure the special room he ordered to open was very clean and everything
in it was set properly before he walked in. Because I played the game
a little, I was allowed in that room. Twelve balls would be presented
to him, he would select and the game would begin. Miss Fatima Jinnah
would stand nearby. The Sahib would light up a cigar, press it between
his lips, and would analyze the position of the ball he was going to
hit. He would spend many minutes in his analysis. With this angle.
With that angle. He would weigh the cue in his hands and move his bony
fingers on it as if it were a sarangi, mumble something, and take a
position; but if another angle come to his mind, he would stop, think,
make sure, hit the ball with the cue, and if successful, would look at
his sister with a conquering smile. “In the game of politics, Quaid-e-
Azam was as careful. He would never decide immediately. He would
analyze and scrutinize each problem as if it were a billiard ball. He
would move his cue to hit only if he was certain. Before he struck, he
would weigh his prey with his eyes carefully. He would consider all
angles. He would select the weapon according to the size of his
opponent. He was not a hunter who would pick up a gun and just shoot.
He would make sure not to miss. He would know his prey’s every
possible weakness before he aimed.”
According to Azad, “Qaid-e-Azam stayed away from the people who came
by just to meet him. He hated useless and senseless talk; but only
those talks that mattered, and even that had to be very precise and
concise, in both what he had to say and hear. That’s why only a few
people were allowed in his special room. There was only one sofa
inside the room with a small side table on which he would drop the
ashes of his cigar. Across the sofa were two showcases. He kept those
Qurans in them that were given to him by his fans. That room contained
his personal papers as well, where they were kept safely. He would
spend most of his time in that room. There was no table there. If a
person was asked in that room, he would stay at the door, listen, and
walk out backwards. The empty side of the sofa had his papers all over
it. If he wanted to write a letter, he would have the steno come in
and take dictation. His tone had certain harshness. When he spoke one
felt as if he was putting emphasis on those words that did not need
emphasis.” Judging from Azad’s testimonies, it seems the psychological
reason for his harshness was his physical weakness. His life was more
like a smooth pond, but he lived a life of a storm.
Some people say that it was his inner strength that had him live for
that long, that is, his awareness of his own physical weakness.
According to Azad, the Late Bahadur Yar Jung was among Quaid-e-Azam’s
best friends. “It was only him with whom he was so frank. Whenever he
came to visit, both men would talk about the country and politics like
true best friends. At that time, Quaid-e-Azam would separate his outer
shell from his inner self. He was the only one with whom the Sahib was
so frank and open. One felt as if they were childhood buddies. When
they talked to each other, one could hear the loud laughter coming out
of the closed doors. Other than Bahadur Yar Jung, other Muslim League
leaders, such as Raja Mahmud Abad, I. I. Chundrigarh, Maulana Zahid
Husain, Nawabzadah Liaquat Ali Khan, Nawab Ismail, and Ali Imam sahib
used to pay visit. But the Sahib dealt with them in a professional
manner, not in a frank way reserved for Bahadur Yar Jung.”
“Khan Liaquat Ali Khan must have visited quite often,” I said to Azad.
Said Azad, “Yes, the Sahib treated him as if he were Sahib’s best
student. And the Khan sahib listened to him very carefully, obeyed,
and carried his orders. When he was asked to pay visit, sometimes he
would ask me, ‘Hey, Azad, how’s Sahib’s mood today?’ I would tell him
how his mood was. If the Sahib were not in his good mood, every wall
in the mansion would know it. “Quaid-e-Azam took great care in his
servants’ character and personal behavior. Just as he hated bodily
dirt and smell, he hated bad behavior and character. He liked his
assistant very much, but was very irritated when he found out that the
assistant was having an affair with an employed girl. He could not
tolerate this irritation for long. The assistant was asked to see him,
and was fired. But after firing him, the Sahib started treating him as
a friend.” Tells Azad, “Once I came home at two in the morning after
having some fun. Those were the days when young blood feels certain
pleasure for doing bad things. I thought the Sahib would not know
about me coming in so late. But somehow he did. He called me in the
next day and said in English, ‘You are developing a bad character.’
Then he said in a broken Urdu, ‘Well, we’ll have you married.’ So,
when he went to Bombay from Delhi for a conference, I was married per
his instructions. Although I am just a Shaikh, I am fortunate that
only because of him I was married in a Sadat Family. The girl’s family
accepted me because Azad was a servant of Qaid-e-Azam.”
I suddenly asked Azad a question, “Ever heard Quaid-e-Azam say I am
sorry?” Azad moved his fat neck in negation, “No. Never.” Then he
smiled, “If by an accident he uttered the words “I am Sorry,” I’m
certain he would’ve erased those words from the dictionary forever.” I
think this spontaneous response of Azad sums up the entire character
of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Mohammad Hanif Azad is alive, in
this Pakistan given to him by his Quaid-e-Azam. And now, on the map of
this world, this Pakistan is struggling to stay alive with the
leadership of Jinnah’s best student, Khan Liaquat Ali Khan. In this
free country, outside the doors of Punjab Art Pictures, near the paan
store, Azad sits on a broken cot and waits for his Master. He also
prays for a better time when he would get his salary in time.
He is even ready to be a Hindu, as his Master once told him, provided
he gets that chance back. He was very worried when I talked to him
about Quaid-e-Azam’s life. He did not have money even for a paan.
When I started to make small talk to relieve him from his worries, he
sighed and said, “Sahib has died. I wish I had gone on that journey
with him. It would be his open white Packard. I would be at the wheel.
I would drive the car very slowly to his final destination. His frail
body could not tolerate jolts, you know. I’ve heard, Allah knows right
or wrong, that when the airplane with him on landed in Karachi, the
engine of the ambulance that took him to the Government House was not
in good condition. It stopped after going only a short distance. My
Sahib must have been so annoyed.”
Azad’s big eyes were full of tears.
Courtesy Chowk.com
140 Comments
Filed under Pakistan
140 Comments
Junaid
September 16, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Why was Jinnah so upset when his daughter married a parsi?
Wasn’t he a secularist? A questions some one the secularist supporters
of Jinnah need to answer.
Majumdar
September 16, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Junaid,
He was upset quite all right but not so much with NWadia being a Parsi
but being a person of a bad character.
It has been suggested of course that the rickety ambulance was
deliberately sent by LAK to ensure the Qaid’s premature death.
Regards
Bloody Civilian
September 16, 2009 at 4:45 pm
majumdar,
here’s a counter context to the suggestion about LAK: the limousine he
took the guard of honour in alongside mountbatten, on 14 august, had
also burst in to flames moments after the dignitaries had stepped out.
unlike delhi which was an established capital/centre, karachi was a
bit of a backwater. even the transfer of the less than adequate assets
took a long time.
Bloody Civilian
September 16, 2009 at 4:50 pm
… i believe the open top limo belonged to some local parsi friend of
MAJ’s
YLH
September 16, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Junaid,
Assuming that it is true – and not what Majumdar says- how does it
affect his secularism?
Does this mean all Parsis are non-secular – because they ex-
communicate all women who marry out of the faith? On the contrary
Parsis are perfect secularists.
What about Nehru and his objection to Feroze (Gandhi originally Khan
it is said)? Does that make Nehru less of a secularist? How about
Gandhi’s objections to his son’s conversion to Islam? Does any of this
mean that they were opposed to separation of Church and State?
I don’t think anyone who understands the word secularism in its right
context would not raise such a weird question.
Mustafa
September 17, 2009 at 1:27 am
hey guyz i am not sure if this is true but i heard that Quaid E Azam’s
grandson or something is living in very poor conditions and nobody is
helping him or asking him how he is doing
adnan
September 17, 2009 at 2:21 am
@YLH if i could take the liberty..as i understood Junaid is trying to
make a comparison between Quaid’s Muslim identity vs. a secularist
one.
i.e. why would he object if it werent for religious reason’s or as
MAJUMDAR said bcoz of the bad character of NWadia.
adnan
September 17, 2009 at 2:23 am
RE Mera Sahib!!
anyplace to get Urdu versions from?
Hayyer
September 17, 2009 at 2:45 am
Jinnah’s grandson is an Mumbai billionaire. You are probably thinking
of one of Jinnah’s agnates through a cousin of Jinnah called Aslam who
is reported to be destitute.
YLH
September 17, 2009 at 6:10 am
Adnan,
I have already answered that. See the Parsi example. Assuming it was
for religious reasons, that does affect one’s views on whether the
state should be separate from church and there should equality
regardless of religion caste or creed.
Secularism and irreligiousity are not the same thing. Only in Pakistan
secularism is translated as “la-deeniyat”.
AZW
September 17, 2009 at 7:53 am
Nice read.
Junaid:
You need to understand the word secularism a bit better. Secularism
stands for equal rights for every human afforded by the “state”,
regardless of their caste or creed.
I have another comment here. As much as I revere Jinnah, I am curious
about Azad’s comment that Jinnah never said I am sorry once. Now a guy
working for Jinnah may not have an audience to Jinnah at all times;
but does this little detail imply lack of humility at Jinnah’s part?
Or is humility indeed a virtue?
yasserlatifhamdani
September 17, 2009 at 7:58 am
“the limousine he took the guard of honour in alongside mountbatten,
on 14 august, had also burst in to flames moments after the
dignitaries had stepped out.”
Is this true?
By the way one L K Advani was the principal accused of the plot to
assassinate Jinnah in 1947.
D_a_n
September 17, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@ YLH….
thanks for the following gem:
‘Secularism and irreligiousity are not the same thing. Only in
Pakistan secularism is translated as “la-deeniyat” ‘
About time someone defined the blindingly obvious!
Junaid
September 17, 2009 at 12:48 pm
You need to understand the word secularism a bit better. Secularism
stands for equal rights for every human afforded by the “state”,
regardless of their caste or creed.
@AZW
Thanks for that. It makes things clearer. So a person can be a good
Muslim and advocate for equal rights of the citizens of his state. I
guess this is not possible given by nature of Islam towards non-
Muslims.
Which is why I think Jinnah made a big mistake.
D_a_n
September 17, 2009 at 2:35 pm
@ Junaid…
‘I guess this is not possible given by nature of Islam towards non-
Muslims.’
Utter tosh!
adnan
September 17, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Somehow i’m getting the feeling that this discussion is moving towards
the unfortunate or fortunate question of reason of being of Pakistan.
I say unfortunate since it’s been more than 60 yrs and we are still
discussing this question/fortunate may be coz people are inquisitive!!
but how how long this stays healthily inquisitive or mutates into a
‘Spanish Inquisition’ is a question of time.
For me there are no doubts it was for Islam….
But when someone asks i simply ask myself ‘What would a common person
of Pakistan Movement would have thought? Why was a commoner struggling
for a separate country for Muslims? What was that Pakistan ka matlab
kia LA ILAHA ILALLAH? How could Pakistan be a Laboratory of Islam if
Islam were not to be tested(though i disagree with testing term; i
take it as a simile) in it?
All this as Junaid said Islam has a rather different approach towards
Non-Muslims, i wouldnt say harsh or ugly, but certainly not Equal to a
Muslim citizen!!
yasserlatifhamdani
September 17, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Pakistan ka matlab kiya la illah ilallah was never raised during the
Pakistan movement… and certainly never by Jinnah himself.
The questions you ask yourself are misdirected. The commoner did not
vote for the impressive list of Maulanas… but chose to vote for Jinnah
instead whose westernized lifestyle were well known and were well
popularized.
Read Jaswant Singh’s book. You’ll see why Pakistan happened.
AdsBidWorld » Mera Sahib – Saadat Hassan Manto's Classic « Pak Tea
House
September 17, 2009 at 7:06 pm
[...] truth to Jinnah sahib, apologize to him, and return to the ….
See the original post here: Mera Sahib – Saadat Hassan Manto's Classic
« Pak Tea House Categories: Motors Tags: -like-trunk, and-return,
catch-the-first, figured-tell, first, house, [...]
adnan
September 17, 2009 at 10:08 pm
and now i should judge quaid by Jaswant Singh’s Book..he is the
authority now…wow!!
commoners didnt understand Quaid’s English either…but took it in
context of the contemporary newspapers which interpreted for them….or
when Allama Iqbal favored Quaid, the same guy who doesnt stop short
from ‘neel k saahil say lay ker tabkhaak e kashgar’.
as far as Pakistan ka matlab kia la ilaha ilallah, its a widespread
belief that it was a pakistan movement slogan.. so if u wanna refute
it..refute it with evidence!!(ask ten people from the streets of
pakistan)
But lets put aside the above arguments and then think.. i would say if
it werent for Islam creation of Pakistan was a big mistake…No, but a
stupendous one!!…if a commoner was suffering from so much low self-
confidence…and was so impressed by that Victorian style of manner or
culture…he should not have asked for self ruling… Who could be better
than the Gora saab himself…
and gora saab has indeed left some glorious examples…. we would have
thrived under the british as honkong, singapore etc did.and in some
way u can say australia, Canada as well….
Or if wanted a secular state why did the sin of dividing Historical
India…as the modern day Indians claim….(for the economic benefit of
Muslims? very pathetic….)
adnan
September 17, 2009 at 10:23 pm
ohh my goodness..now i realise this is a useless debate on this
forum….
there has already been a great duel on this topic in this exact forum
http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/remembering-bhutto-historyclergy-and-pakistan/
…so if that couldnt persuade people …i dont think my bickering would!
kabir
September 17, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Completely agree with Junaid.
bonobashi
September 17, 2009 at 11:07 pm
@adnan
I am sure that you were making valid and important points, but what
were these? You did mention in one of your last comprehensible
sentences that commoners didnt understand Quaid’s English either, and
so on. If that is a criterion for being the national leader, please
step up and take your rightful position.
1. According to you, if something is not understood, it is sufficient
to read about its interpretation in the newspapers.
This is the guiding fallacy of news in most parts of the world, and
the reason why western nations pay so much attention to managing the
press. It is very pleasing to note your attempts at global convergence
of views. Bushie Baba would be proud of you.
2. About Pakistan ka matlab kya….: I understand that you have in
effect claimed that due to the numbers of people believing it to be
true, it is no longer important whether or not it is true, what is
important is that a large number of people believe it to be so.
Fascinating; are you truly adnan, and a Pakistani? I would have
suspected otherwise, perhaps a Suresh Prabhu, or an Om Prakash
Sharma.
The argument you have used is precisely the one used by the Sangh
Parivar to justify the destruction of the Babri Masjid on the grounds
that it was built precisely on the temple marking Sri Ramachandra’s
place of birth; to argue that there was in fact a real bridge, built
by squirrels and other little furry beasts, at the personal behest of
Sri Ramachandra himself, to enable him and his vanar army to cross
over into Sri Lanka and settle scores with Ravana; also by their
supporter the Shankaracharya of Kanchipuram to establish the date of
the philosopher and reformer Shankara at some fancy date like 4,000
years ago (or was it 40,000? I have not updated myself in recent years
and don’t know the current state of predictability and prediction).
You are in good company, aren’t you?
3. I would like a guide, preferably a graphic one, indicating where
each sentence object is, and where the subject is, for your (I think)
fourth paragraph. As an alternative, I propose to save it up for
Sunday, as the comics and the puzzles have fallen off sadly these
days.
There is a possibility that you will not oblige, n’est ce pas? Let’s
try on our own, anyway.
But lets put aside the above arguments and then think.. i would say if
it werent for Islam creation of Pakistan was a big mistake…No, but a
stupendous one!!…if a commoner was suffering from so much low self-
confidence…and was so impressed by that Victorian style of manner or
culture…he should not have asked for self ruling… Who could be better
than the Gora saab himself…
and gora saab has indeed left some glorious examples…. we would have
thrived under the british as honkong, singapore etc did.and in some
way u can say australia, Canada as well….
Orgasmic stuff!
Argument 1: If it weren’t for Islam, creation of Pakistan was a big
mistake.
OK, so far so good. If you are under the impression that you are
supporting Islam in this manner, it isn’t a very good advertisement
for the creation of Pakistan (for a full understanding of what I just
said, please re-read your last sentence).
Supporting premise (a):
if a commoner was suffering from so much low self-confidence…
Hmmm.
Which commoner is this?
How did you divine the fact that he suffered from low self-confidence?
I am sure you don’t meet many such in the course of your day.
Had you met him?
Did he confide in you?
Did he write a book (you were asking for proof, I seem to remember,
about Pakistan ka matlab kya)?
Do you know the name (of the book)?
The publisher?
Do you like brown rice? (that last has nothing to do with the very
valuable points you have raised, which we will no doubt get to hear
about once the proper interceptor is born, but I thought some
nutritional market research would not go amiss).
Supporting premise (b):
and was so impressed by that Victorian style of manner or culture…he
should not have asked for self ruling…
Some more Hmmm.
I just finished teaching a Communications course; mind if I dip into
your exercise book for their problems? There’s 90 marks in that, so
think how your English will live on even after you, in the minds and
souls of 180 students.
[sigh] Back to mundane stuff. I hate these interruptions.
The Victorian age ended in – what was it? very early in 1901, I think
– so whom were you referring to, as being impressed by ‘that’ (which?)
Victorian style of manner or culture?
With such a rich surfeit of information in front of us, all of it, I
am sure, capable of comprehension by normal human beings (those with
nine less heads than Ravana), I dare not put to you any further
questions: there is always the horrific thought that you might find
answers.
kabir
September 17, 2009 at 11:07 pm
@ Adnan,
You’re right. If Jinnah really wanted a secular state, there was no
need to divide India. Which is what leads me to think he advocated TNT
so that he could get his share of political power which he perhaps
would not have gotten in united India.
There’s a difference between demanding constitutional safeguards as a
minority and being willing to break your country if you don’t get
them.
bonobashi
September 18, 2009 at 12:46 am
@kabir
Obviously none of the preceding discussion, on other threads, for
example, has made the slightest impression on you. There’s a
difference between rock-ribbed integrity, shown in an unwillingness to
compromise, and being obtuse.
Let me run through the old, old story just once again;
1. that Jinnah wanted a secular state, which seems quite evident from
his utterings in his Congress phase, in his Muslim League phase and
after independence, in the brief time that he was allowed, is not
disproved by his wanting a different secular state, outside India,
because the historical evidence is that he never wanted it to be
outside India.
2. Until as late as 1946, he was fighting with a single-minded passion
for a ‘free’ area for the Muslims of India, preferably in the Muslim-
majority areas of the north-west and the east; in fact, he had
suggested that there be two such, still part of India, with the rest
of India constituting the third portion.
3. This was the central theme of his political programme until the
fateful days of July 1946, when the Cabinet Mission seemingly got an
agreement both from the Muslim League and the Congress for just such a
proposal.
4. Nehru, within a couple of days of this seeming consensus having
been achieved, announced that the Congress would recognise no bars on
the members of the Constituent Assembly, which was to be set up to
determine the future constitution of the country, still the undivided
country.
5. This obviously meant that the consensus was in fact no consensus,
and that the Congress had in effect announced that they were agreeable
at that point of time, in July 1946, but did not consider themselves
to be bound by that during the proceedings of the Constituent
Assembly.
6. Jinnah had snapped out a terse reply when questioned about his plan
B, and found to his disbelief that the Congress had actually boxed him
in, by refusing the plan that the Cabinet Mission had proposed, for
three distinct entities to be formed of British India, to be linked by
a few very vital central services. This plan B that he never expected
to have to take up, was partition.
7. It is clear that the preceding experience of working with the
Muslim League in coalition governments had made the Congress
leadership bitter about the Muslim League, and its leader, Jinnah.
8. Perhaps for this reason, that of frustration with their experience,
and of consequent unwillingness to work with the League in future; or
perhaps because of a suspected personal antipathy to Jinnah on the
part of Nehru, the Congress preferred partition to working together.
9. There is a host of evidence that this partition was not what Jinnah
had wanted, and the result was not the Pakistan he wanted, merely that
it was the Pakistan that he hoped against hope would keep in place in
spite of its manifest disadvantages.
I hope this helps. Please do try not to introduce repetitive and
completely exhausted topics into the discussions. Courtesy demands
that you do your homework before putting finger to key.
Bloody Civilian
September 18, 2009 at 1:51 am
YLH
re. the limo… the engine caught fire minutes after jinnah and
mountbatten had got off and walked away. i’m afraid i’ve completely
forgotten the origin of the story right now. i’ll try and dig it up.
D_a_n
September 18, 2009 at 2:35 am
@ Adnan
you produced the following nonsense:
‘All this as Junaid said Islam has a rather different approach towards
Non-Muslims, i wouldnt say harsh or ugly, but certainly not Equal to a
Muslim citizen!!’
fortunately numerous periods of Islamic history,especially when we
were at our peak are available to refute you and make you look like a
complete buffoon.
Now run back to your dr. Israr day care and quit stinking up this
forum. There are plenty of other places for you to spread yourhslf
truths and rubbish…you are a discredit to my deen and to your country.
D_a_n
September 18, 2009 at 2:39 am
@ kabir
Hun araam aei??
PS: your agreement with junaid is further proof of your self loathing.
You will agree with just about anything with thinking it through just
to make it fit your world view.
Junaid
September 18, 2009 at 5:32 am
The dilemma on this forum is itself a clear representation of the
cheap mentality of the Muslim Indian elite.
The Muslim Indian elite of pre-partition would quickly wear Islam on
their sleeves to justify the creation of another country for “safe
guarding” the interests of the community.
However, once the country is created, the elite quickly starting
fiddling the flute of secularism.
@D_A_N
Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause.
The numerous periods of Islamic history you speak of are periods in
which Muslim rulers ruled but not necessarily using the Islam as the
source of their governance. For example Akbar etc.
So using those numerous periods in fact only weakens your own
argument.
D_a_n
September 18, 2009 at 6:05 am
@ junaid
oh really now?? And ofcourse I couldn’t really have been thinking of
anyone other than Akbar mind reader that you are.
Strong words? Weak cause? I suppose blanket statements born out if
personal issues or shades of ignorance make for stuff Nobel prized are
made off right?
YLH
September 18, 2009 at 6:06 am
Bonobashi,
Thank you for making those points. But about Kabir- he is not the kind
who has humility to accept that he might be wrong about something.
Junaid,
Unfortunately what you say doesn’t make any sense.
You should read Hamza Alavi’s “Pakistan and Islam: Ethnicity and
Identity”… It speaks of the Salariat (petty bourgeoisie) as being the
real impulse being the Pakistan movement. Hamza Alavi himself was
probably the leading Marxist historian and an authority.
The issue was that Jinnah atleast after having failed to convince his
Congress colleagues to concede residuary powers and reserved seats and
having failed to convince his Muslim co-religionists to give up
separate electorates thought that having two federations – one Muslim
majority and one Hindu majority (an idea that was already floating
around)- which would then come together as one confederation of India
or the model that EU later adopted. The whole thing was based on a
very reasonable legal assertion (which came out of the fact that there
were two Indias to begin with a. British b. Princely and a question of
how to bring these in a federation was discussed through out the 1930s
– Jinnah had advocating dissolving all of them at that time) that a
unitary center was a British creation.
If secularism is equality of citizenship, religious freedom, religion
as personal faith etc, Jinnah had maintained these to be fundamentals
of the new state through out the Pakistan movement.
Also may I suggest- as per your comments to Dan- that all your
comments are quite bitter. Perhaps a little more understanding and a
little more reading would do wonders.
Do read H M Seervai’s “Partition of India: Legend and Reality”. He was
not from the imaginary “muslim elite” that “created” Pakistan.
YLH
September 18, 2009 at 6:11 am
PS. The difference between rock rubbed integrity marked by an
unwillingness to compromise as opposed to being obtuse – I wish all of
us would know that difference, self included, and there would be
better discussions
Btw- Junaid mian : Bonobashi is not the Muslim elite here either. I do
hope you read his comments.
YLH
September 18, 2009 at 6:13 am
Erratum: That smiley is too cheery … I was going for a sadder more
sober smile.
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 8:13 am
Bonoboshi,
I am aware of all the points you are making. Do not assume I am
ignorant, it’s condescending, and I refuse to accept condescending
behavior from anyone, not from YLH and not from you.
I accept everything you have said, but if Jinnah had truely wanted a
secular state he would never have propogated the divisive and
exclusionary Two Nation Theory. Hindus and Muslims were not two
“nations”. Everyone was Indian. There was no reason to propogate this
theory, unless it was a political ploy. That is all I’m saying.
There was never, and will never be, an excuse for vivisecting India.
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 8:21 am
YLH:
I “don’t have humilty to accept when I’m wrong”? The pot is calling
the kettle black.
By the way, some googling shows how you were completely put in your
place over at Chapati Mystery. The commenter was right. Your attitude
towards Jinnah borders on hagiography– Jinnah is your khuda and rasul.
By insulting Gandhiji, you think you are doing Jinnah a service. You
are not an objective intellectual, and your pretense to be such is
beyond absurd.
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 8:23 am
Dear Kabir,
Let me make it very clear. You are not only ignorant, but you are
incapable of logical thought, reason or ability to argue coherently.
Had it not been for the circumstances of your birth, you might as well
have been right next to another “K”, Kasab i.e. Amir Ajmal Kasab…
I had this opinion of you from the first day you interacted here. But
these gentlemen that you are now accusing of being condescending
towards you were the ones hellbent on giving you the benefit of
doubt.
Now either you “accept” everything Bonobashi has said or you “accept”
what you say subsequently. You can’t accept both at the same time.
As for your other post – about objectivity etc I did not claim. Nor
did I insult your precious Gandhiji here except point out the obvious
criticisms that everyone including Jaswant Singh and even Gandhi’s own
grandson accept. You have yet to show me through any coherent logical
argument how I am wrong.
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 8:36 am
YLH:
I am posting a letter I wrote to you (it was intended for the other
thread, but I can’t comment there for some reason). It says what I
have to say in the fullest manner possible:
I may not be up on all the intricacies of the TNT, but I know that it
was used to divide rather than unite Indians. That is all I need to
know about it and that is why I can never support it. I cannot be in
favor of ideas that divide human beings from each other.
You say that it is ironic that I sing bhajans and yet I say that
“religious differences” don’t matter to me. Let me clarify that I do
not sing bhajans as a form of worship (though those that do so are
perfectly entitled to this). I sing them because they are an important
part of Hindustani Classical Music as well as some of the most
beautiful poetry written in the South Asian tradition—just take the
bhajans of Meerabai for example. I also sing Shabads and have won
prizes in several competitions, yet this does not make me a Sikh. I am
neither a practicing Muslim nor a “hindu wannabe” (unless in your
eyes, anyone who sings bhajans automatically becomes Hindu). If the
“hindu wannabe” quip is related to my name “Mohan”, this is the name
my parents gave me, in honor of none other than Mohandas Gandhi. My
brother is named Jawahar after Nehru.
As bonoboshi pointed out above, your attitude towards Jinnah borders
on hagiography. In your eyes, Jinnah can do no wrong. This is all I am
protesting against. Jinnah was a man and a politician just like
Gandhiji or Nehru. For the record, I do think Gandhiji made a mistake
in greeting Jinnah as “minority Muslim” and not as a fellow Gujrati
and Indian. But Gandhiji was only human, not god. That is my whole
point.
Anyway, I am tired of this debate. You and I have both made our
arguments, in the midst of a regrettable shouting match, and it seems
there is no chance of us meeting in the middle. So, for my part, I am
moving on.
Regards
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 8:52 am
Dear Kabir,
You’ve made no points. The points you make are established Indian
Nationalist mythology. Nothing else. What is worse is that it is also
Pakistani nationalist mythology as well (except that they view
positively what you view negatively). The truth is that the only time
TNT was used to “divide” instead of unite was when the Congress
cynically asked for Punjab and Bengal to be divided. According to
Majumdar it was a good thing.
Had you read Bonobashi’s points you would not be going in circles like
a twit. While I do not deny being a partisan of Jinnah… a Shia-ti-
Jinnah if you wish, can you point out where Bonobashi says that about
my “hagiography”. My admiration and defence of the man is based on
fact. It is not that I don’t accept criticism of him… indeed I have
criticised him myself but I reject the criticism you put up because
your criticism is based on a lack of knowledge, a lack of ability to
argue coherently and logically and as you admitted yourself – just
plain “emotion”.
And thanks for pointing out what your parents motivations were in
naming you what they did. Let me also say that in my view…
psychologically, these motivations cannot be described as “secular” in
the least. Now I think one can have a fuller picture of where you are
coming from. Like I said… had not been for the circumstances of your
birth you might well have been Kasab instead of Kabir given the little
thought you put in to strongly held positions.
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 9:02 am
Bonoboshi mentioned that your views of Jinnah border on hagiography
over on the “masters of mutilation” thread:
the quote is: “Please give this unrelenting hagiography a break. Many
of us admire him; there is a growing wave of realisation of his
sterling worth; but to insist that it was he, in all seasons, and for
all issues the only one that counted, and the rest didn’t, reduces him
to figures of ridicule. That is really not called for.”
What’s not “secular” about someone naming their kids after two great
heroes of the Indian independence movement: Gandhiji and Panditji?
My parents wanted us to have South Asian and not Arab/Islamic names.
Our cultural heritage is South Asian and not Arab. You may disagree,
but these were thought through political positions, not arbitrary
decisions.
Namaste.
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 9:07 am
“The truth is that the only time TNT was used to “divide” instead of
unite was when the Congress cynically asked for Punjab and Bengal to
be divided”
And this time counts for nothing? I would say it was the most crucial
time– this invocation of TNT resulting in millions fleeing their homes
and becoming refugees in the country meant for their particular
religion. My nana’s family was derailed by having to leave Amritsar,
and my dadi’s family was derailed from having to leave Agra, and
having to leave all their paintings, musicial instruments, etc behind.
See why I am so passionately opposed to TNT?
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 9:11 am
Kabir mian,
So you had to go all the way to the other thread to get the quote. You
said “above”. But that was in a context and that context has been
debated.
How about you begin to respond to Bonobashi’s points above instead of
wasting your time trying to associate with me positions that I don’t
hold? I have already divulged a bit on the great “independence”
struggle on the other board.
What your parents named you is of no consequence to me or this
discussion (you are only putting it up to earn brownie points now that
even Indians are beginning to call you out on your ignorance).
Frankly I am not sure that Arab etc debate has anything to do with it.
Your “namaste” is noted. Had I been from your ilk of fake
“secularists” I would have responded with a “namaste” or “sat sri
kaal”. But the question is have you ever seen me say “assalamualaikum”
or “salaam” either?
That is the difference between you and me… I am neither Turk Peshori
nor a Hindu… you are trying to be both.
Good Day, Ciao and Adios.
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 9:38 am
And just to emphasize that point… this article was originally
published in the Dawn and is by a truly secular Indian Muslim … I
reproduce the relevant part here:
“In Lutyens’ Delhi the hub of India’s power dynamic the circus of
feasts will see robed clerics from diverse Islamic clusters getting
invited to the prime minister’s house to break bread.Government
ministers party leaders MPs power peddlers middlemen in a nutshell
everyone who lives by the 13 per cent Muslim vote in India or those
who need to flaunt their secularism will take turns to rustle up an
appetising Ramazan menu.Of course only a minority of India’s 150
million Muslims are mullahs and so a few of the less pious variety
would also be given a slot in the meandering queue to rub shoulders
with the high and mighty.
Had Jinnah had his way there would be no need for the pathetic lottery
of Ramazan invitations.There would be no need for the Justice Sachchar
Committee set up to investigate why Indian Muslims continue to be
economically and socially backward six decades after independence from
colonialism.In other words had there been no partition there would not
be a need for communally driven dinner invitations even though they
are usually claimed to strengthen secularism.Indians would be less
self consciously tolerant and eating or not eating with each other of
their free will in an India that Jinnah had dreamt of.Jaswant Singh
has been penalised for implicitly asserting this.
As a matter of fact Justice Sachchar offered remedies that reminded me
of the crisis once faced by the International Committee of the Red
Cross when its representatives visited prisons in the Himalayan
kingdom of Bhutan.They recommended hot water baths for the inmates
which startled the jail warden who hadn’t had the luxury of one in a
fortnight himself.There are of course no hard and fast rules in
this.Political power does not flow from the numerical superiority of a
community over another.The partition of 1947 wrote this in blood.As a
maverick college friend remarked in capitalism man exploits man and in
socialism it was the other way round.”
http://pakistanherald.com/Articles/Going-Jinnahand8217s-way-1918
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 9:45 am
“And this time counts for nothing? ”
But you and your brother are named after those who insisted on using
the TNT in such a fashion…. as per your own admission. You keep
abusing TNT and declaring that you are “passionately” against it …
Would it be fair then to abuse Hinduism because it was used by L K
Advani and the BJP to demolish Babri Masjid?
bonobashi
September 18, 2009 at 9:47 am
@Kabir
I want to say something at this point. Most of what you have argued is
based on emotion, not on fact. I quite understand that some of these
emotions are important in themselves, it is just that the atmosphere
here is heavily biased towards academic analysis. In these
discussions, it is a sine qua non to be well-versed in the basic
grammar and syntax; you must be on the same page. It becomes difficult
to interact with you because in doing so, judging from the exchanges
you have had with others, the matter becomes a sort of two sets of
people talking past each other, instead of to each other.
If you were to go into a headbangers’ ball and start singing Pete
Seeger numbers, I doubt that you would last very long.
That is more or less the situation here. You are using a language and
a vocabulary which are alien, even inimical to the purposes and
objectives of the analytical posts like this one. There are of course
others which are an intriguing amalgam of emotion and logic, and
nobody stops you from spreading out on those posts. As a pointer, hunt
out Bradistan Calling and his posts. Kinkminos is heady stuff, but it
may be wiser to wait a bit to savour his full offering.
You are free to ignore this completely.
Do not mistake this post. If people barge into these discussions, the
logical ones, the fact-based ones, there is so much damage caused that
there is a genuine case for employing bouncers. There has been some
’self-appointment’ recently; you venture into these without homework
done at your mortal peril.
Majumdar
September 18, 2009 at 10:49 am
Yasser mian,
indeed I have criticised him myself
Good Lord, you have actually criticised the J-man!!! Btw, what was the
point of criticism, if I may ask?
Regards
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 11:00 am
Heck… you even acknowledged it. Yeh kiya majumdar mian…
Well I criticised him for his ill-thought references to Islamic
principles of equality, fraternity and justice… while I feel – with a
lot of justification- that he was saying that the principles of
equality fraternity and justice which are universal secular principles
are compatible with Islam… his use of Islamic vocabulary- ambiguous as
it might have been – seems to have given the Islamists who hated him
and his idea of an inclusive secular Pakistan a way out.
I have also criticised him for emulating Gandhi’s methods on July 29,
1946 … by giving a call for civil disobedience i.e. Direct Action…
which was used against him ultimately and even though the British knew
the real story (Lord Wavell’s letter to Pethick Lawrence) they still
used it to force Jinnah to back down on 5:5:4 formula as well as his
demand that as per the CMP declaration the British ought to have made
the interim government without the Congress given Congress’ dubious
interpretation of the groupings clause.
I have also criticized him for appointing Ch. Muhammad Ali as the
“Cabinet Sec” … the latter censored Jinnah’s 11th August speech… and I
have criticized him for not writing a constitution and foisting it on
the constituent assembly instead of letting those fools deliberate.
Majumdar
September 18, 2009 at 11:24 am
Yasser,
his ill-thought references to Islamic principles
Curiously enuff I was about to write a mail to you on this based on
some stuff which was brought to my notice by some Islamist gentlemen I
respect very much.
One was a speech in Peshawar in 1946 about Pakistan being an Islamic
laboratory and the other his speech (one of his last ones) at the
opening of the SBP in Aug 1948.
Hopefully I shud be able to write in later on the 3 criticisms you
have levelled against Jinnah sahib and a couple of more of my own
later this day.
Regards
YLH
September 18, 2009 at 11:28 am
Also – the most poignant criticism of Jinnah should lie with his
acceptance of the June 3rd plan which only a day earlier he had
returned to Mountbatten as “your plan not mine”.
When MB had threatened him, he had replied “what must be must be”.
What happened then on June 3rd that he accepted such a crappy
mutilation as his Pakistan?
YLH
September 18, 2009 at 12:14 pm
The speech to the state bank refers to Islamic social justice … and as
such is problematic.
The laboratory wali speech is what I criticise mostly because it lends
itself to such dubious interpretation. What did he mean. He certainly
did not mean what the islamists want it to mean… And he was hardly
talking about the state and its legal system… He was talking about the
society, about Iqbalian idealism of Ijtehad etc- of reform and
rejuvenation of Islamic civilization.
But can one really blame the Mullah types for twisting it (after all
even the Congress twisted a far more straightforward “grouping” clause
to its advantage)? This is the great failure of Jinnah- Pakistan has
become the laboratory not of Islamic reform but of Islamic terror- not
of Islamic modernity but of Islamic orthodoxy thanks to Bhutto and
General Zia…the lab itself is on fire.
None of this ofcourse can in the least be argued as being the vision
that Jinnah gave. Jinnah’s vision for constitution and state as father
of the nation is that which he gave to the constituent assembly which
has no reference to Islam and is completely unambiguous.
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 12:19 pm
@ YLH:
“Good day, Ciao, and Adios”– wow someone is a brown sahib wannabe.
I think you have a very confused idea of secularism. Using Namaste or
Salaam doesn’t make one into a Hindu or a Muslim. They are both
greetings that essentially mean the same thing– and it’s a good thing
in any case. Saying to someone “I bow to the divine in you” or “peace
be with you” are positive things– I don’t see why people have to
obsess about them.
@ bonoboshi,
With all due respect, you will note that on any thread I have
participated on I have always made logical, intellectual and non-
personal arguements, unless provoked by YLH, who has resorted to
attacking my father, my weight, my life choices, etc. So if you are
(justifiably) criticising me for giving in to emotion, please be non-
partial and criticise him as well for forgetting the rules of debate
and resorting to personal attacks.
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 12:24 pm
YLH, my parents did not name my brother and I after Gandhiji and Nehru
because of their use of the TNT but because they were great heroes of
the Indian independence movement.
Incidently, even Jinnah’s father had a regular Gujrati name. It was
only because Jinnah was born in Karachi, and the kids in Karachi had
really obviously Muslim names that his parents named him Mohammad Ali
(this is referred to in Jaswant’s book).
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Also, say a Pakistani person really admires Nelson Mandela and his
fight against apartheid in South Africa. If this person then names his
son “Nelson” it doesn’t mean the kid is trying to be South African and
not Pakistani.
Logically, the same principle applies to a “Pakistani” kid named
Mohan. One can admire Gandhiji without being a “traitor” to Jinnah.
One can criticize and be against TNT, without being against Jinnah as
a person.
Is this so hard to understand?
Majumdar
September 18, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Yasser mian,
the most poignant criticism of Jinnah should lie with his acceptance
of the June 3rd plan
What exactly cud he have done about it? What were the alternative
courses of action, if any? And what wud have been the likely outcome?
If you can shed some light on this.
IMHO, he cud have done nothing else save enter United India on INC’s
terms and I will explain why?
Regards
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Kabir mian…
Think logically…
What does any of what you’ve written corresponds to the debate? Jinnah
was born Mahomedalli Jinnahbhai (not Muhammad Ali as you put it) like
a good Ismaili gujurati boy… it might come as a surprise to you but
Jinnah’s family use to this day Hindu Family Law as per Khoja
tradition. Having read both Jinnah’s life extensively and having read
the Succession Act of 1925, I didn’t need to read Jaswant Singh’s book
to know all this by the way but you can find it there as well.
Do you think I have a preference for Arab names? I am not even going
to answer such a preposterous presumption. Those who know me know that
I prefer Russian names..
As for namaste … salaam etc… I just don’t use it any religion-specific
greetings. I have no desire for wishing peace upon anyone or I sure as
hell don’t wanna bow down to the “divine” in you. I do use Khuda Hafiz
but that is only because recently the trend has become Allah Hafiz in
the subcontinent. Otherwise I am not possessed of any such desire
either.
“wow someone is a brown sahib wannabe”
What do you mean wannabe? I am simply someone who doesn’t have time to
be “ethnic” and sing “bhajjans” or say “Salaam/namaste” and other
incidental cultural hang-ups etc etc. If that makes me a brown sahib
then so be it. But there is no wannabe category unlike you.
“Confused idea of secularism”
Why? Because I don’t think running around calling yourself Mohan and
singing Bhajjans and buying wholesale the Indian Nationalist mythology
doesn’t make you secular?
I think you know who really has a confused idea of secularism… someone
who thinks that by ending his post on “Namaste” or “salaam” he becomes
secular…
What next? “Ishwar Allah tero naam” is a secular song?
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Yasser:
Ok, you’re not a brown sahib wannabe, you’re just a brown sahib. But I
am not a “hindu wannabe” either. I’m just myself and I’m very
comfortable in my own skin. I don’t “run around calling myself Mohan
in order to be secular”. I call myself Mohan simply because that is
the name my mother gave me. She officially changed it to Kabir only
because she was told that “Mohan” was not going to fly in the Islamic
Republic and she gave in to pressure. Even then she picked Kabir for a
reason– because it is a name common to both Hindus and Muslims, and
she wanted to make a point.
There is a still a note of condescension in your post “I don’t have
time to run around singing bhajans and being ethnic”. Is being ethnic
a contempible thing? No one’s saying you have to do it, but it is a
valid way of living one’s life.
And yes “Ishwar Allah tero naam” is a secular song, in the sense that
the philosophy behind it is that it doesn’t matter whether you call
god Ishwar, Allah, Ram, whatever– it’s still the same god. Like you
said in another context, secularism doesn’t necessarily mean
irreligiousness.
P.S. I too prefer Russian names (particularly Dmitri) and my family
insists on the use of “Khuda Hafiz” vs. “Allah Hafiz”. So you see, we
actually have quite a bit in common:)
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“What exactly cud he have done about it?”
Jinnah could’ve told MB and Nehru to take a hike on the morning of
June 3rd.
“What were the alternative courses of action, if any?”
he should have made contact with the half naked fakir and his Mullah
sidekick telling them that they needed to grow up and take a clear
stance … Furthermore, he should have re-entered into negotiations with
the Sikh leadership and should have used the draft of June 3rd plan to
scare the shit out of them… this way he could make a broadbased
alliance with the rest of minorities and then non-cooperate with the
Congress … in every possible way. The League was already in the
interim government … and had already taught Congress a lesson.
“And what wud have been the likely outcome? If you can shed some light
on this.”
The negotiations would have re-opened. Congress would have to
ultimately accept the grouping clause….
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 1:30 pm
“Is being ethnic a contempible thing?”
Yes- especially when you clearly a mummy daddy burger family kind
trying to take it up as a fad or to be congratulated for “Slumdog
Millionaire”.
“And yes “Ishwar Allah tero naam” is a secular song, in the sense that
the philosophy behind it is that it doesn’t matter whether you call
god Ishwar, Allah, Ram, whatever”
WRONG! God itself is a non-secular concept – which doesn’t mean a
believer can’t be secular but when expresses this belief in politics
it becomes non-secular. Even if this song had been as benign as you
say it was… it would still be non-secular. However… the second verse
makes it not just non-secular but positively majoritarian
communalist.
“– it’s still the same god.”
I can’t comment on fictitious characters.
“Like you said in another context, secularism doesn’t necessarily mean
irreligiousness.”
Once again… your reading comprehension comes in the way. What I did
say was that secularism does not equate to irreligiousity … which
basically meant that a person can be religious in personal life but so
long as he doesn’t go about bringing his belief between him and his
public tasks he is secular. I did not mean – in the least- that such
crass attempt at superficial unity as “ishwar allah tero naam” is a
secular song. It is NOT.
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Saying Ishwar Allah tero naam is a secular song is like saying
“Intelligent Design” is a scientific theory.
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 1:36 pm
“And the reason I insist on saying Khuda Hafiz is entirely different
from what I can imagine is your reason”
My reason is that I don’t want to be exclusionary and I’m making a
point against Islamization and Sunnification. “Khuda” includes more
people, while “Allah” is specifically Islamic. Is that different from
your reason?
I agree with you that secularism means a person can be a believer in
his or her personal life but it shouldn’t make a difference in the
public sphere. But I disagree that “superficial attempts at unity”
aren’t important as well.
“You are a mummy daddy burger type”. I’m trying to patch up our
differences, why do still insist on being insulting? And no, I have
not taken up being “ethnic” as a fad. I have always been raised to be
very proud of my culture– of Urdu, shalwar kameez, Hindustani
classical music, ghazals, desi khana, etc. Please, it’s not a fad,
it’s a huge part of who I am. It’s why I want to pursue South Asian
Studies at a higher level, it’s why I engage on Indian and Pakistani
blogs as opposed to American one’s. You don’t know me well enough to
make such a judgement.
Regards
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 1:40 pm
“I can’t comment on fictitious characters”– well that’s what we
English and Drama types do all the time, we talk and debate about
Othello and Iago, Romeo and Hamlet, as if they were real people:) I do
agree with you that the god of the Bible and the Koran is a literary
character though, but that doesn’t mean he can’t hold meaning in
people’s lives.
That remark reminded me of Pervez Hoodbhoy, who is a dear family
friend, and who’s daughter recently commented to me over dinner that
“abba is a secular fundamentalist”, I guess the description applies
equally well to you:)
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 1:50 pm
‘“Khuda” includes more people, while “Allah” is specifically Islamic.
Is that different from your reason? ‘
Yes. My reason is simply that it was in usage for centuries and even
the most puritan Mullah said Khuda Hafiz. Now suddenly … Muslims all
over South Asia have decided against it… thus inventing “Allah Hafiz”…
for example I don’t have a problem with people using “Allah Bailly” or
“Rub Rakha” or the Bosnian “Ilahi imanat”… or even the “fe-iman-
allah”… so it is really not about including and excluding people since
I think a “Good bye” or a “farewell” or a “Ciao” are much better and
appropriate expressions for parting of ways.
Now I have to work… so I’ll talk to you later.
Majumdar
September 18, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Yasser,
he should have made contact with the half naked fakir and his Mullah
sidekick … The League was already in the interim government … and had
already taught Congress a lesson.
You don’t notice the contradiction. AIML-INC friction in the Govt had
convinced JLN and SVP that it was time to ask AIML and the Muslim
provinces to take a hike. Had the half-naked fakir and his Mullah
sidekick tried to object, the Pandit and the Sardar wud have each
taken a danda and shoved up it up their a***es. Like they did to Kiran
Roy and Sarat Bose.
Furthermore, he should have re-entered into negotiations with the Sikh
leadership, and should have used the draft of June 3rd plan to scare
the shit out of them
Bhaijan, the Sardarjis are far more intelligent than you give credit
for, certainly far more than the East Bong Hindoo a-holes. And they
had a truly visionary and patriotic leader in Master Tara Singh. They
knew pretty much what Muslim Raj meant and had already decided what
was needed to be done.
Regards
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Like Jinnah pointed out in a different context … no part of the Empire
could be kicked out involuntarily.
I think Jinnah was tired and dying… had he been two years younger, he
would have gone back to the drawing board and he would have won.
Majumdar
September 18, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Yasser,
Assuming Jinnah sahib was younger. Still he wud have been left with
only two options-
1. Accept the motheaten Pakistan.
2. Join United India on INC’s (read JLN-SVP duo)terms and conditions
with the distant hope that he wud be able to cobble together a grand
anti-INC coalition.
And if you think #2 was a valid option, do let me point out I can only
tell you that AIML wudnt have been spoilt for allies. Master Tara
Singh had openly declared war on AIML and do read up on BRA’s magnum
opus and the comments he made about AIML’s top leadership and even
Muslims in general (they wud make some khaki chaddis blush). OTOH, INC
wud have gone fishing for allies among the AIML waters.
Regards
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 2:38 pm
There was a third option… The option to force Congress to agree on the
Groupings clause.
It would have required moral courage on part of the British… and
perhaps that was what was lacking for Mountbatten.
Perhaps had Wavell n0t been fired in Feb.
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 2:39 pm
PS: BRA also said Jinnah was the right man to lead a minorities
coalition.
Majumdar
September 18, 2009 at 2:48 pm
YLH,
The option to force Congress to agree on the Groupings clause.
Neither side cud have been forced to agree on anything. INC cudn’t
have been forced to accpet grouping no more than AIML cud have been
forced to accept a United India on INC’s terms and conditions. In any
case, the moment the Brits wud have left, INC wud have denounced the
CMP-46 and declared that grouping was no longer acceptable to it. This
is precisely the reason MAJ (pbuh) realised that June 3 plan was the
best that AIML cud have.
BRA also said Jinnah was the right man to lead a minorities coalition.
I also suggest you read Chapter 11 of BRA’s book which is available on
the Net.
By 1946 he was more or less of the view that India was better off
without its Muslims. That Partition along with partition of Bengal and
Punjab was the best thing. Possibly with a complete exchange of
population (something which even the Hindutvists never insisted upon)
Regards
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Well… in so far as the first part is concerned…. I don’t think the
Congress could have forced the League and the Muslim majority
provinces to leave… just like the League could not be forced to accept
United India on INC’s terms.
Things would have led to an impasse. What was so wrong with the
groupings clause… don’t you think INC would have backed off from the
brink of civil war? Or do you think they were convinced they could
defeat the Muslim majority provinces.
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Yasser,
Regarding the question of greetings. Even “goodbye” which you prefer
is a shortened and much contracted form of “god be with you”, thus not
substantively very different from “khuda hafiz”.
karun4
September 18, 2009 at 3:11 pm
@kabir
There are only two types of mind in this world:
the greek mind ( cold calculated and rational)
the indian mind ( mystical contradictory(often truth lies in
contradiction) and intuitive)
there is no meeting point for them.
So stop arguing and be at peace. I appreciate your ethos and your
character. Keep up the good work!!!
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 3:16 pm
@ karun,
I guess one could say I have the Indian mind:). I take it as a
compliment:). We should chat off of PTH sometime.
karun4
September 18, 2009 at 3:23 pm
sure yes indeed you have a beautiful indian mind.
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Kabir…
Did you read this article over on your own website?
http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/jinnah-nehru-and-the-ironies-of-history/
Not so much as why… but just as a record… this article is brilliant. I
don’t know who wrote it… but perhaps if you were to apply your mind to
your own website instead of fighting with me you’d grow up a little.
Stop chatting with people like Karun4. Karun Varun whats the
difference…
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Also the origin of Goodbye might be in God be with you… but Good was
later substituted for God.
But now that you’ve enlightened me on that … I’ll use “so long”.
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 3:36 pm
And for the record I’d prefer the Greek mind over an Indian one any
day …. based on Karun 4’s Definition …an Indian mind is clearly a
nutcase and nothing else.
Even the great Ramanujan was a Greek by that postulation.
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Yasser,
That article you are complimenting was written by my father, Mir Anjum
Altaf, who goes by the name “South Asian”. Perhaps you want to tell
him how brilliant you found his article?
I have no problem with Karun. One can never have too many friends, it
doesn’t mean you have to agree on everything:)
Yeah I guess “goodbye” is out then… “so long” “farwell” “auf
widershen” are all good though… now I’m thinking of the sound of music
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 3:42 pm
@ Karun,
what’s the best way to get in touch with you? Facebook?
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 3:46 pm
@ Yasser,
To quote from the “brilliant” article:
“Did Jinnah never see that there was a world outside the courtroom,
that the forces that had been unleashed by the politics of separation
would never allow the situation to go back to what it was, no matter
what he wished or desired? It seems not.”
This is essentially the question I’ve been asking, though not in the
best way. How could a secularist like Jinnah not realize what damage
invoking TNT would do? If he did realize the damage, why did he
continue to invoke “the politics of seperation?”
Regards
yasserlatifhamdani
September 18, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Well I took that as a question that needed answering… but you would
know better… in any event much of that question I have answered above.
The TNT that he invoked was not separatist.
Let me quote some excerpts:
Two remarkable statements made around the time of the partition of
British India continue to intrigue me:
Here is Mohammad Ali Jinnah, addressing the Constituent Assembly of
Pakistan in August 1947:
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.
And here is Jawaharlal Nehru, writing to Chief Ministers of provinces
in India in October 1947, pointing out that there remained, within
India,
a Muslim minority who are so large in numbers that they cannot, even
if they want, go anywhere else. That is a basic fact about which there
can be no argument. Whatever the provocation from Pakistan and
whatever the indignities and horrors inflicted on non-Muslims there,
we have got to deal with this minority in a civilized manner. We must
give them security and the rights of citizens in a democratic State.
How can we read these two statements given the history of which they
were a part?
What intrigues me about them is the following:
Here was Jinnah, who had spent the previous twenty years arguing that
Muslims and Hindus were separate nations, so completely different from
each other that they could not live together. And here he was, on the
creation of the country based on that logic of difference, saying all
of you can now live together as equal citizens with equal rights.
And here was Nehru, who had spent the same period of time arguing the
secular perspective that everyone was an equal citizen regardless of
religion or ethnicity, still thinking in terms of minorities as
special groups who needed to be dealt with in a civilized manner and
given the rights of citizens.
I would have expected Jinnah to say something along these lines: I
know it is going to be very difficult but we must now find a way to
live together. And I would have expected Nehru to send out an
unequivocal signal: We are all Indians now; there are no more
majorities and minorities here
….I would argue that Jinnah’s innate values were secular. He belonged
to a minority trading community from Gujarat where getting along with
others was essential to survival and success. It is clear that Jinnah
could never have believed from the outset that Hindus and Muslims were
so intrinsically different that they could not live together. Had that
been the case he could not have been the leading ambassador of Hindu-
Muslim unity till the 1920s.
It was something in the politics of the situation that must have
convinced him that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in a
constitutional arrangement in British India that would be acceptable
to both communities. Based on that conviction (here we are not
concerned whether that conviction was right or wrong) he fought his
case and won. And once he won, and walked out of the courtroom,
metaphorically speaking, the political imperatives for him disappeared
and he became the secular Jinnah that he always was
But we can now push this psychological analysis further and note the
complexity of the interplay between the beliefs inherited at birth and
the convictions that are inculcated and sustained through intellectual
endeavor…..
Without the political imperatives that changed Jinnah’s beliefs, his
descendants are avowedly secular. And without the intellectual rigor
that characterized Nehru, his descendants are slipping back towards
prejudice.
That something was the failure of Congress to accomodate other points
of view in 1927-1930, 1937-1938 and 1946…
Your repetitive denunciation of the TNT as some how you can change
history makes it harder for you to understand this it seems.
A small correction: By the way Jinnah first used the word “nation” for
Muslims in 1940. It is therefore wrong to say that he was of this view
for the “last 20 years”.
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Yasser:
I realize that it was the politics of the situation that led to
Partition. I always said that Congress and the British had a role in
events as well. I’m not some rabid Jinnah-hater, even if in the heat
of the moment I came across as such.
I don’t think I can change history (how can I, a small person like
myself?). The TNT just gets to me in a visceral sense. I can’t stand
any ideas which divide people on the basis of religion, caste,
ethnicity, whatever. I wish Jinnah hadn’t felt compelled to use such
rhetoric. After people had been divided along communal lines, how did
he reasonably expect India/Pakistan to have a friendly relationship
with each other? That’s why dad’s article is called “the ironies of
history”.
Regards
YLH
September 18, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Now we are getting somewhere. Read my position carefully:
it is not that I am in love with divisive rhetoric but my view is that
once it was accepted that there was a Hindu community and a Muslim
community the journey from community to nation was merely linguistic …
with certain constitutional implication.
The self identification as Hindu and Muslim started happening some
time before Jinnah’s and Gandhi’s time. And for Jinnah – the
realization that he was a minority Muslim was almost entirely thanks
to Gandhi.
So TNT itself is not the divisive idea – infact it sought to bring
together through a form of consociationalism that which was already
divided.
So your zeal is misdirected.
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I know that self-identification as Muslim and Hindu occured before
Jinnah and Gandhi. As my dad has argued on his blog, it began with the
introduction of seperate electorates and the competition for political
resources.
Maybe i just expected better from Jinnah than invoking a theory which
could even potentially be divisive and exclusionary. I’m not fond of
Gandhiji’s khilafat movement, but I admire his strategies of civil
disobedience such as the Salt March. What strikes me as ironic though
is if Jinnah faulted Gandhiji for introducing religion into politics,
why did he turn around and start mixing the two himself?
aiimsonian 09
September 18, 2009 at 5:50 pm
kabir, you are cool, man!
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Thanks aiimsonian:)
Majumdar
September 18, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Let me attempt an critique of the great man. I will first begin with
the four charges that YLH had laid at MAJ (pbuh)’s door.
#1 Emphasising the Islamic ideology in his campaign esp in 1940-47
His speech at Peshawar ’46 (Islamic laboratory) and his speech at SBP
opening ceremony among others can be used to suggest that he was in
favour of an Islamic model. And yet there are indicators to the
contrary too. His 8/11 speech may yet be explained by Islamists as
something that is something that is not necessarily in contravention
of Islamic ideals. But there is no explaining the fact that when some
senior Leaguers led by Mahmudabad tried to pass a resolution that wud
have bound AIML to an Islamic state he used his influence to have that
resolution scuppered which led to the said gentleman quitting the
League.
So did he want as Islamic state or did he not?
While we can’t really answer that question based on evidence alone
there are two things that need to be kept in mind.
One, that the Muslims of India were not really a homogenous people, in
fact the Indus Valley Mussalman, the Hindustani Musalman and the
Bengali Mussalman had completely different POVs and there was no
option but to invoke Islam to keep the three strands in one party.
Two, that he never foresaw that Islam cud be hijacked by cavemen to
enslave non-Muslims as well as Muslims. Just like Gandhiji’s
supporters do not see Ram Rajya as a theocratic state to oppress non-
Hindoos.
Verdict: At the net level, the invocations to Islam during 1940-47,
although inevitable, were not in the best interest of Indian Muslims.
#2 Direct Action Day
This cannot really be faulted in as far as that you can’t really call
mass action an evil thing as Bono da has pointed out. In any case, MAJ
resorted to DA only after trying out more constitutional methods for
40 years. Besides, DAD was not meant to be a call to arms, although
the speeches and utterances of some of the second tier Leaguers and
the conduct of Suharwardy as Bengal CM leave a lot to be desired.
Verdict: In short MAJ cant really be blamed for DAD, although he can
be blamed for failing to maintain discipline down the ranks.
#3 Ch Muhammad Ali and delayed Constitution of Pakistan
Dunno much about the Choudhari dude so can’t comment. As far as the
Constt of Pakistan was concerned, let’s not forget that India with far
superior intellectual resources too over 2 years to frame a Constt.
And let us not forget Pakistan’s crazy geography and demography. As to
how MAJ possibly cud have framed a Constt in 1 year of which for half
he was practically in “ek paon kabr mein” mode is beyond me. Besides,
Constts have to be adopted by free will it cannot be imposed from
above.
Verdict: Not guilty
#4 Accepting the June 3 Plan
As I have argued earlier, there was nothing that MAJ cud have done
about it. Maybe Yasser can join me in a set of “What ifs”
Now my two cribs.
#1 The Princely States fiasco
Unfortunately this has already been discussed threadbare on another
topic and the positions of all the principal combatants on PTH is
already clear. There is no point in ukharoing gade murdey.
#2 The Sikandar- Jinnah Pact
MAJ and AIML did become the Sole Spokesman for Muslims at the Centre
but there was a huge price to be paid- handing over the Punjab League
to the feudals incl a large chunk of ex-Unionists. And ultimately it
was the Punjabi feudal not Murdoodi (who was possibly a tool of the
competing factions of the Punjab League) who destroyed Jinnah’s
Pakistan.
But again one may argue that this was a necessary evil- without taking
the Punjabi feudal-pir class there was no way AIML wud have gained
Punjab and there wud have been no Pakistan either.
Regards
YLH
September 18, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Well if you’ve gotten to these questions you should read more and you
will find the answers yourself.
aiimsonian/koschan/karun (one person mind you) is not worth your time.
So stop getting inflated.
Read Bonobashi’s post. Apply your mind to it. Forget me – I have never
hidden my partisanship… My objectives for debate are entirely
subjective though I always remain factual. Read a balanced view –
you’ll learn from it.
koschan
September 18, 2009 at 7:05 pm
arre, i am not karun……….i am aiimsonian, koschan and different opinion
because my different pcs have different nicknames.
koschan
September 18, 2009 at 7:07 pm
aiimsonian/koschan/karun (one person mind you) is not worth your time.
———————————–
So condescending!!!!In any case, i also dont have much time to waste.I
should get back to my books.
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Yasser,
I’m not getting inflated. People are nice to me and I’m nice to them
back. I would love to have more friends in Delhi that’s all:)
Koschan, contact me off of PTH. My email is my name “kabir altaf” (one
word) at hotmail.
Hayyer
September 18, 2009 at 7:31 pm
“Furthermore, he should have re-entered into negotiations with the
Sikh leadership, and should have used the draft of June 3rd plan to
scare the shit out of them”
Reminds me of that old joke; a group of Khalistanis got together to
brainstorm on how to achieve their goal. One bright spark came up with
an idea. ‘Lets declare war on America’ he suggested. Then after we
lose they’ll be forced to aid us as they always aid the countries
they’ve defeated. This splendid notion was almost carried, till one
delegate remarked woefully, ‘That is all very well, but what happens
if we win.’
On that speculative note let me ask something equally speculative.We
have discussed on PTH often enough how Congress could have eventually
obtained, a la Noorani, what it now has, and Pakistan and Bangladesh
to boot in a confederation, if it had accepted the CMP-But suppose
Jinnah had reverted to his old argument of the 14 points or even the
formula that the Agha Khan suggested at the second round table
conference which Gandhi approved but could not carry with his
colleagues.
Yes it would have been a tectonic shift from the politics of the last
ten years, and the Muslim masses may have felt let down but it would
have been attainable.
AZW
September 18, 2009 at 7:44 pm
This is a fascinating discussion Majumdar and Yasser.
It is quite difficult for us to imagine in the waning months of 2009,
what Jinnah was facing in the turbulent years of 1946 and1947. The
fallacy that comes up again and again against Jinnah in carving up the
India always ignores the obstinate behaviour of Indian National
Congress and its leadership. I believe in the prior years, we were too
close to the atrocious events post partition and scholarly research
was conveniently replaced by emotional and religious themed slogans.
This was tragically true, especially in Pakistan, where the religious
right simply could not get around the idea of Muslim Nationalism.
Since 1980s, we have trickles of dispassionate analysis of the events
preceding partition, and I believe it is a matter of time before this
trickle turns into a torrent. Two factors will greatly help this
transition:
1) In Pakistan, where religion was always experimented with the state
by religious minded leaders, as well as so called leftist leaders, the
experiment has predictably gone horribly wrong. After having front row
seats to the Taliban debacle and the carnage this group and its more
mainstream, allies, Pakistanis are beginning to do something that was
never practiced at a grand scale before: an honest introspection. Pak
Tea House is not a liberal outlier that seeks to discuss the folly of
mixing religion with the Pakistani state. Various mainstream
electronic and print media have started airing views more openly that
were a minority voice in the wilderness before
2) In India, the economic prosperity has increasingly made clear to
their leadership that political and geographical uncertainty is the
biggest obstacle to the economic growth going forward. A destabilized
Pakistan is overwhelmingly against Indian interests. Coupled with the
economic growth is the latitude now afforded to an average Indian
where nationalistic dogmas do not overwhelm him or her as say 30 years
ago
Kabir:
May I suggest something here: More often than not, people sit back and
pass verdicts on historical figures based on the convictions embedded
in their minds since their childhood, or through drawing room
conversations. Jinnah is not an infallible historical figure. And no
one is saying that the Two Nation Theory should not be critically
discussed. However before passing judgement on him, read of the
situation that Jinnah faced 62 years back. Read Ayesha Jalal’s The
Sole Spokesman, read Seervai’s Partition of India; Legend and Reality,
or Alex Von Tunzelman’s “The Indian Summer”. Heck, read Majumdar’s
arguments in this thread to get even the tiniest sense of the
complexity of leading the disparate union of the entity in India that
we call “Indian Muslims”.
History happens not be design. History is a reaction to events. Was
United India a better option? If Indian National Congress had not been
jolted out of its heavy handed ways it showed since 1937, India may
have been a violent and fractured nation. I give full credit to Nehru
for putting India on a secular roadway; however his actions before the
partition, and his handiwork in Kashmir problem continues to haunt us
still.
Rather than keep passing judgements, analyze history, appreciate it as
a nuanced sequence of events and work to make the future history a
much better read. No one here thinks Jinnah was beyond reproach.
However his personal integrity and his leadership skills in leading
the “Indian Muslim” make me appreciate him a lot more as I grow
older.
Why I appreciate Majumdar, Bono Bashis, YLH, Bloody Civilian, Raza and
so many more people here is not because I know them personally. It is
because they rise above their creeds and environments to look
dispassionately at the history, realize the mistakes, and go against
the conventional wisdom and the prevalent thinking to advocate a
society that will not have the prejudices that tore us apart, and keep
widening the gulf between us.
Regards,
Adnann
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Adnann, I agree with you. I have read scholarly sources. I took a
course at LUMS called “Literature of Conflict” which was all about
Partition. Additionally I took a course exploring the anthropology of
ethnicity and nationalism. I have also made my way though Jaswant
Singh’s entire 600 page book. So I’m not speaking out of ignorance.
Yes, I let YLH rile me up and make me emotional– I take full
responsibility for that. But you must keep in mind that he attacked my
person, my family, my career, etc… all of which is outside the norms
of reasoned debate.
My disagreement with YLH is only that I feel is sort of an apologist
for Jinnah. I agree with you that all politicians are falliable and
all are human.
Regards
Kabir
Majumdar
September 18, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Kabir,
My disagreement with YLH is only that I feel is sort of an apologist
for Jinnah.
Yasser has at least laid four serious charges against MAJ (pbuh) by my
reckoning at least.
Regards
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 8:05 pm
What is this pbuh thing? Jinnah was not the prophet Muhammad– i think
pbuh is only meant to be used for prophets.
Turning a politician into a prophet is what I call being an apologist.
Our do you also put pbuh after Nehru and Gandhiji’s names?
Majumdar
September 18, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Kabir bhai,
First of all I am not a Muslim so I am not bound to use pbuh only for
those whom Muslims deign this honour.
Btw, if Moses who liberated a handful of Yahoods can be called pbuh
why not Jinnah sahib who liberated 65 million Muslims.
Regards
Majumdar
September 18, 2009 at 8:08 pm
No sir I dont put pbuh behind Gandhi or Nehru- in fact I call them by
the vilest of names on chowk but not here as this is a bhadralok
forum.
Regards
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Majumdar,
You too are a Jinnah apologist then, having turned him into a prophet.
I can’t argue with you people.
Jinnah, Nehru, and Gandhiji were all people, not prophets or gods.
They should be judged as such.
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Btw, Gandhiji was the father of the Indian nation, I don’t understand
how you– an Indian– can call him bad names.
I am not fond of Jinnah, but I don’t call him foul names, either.
Namaste
YLH
September 18, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Dear Majumdar,
Just to qualify – Jinnah was quite clear about the kind of state he
wanted. However by using Islamic vocabulary- few and far between- he
gave the Mullahs a way to pull the rug from under him.
Jinnah’s idea of statehood was :
1. Rule of law
2. Equality of citizenship
3. Freedom of religion and conscience.
4. Sovereignty resting with the people.
5. Religion as personal faith of an individual and state’s
impartiality towards it.
6. No bars on the basis of religion, caste or any other distinction.
This was a constant. However by making these statements (the Islamic
principles etc) few and far between – a total of a dozen references
spread over 7 years – Jinnah himself inadvertently dug a grave for his
secular vision.
YLH
September 18, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Kabir mian,
You are a rather strange fellow…
Do you think it is rational to distinguish between the prophets and
other human beings?
Have you only recently learned the word “apologist”?
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Yasser:
My dear, I have actually known the word “apologist” for a very long
time.
Btw, I don’t believe in prophets, I just don’t believe in giving
politicians exalted status
YLH
September 18, 2009 at 8:43 pm
On the issue of princely states- Jinnah’s position was a
constitutional one (without going into Kashmir which we’ve discussed).
It was Jinnah who had suggested absorption of Princely States into
British India at the roundtable conferences…had that proposal been
accepted there would have been no issue to begin with.
Sikandar-Jinnah Pact was absolutely necessary to give Jinnah
representative capacity. Infact many would argue that it was the joint
Muslim League communist move against the Khizer govt on the basis of
communist thesis of the right of determination of “muslim
nationalities” that partitioned Punjab.
I think it was the post 1946 Unionist defection to the League that
changed the character of the Muslim League from a salariat petty
bourgeoisie party to a feudal dominated party in Punjab.
YLH
September 18, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Kabir,
You do have an Indian mind as per the definition given by Karun.
Unfortunately it is not meant as a compliment. Neither to you nor to
the word “Indian”…apologies to Majumdar, Bonobashi and others.
There is no reason to discuss anything any further when almost
everyone has failed to reason with you.
I thank everyone for trying to make this fellow see some light.
Hayyer
September 18, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Kabir:
Father of the Nation is a term that the Indian Government gave Gandhi.
It is not written in law and therefore not binding on Indians.
Gandhi’s greatness lies in his eccentricities. He was attempting
something novel in a twentieth century world. He was trying to fashion
modern government, incorporating his own version of religion and
politics as an essential component of economic and administrative
theory. ‘I am truly a Mahatma’ he exclaimed to one of his nieces a few
days before he died.
Jinnah, a truly enlightened modern leader was driven into what he
eventually did by the obfuscation of Gandhi and the obtuseness of
Nehru. Nehru what ever his achievements after 1947 certainly turned a
deaf ear to Muslims as long as Jinnah was speaking for them. He did
call the AIML a communal body forgetting that the Congress had long
accommodated communal view points of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus.
After putting Congress on the defensive in the forties Jinnah had it
in his power to compromise on terms that would have been acceptable to
him a decade ago, but by then he was in an understanding with the
British.
When they no longer needed him they cut bait and ran and he was stuck
with an attitude that led to a moth eaten Pakistan.
I agree with the core of your belief however. There is a South Asian
identity, variegated though it is. Even the Pathans while involved
with central Asia and Iran have had their fingers in the Indian pie
for as long as anyone can remember. All of North India’s history at
the very least is tied up one way or another with Pathans. Large
numbers of North Indian Muslims have ethnic connections to the
Pathans. That is not going to disappear.
It is the contention of some that there is no India, that it is a
geographical expression and so forth. The country does exist, it is
politically speaking, older than Pakistan by at least 100 years. The
Indian identity is probably more amorphous than the Pakistani one, but
I imagine, less tenuous.
Modern India has much to thank Nehru for; secularism, democracy and
the rule of law (arbitrary as it is), but all Indians do not see
themselves as acolytes of Nehru and Gandhi. Most of us are quite happy
with our regional identities about which Nehru was confused and which
led to the mess on Kashmir. Gandhi of course was not above using his
Gujratiness to woo Jinnah when he felt he needed to.
I have visited your site. It is refreshing in its inclusiveness. We
have our Ganpat Rams as you have yours. Don’t let them discourage you.
koschan
September 18, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Jinnah, a truly enlightened modern leader was driven into what he
eventually did by the obfuscation of Gandhi and the obtuseness of
Nehru. Nehru what ever his achievements after 1947 certainly turned a
deaf ear to Muslims as long as Jinnah was speaking for them.
————————————
hayyer, you really need to read mani shankar ’s review of jaswant
singh’s.
People such as you, majumdar and jaswant singh seem to have a huge
personal grudge against nehru and gandhiji. Gandhiji is the father of
nation for me and for most of the indians , irrespective of your
biased opinion.He may have introduced religion into politics but his
religiosity was benedictory ,inclusive and certainly not
fundamentalist.He quoted equally well from koran and bible as he did
from geeta and the atheist’s guide to salvation.Did he not save
thousands of lives in kolkata during the midnight hr?
from an oxfordian like you, i expect a more nuanced interpretation of
gandhiji’s actions.Kritgan…………..
koschan
September 18, 2009 at 10:02 pm
hayyer , 2 ‘koschans’
if gandhiji had as many faults as you want us to believe , why do the
Nobel Committe members regret that they did not give the NP to
gandhiji in 1948 or before?How do you compare His Holiness the Dalai
Lama to jinnah and gandhiji?
kabir
September 18, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Yasser,
What did I say? Just that I don’t believe politicans should be treated
like prophets or gods. What is there in that to fill you with bile? I
quite enjoy people’s attempts to make me “see the light” as if I’m
some poor heathen that needs to be converted, so do go ahead if you
please:)
Hayyer:
I agree with you. All I have been trying to say is that there is a
“South Asian” identity and it is valid. No disrespect to anyone who
wishes to call themselves Pakistani or whatever.
By the way, TSAI is not my blog, but my father’s:)
Kabir
bonobashi
September 18, 2009 at 10:36 pm
@koschan
Nobody needs to read anybody’s review of anybody else’s book; the
facts are clear before us, and while there is every justification for
listening to someone else’s point of view, or for reading a well-
written piece in spite of disagreeing with it in essence, we don’t
need the prosthetics (that’s a medical term, and you will come across
it very soon, if you stop wasting your time on PTH and attend to your
studies) provided by a Congress ‘apologist’ (Kabir, please tell me
where to send you your royalty payment).
I sincerely wish, really, truly wish that you would stop reacting from
your glands and hormones and instead start reacting from your gray
matter.
I don’t think Hayyer has a grudge against anybody; it isn’t apparent
from his writing, and it is a mystery where you got that impression.
If you have read Majumdar, you will have noticed, unless you are quite
dense, that he has a sharp mind, perhaps the sharpest next to YLH, but
is also handicapped by a sense of humour, which among other side-
effects doesn’t allow him to take himself seriously. What sort of
grudge do you think he’ll bear? Nothing very weighty, I should
imagine. Not being as well acquainted with Jaswant Singh as you seem
to be (you Delhi people have all the luck), I can’t comment on your
third anti-hero.
There is not much proof that people are reacting from a sense of
having been wronged, or from a vindictive mind-set. I don’t see the
grudges; maybe they’ve been flying around and never came to earth.
We have to deal with your heart-on-the-sleeves emotions, however;
specifically your formulation that Gandhi happens to be father of the
nation to you and to most other Indians, irrespective of the biased
opinion of this coterie that you have just named.
This sort of turbo-charged emotion is always suspect, I think; genuine
emotion would not be so demonstrative and oriented towards display.
But on the other hand, let us assume that Gandhi is our common beloved
father of the nation.
Would you go on from this premise to say that he was unblemished, in
all respects? Assume for a moment that you are given two knowledge of
history tablets tomorrow morning, and they work with instant speed.
Assume that you become aware of, say a marginal number of things that
Gandhi did sinfully, or negligently. Would you still proceed to defend
G in so robust a manner, or rather, in as unquestioning a manner as
before? If you would not, please take out a piece of paper, and figure
out how you and those you have just pilloried differ from each other.
bonobashi
September 18, 2009 at 10:50 pm
@YLH
Yasser, with your permission, I shall break into poetry: the
successive vast blows struck by our Sir Galahad have now brought my
already enfeebled and rapidly aging mind to its knees. Prose will no
longer contain my emotions; poetry it is then:
Beside yon straggling fence that skirts the way
With blossom’d furze unprofitably gay,
There, in his noisy mansion, skill’d to rule,
The village master taught his little school;
A man severe he was, and stern to view,
I knew him well, and every truant knew;
Well had the boding tremblers learn’d to trace
The days disasters in his morning face;
Full well they laugh’d with counterfeited glee,
At all his jokes, for many a joke had he:
Full well the busy whisper, circling round,
Convey’d the dismal tidings when he frown’d:
Yet he was kind; or if severe in aught,
The love he bore to learning was in fault.
The village all declar’d how much he knew;
‘Twas certain he could write, and cipher too:
Lands he could measure, terms and tides presage,
And e’en the story ran that he could gauge.
In arguing too, the parson own’d his skill…………
and here I shall beg leave to depart, and leave it as an exercise to
you, gentle reader, to complete these lines. They are obviously, from
their polish and styled elegance, not mine.
koschan
September 18, 2009 at 10:55 pm
OK, Bonobashi
1. Its been three years since i have heard the term prosthetics .
2.i am not overreacting but sometimes when gandhibashing and
nehrubashing gets supramaximal at pth, i cannot prevent myself from
defending them.I stand by my observation that Hayyer and majumdars are
two of the most unrelenting cynics i have come across.
3. Yes, i havealmost wasted seven hrs on the net today (meri chuttiyan
chal rahi hain).Seven precious hrs………seven hrs that have been
uselessly spent. seven hrs that i could have devoted to ganong’s
physiology.Big mistake.
karun
September 18, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Raza Uncle : SOS
things spinning out of control. Pls take charge….
Hayyer
September 18, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Koschan:
Did it occur to you that the Congress is cleverer than the BJP.
Jaswant Singh’s book could have devastated the Congress. Instead, the
BJP committed hara-kiri and the Congress quietly smirks.
Mani Shankar Iyer is a disgrace, an ex communist from Cambridge, a fan
of China in the 62 war transformed into a Rajiv Gandhi groupie on a
Doon School connection, and then a votary of Panchayati Raj of which
he had little understanding. He is a leading sycophant of the Nehru
family and you expect his reviews of a book criticizing Nehru to be be
authentic?
Mani Shanker Iyer is out of favour these days. He may be seeking re-
entry into the inner circles by hack reviews. His brother Swaminathan
Iyer is the more authentic writer.
Hayyer
September 19, 2009 at 12:01 am
Opinion is free. There is no law against admiring Gandhi just as there
is none against criticizing him. Father of the nation? Nothing that he
did brought about the nation.
When Jinnah wrote to him in 1938 asking for his intercession against
the obduracy of people like Nehru, his reply was ….”I wish I could do
something but I am utterly helpless…….I see no daylight out of the
impenetrable darkness, and in such distress I cry to God for light”
How evasive!
But in 1944 Gandhi could take the trouble to go to Bombay and spend
two weeks trying to return Jinnah to the path of the 30s.
The reason the British left is that they just could not hold on after
the war. They lacked the troops, the resources the will. Before the
war they were thought they would stay for the forseeable future.
The Quit India movement is what enabled Jinnah and the League in the
absence of the Congress to build up their organization. It was
Gandhi’s doing, (though not Nehru’s). Gandhi was afraid of Bose who
had allied himself with the Axis powers and travelled to Germany.
Gandhi thought he could retain the initiative that way. Instead he
paved the way for partition.
The father of the nation is the Indian Constitution. Little of Gandhi
fortunately is to be found there.
I am not an ‘Oxfordian’ by the way, though I did spend an academic
year at that University as a visiting fellow.
Hayyer
September 19, 2009 at 12:04 am
Erratum, last line fourth para. “Before the war they thought they
would stay for the foreseeable future”.
bonobashi
September 19, 2009 at 7:03 am
@YLH
I’ve been fulminating about Karun’s idiotic remark about Greek and
Indian minds since he wrote it.
This is arrant rubbish. We are not a nation of Lobsang Rampas. There
is not a single theme in public or private life which justifies
Karun’s comment. It is not clear where he’s coming from.
It doesn’t feel insulting when you refer to this classification of
minds – classification of minds!!! – because the whole thing,
referring to Karun’s original comment, constitutes my first WTF moment
on PTH.
YLH
September 19, 2009 at 8:10 am
Dear Bonobashi,
Given that India produced so many “greek” minds, I don’t think it is a
fair classification either. Besides Indian here would denote the
erstwhile British/Mughal conceptions of the entire subcontinent… One
could say that the classification that is being referred to as the
“Indian” brain/mind may loosely apply to many many many Pakistanis.
Junaid
September 19, 2009 at 11:38 am
Also, say a Pakistani person really admires Nelson Mandela and his
fight against apartheid in South Africa. If this person then names his
son “Nelson” it doesn’t mean the kid is trying to be South African and
not Pakistani.
Logically, the same principle applies to a “Pakistani” kid named
Mohan. One can admire Gandhiji without being a “traitor” to Jinnah.
One can criticize and be against TNT, without being against Jinnah as
a person.
Is this so hard to understand?
Great words Kabir.
You have very well worded what I was trying to put forward.
kabir
September 19, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Thanks Junaid, I try, though it is an up-hill battle.
D_a_n
September 19, 2009 at 12:24 pm
@kabir
the worlds tiniest violin is playing just for you….(sniffle)
yasserlatifhamdani
September 19, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Only now do I understand the classic saying “khawajay ka gawah
tattoo”.
Gentlemen – Kabir and Junaid- you are fighting ghosts that don’t exist
on this website.
All both of you have done so far is make strawman fallacies unrelated
to the
arguments at hand.
Grow up.
Bloody Civilian
September 20, 2009 at 3:15 am
unad hum jins ba hum jins parwaaz
kabir
oops! that’s persian.. there goes my claim to be indian!
from claiming pathans are not indian, i see you’ve flipped and flopped
till you have gone a full 180deg. starting from the ‘divisive’
exclusion of pathans from india.. i see you now consider them indian.
indeed you claim the whole of pakistan to be culturally indian. i
presume you consider pathans to be part of pakistan.. till you say
otherwise. you even consider PMA to be ‘ethnically indian’.. without
bothering to find out whether he indeed is a non-pathan. so your
‘argument’ continues to evolve, albeit as per chaos theory.
it may or may not have occurred to you that hardly any one here has
attacked you for your views or had any problem whatsoever with your
right to hold any view when it comes to your own identity. what might
not have occurred to you either is that many here, some indians
included, do not believe that claiming pakistani identity precludes
one from claiming the indian one. rejecting pakistani idenity is not a
pre-requisite. it’s just a right which you are free to exercise. as
for the india v south asia debate… even PMA has made it clear that he
does not deny pakistan’s east… he just emphasises that there also is a
west.
other than that, you have been accusing pakistanis of talibanism,
religiosity and being under the illusion that they are arabs. which
one of the regulars here at PTH do you accuse of any of that? wouldn’t
these blanket accusation from high above be better directed at some
other blogs.. rather than PTH? yet, isn’ tit ironic that you’ve been
lapping up praise from those pakistanis who have – post after post
here – proven that they are much of all that you cite as reasons to
reject pakistani identity for yourself. while the indian counterpart
has been the kind who have stated that they look forward to war with
pakistan.
those debating you here are not as interested in opinions as they are
in facts and analyses. the objection here has been to you stating
views, ad nauseum and not with brevity, without feeling the need to
back them up with any facts… let alone a coherent and consistent
argument. your indian-pathan ‘argument’ has been a depressing case
study. while you ignore challenges to your facts, when you have quoted
something which is simply not true, as per your own convenience.
so you claimed 8 out of 37 years to be “most of” faiz’s life. you
conveniently ignored the challenge. you have told us many times that
you are “fighting” for your right to define your own identity.
wonderful. but as they say in yours and mine beloved punjab: “such
bolna adhhi larrai ae”
or you can use this post too as nothing more than an excuse to merrily
carry on with your monologue pretending to be a dialogue.
regards
Bloody Civilian
September 20, 2009 at 3:43 am
btw, the reverse also is true of course, ie. claiming indian (the
present day nation state) identity does not preclude any one from
their ‘pakistani’ heritage or even identity. but identity of course is
a personal choice, while heritage is a fact – whether historical,
cultural or (typically) both.
it might come as a surprise to you, but those trying, in vain, to have
a (healthy) debate with you also believe their human identity to be
the most important of them all. all other identities are less
important. why i say “in vain”, i’ve already explained in my previous
post. what you and YLH engaged in for a good number of consecutive
posts was, for all its entertainment value, not a (healthy) debate. so
i’m not talking of that.
you are called kabir for a thoughtful reason, you say. i’m sure he was
and is popular not just for his ideas. there was more to it than just
his views and opinions, repeated ad nauseum.
returning to identities other than insaniyat… as shah hussain put it
naa’o'n hussainoo
qaum jullaha…
….. jo main haa
so main haa
bonobashi
September 20, 2009 at 5:08 am
@Bloody Civilian
I was waiting for a reaction, any reaction from Kabir to write to him
somewhat in your fashion. ‘Somewhat’ because you have put matters with
such felicity that I can’t see where to take away a word, or indeed,
where to add a word.
Thank you for expressing my feelings so well; I am sure these are the
feelings of many others also.
Your comment also invokes the spirit of this blog so, so well. RR
could pay you and use your words as an introduction.
kabir
September 20, 2009 at 6:47 am
BC:
No one has attacked me for my views? Where have you been man? YLH has
called me “self loathing”, implied i’m a “traitor” to the Pakistani
cause, derisively referred to me as a “bhajan singer” as if that is a
contempible identity and that is all I am (I’m not a great lawyer but
a poor performing artist). You don’t expect me to defend myself
against that?
My argument has always been consistant. I have the right to call
myself Hindustani without anyone deciding that I’m “self loathing” or
a traitor. The rest of you are free to call yourselves Pakistanis or
greater timbuktooans, I really don’t care. PMA sahib is free to deny
that the term “South Asia” exists, despite it’s recognized use as a
concept in academia and the real world.
As for the “indian vs. pathan” argument, you are taking it out of
context. I am no one to decide people’s national identity for them,
but national identity and ethnic identity are not necessarily the
same. As I wrote to YLH on the other thread, I don’t relate to Pathans
simply because I haven’t spent time in NWFP and don’t speak their
language. By contrast, I’ve spent a lot of time in Punjab, understand
Punjabi, like Punjabi poetry, Punjabi khana, etc. It’s a reflection on
me and not on some inalienable truth.
Sorry about the “most” of Faiz’s life, but 8 years in prison or exile
is still pretty significant. I stand by my point that Pakistan wasn’t
much good for Faiz sahab.
Regards
Bloody Civilian
September 21, 2009 at 5:00 am
bonobashi
someone like me can only learn from PTH.
i hope we can establish a dialogue with our friend kabir and develop
the discussion with him on his interesting views and ideas.
Bloody Civilian
September 21, 2009 at 5:06 am
bhai kabir
No one has attacked me for my views?
do argue that YLH is hardly “hardly anyone”.. if you wish, but kindly
do not misread/misquote me. and do go ahead, regardless, and tell me/
us what YLH did or did not do.. but please do acknowledge the fact
that i’ve clearly and more than once excluded your debate with YLH
from those trying “in vain”. otherwise, we just end up talking across
each other rather than to each other… yet again.
As for the “indian vs. pathan” argument, you are taking it out of
context
now had you deigned to respond to rather than ignore my questions
about the puktunwalist bacha khan or your fictitious contemporary
kabir mohan khan of peshawar… perhaps i, and several others who have
stated their bewliderment, would not have ‘taken it out of context’.
The rest of you are free to call yourselves Pakistanis or greater
timbuktooans
… but not hindustanis? not unless we forfeit pakistaniat?
you claim identity to be subjective, and to be a personal choice. but
then you bring in mr tharoor as evidence in support of your
‘argument’… with his ‘legal definition’ of indian identity. don’t you
see that mr tharoor’s criterion is at least irrelevant to your claim,
and largely redundant (who in south asia does not have grandparents
born in united india??), if not actually going against the very grain
of your claim? how is yours a consistent argument then? how does a
subjective, personal choice involve having to petition the high court
in delhi?
you claim that you do not relate to the pakistani identity (whatever
that is, as you keep reminding us) nor the islamic identity.. and then
you bring in, rather unnecessarily, IMHO, the fact that you are
irritated by having to explain to people that you’re not an islamic
fundo or worse…. so you choose to say that you’re indian ‘which, in
any case, is not a lie’. why confuse the more fundamental issue??
the difference between identity and stereotyping is that the former is
your own definition of your identity, as per right, where there is
virtually no right or wrong definition, while the latter is other
people’s (wrong) definition of your identity. when other people do not
have a right to define your identity for you. now correcting/attacking
a stereotype is something anyone, even a third party, could (and
perhaps should) do.
as for faiz, any time in jail and exile is significant indeed. but so
are the 29 years he spent in pakistan.. including time serving his
country and his people. spending time in jail and having to go in to
self-imposed exile does not mean that faiz, of all people, would agree
with you that his country was no good for him. just to quote an
example.. what is it that has kept aung san suu kyi under continuing
house arrest, away from her family, for a significant part of her life
other than a small bunch of thugs and her love for her country and her
people?
regards
Bloody Civilian
September 21, 2009 at 5:15 am
correction:
“but so are the 29 years he spent in pakistan..”… as a free citizen
kabir
September 21, 2009 at 6:32 am
BC:
1) Not just YLH, but also D_a_n accused me on being “self loathing”
which I find extremely condescending. Bonoboshi proceeded to inform me
of facts which I already know, which is also condescending. Why do you
people think that the facts demand that a person can only think a
certain way? Facts are open to interpretation, and I interpret them
differently than some people here, because I can never be pro the
creation of Pakistan, or accept the use of religious rhetroic or TNT.
I think the creation of a country for “Muslims” was by far the
stupidist most ridiculous thing on the planet. The fact that Bharat
had to be vivisected to get it just makes it worse.
2) You people are free to call yourselves “pakistanis”, greater
timbuktooans, or hindustanis, whatever you want— no skin of my back.
3) It’s not my job to constantly correct stereotypes. I never want to
talk about Taliban, Islamic fundemantlism, or in fact Islam of any
kind ever again. Those are not issues I’m interested in. I’m content
to focus on my ethnic, rather than “national” identity, sing my
bhajans and khayals, and discuss larger South Asian, “Hindustani”
issues as opposed to muslim issues. I’m only interested in “Pakistan”
because it forms part of South Asia, and events here influence events
in Bharat– such as the terrorism that Pak loves to export. I also have
family that lives here, and of course, I care about them. But
politically, and ideologically, I don’t and can never identify with an
“Islamic Republic”
Regards
kabir
September 21, 2009 at 6:36 am
Also, I care about the people of “Pakistan”, the poor, innocent, non
mullahs who are “muslims” but not bothered by what anyone else is. I
was talking to my driver about this recently and i said to him that we
are all actually Indian and there is no difference between Lahoris or
Amritaris and it is horrible the way a line was drawn dividing our
Punjab. He agreed with me totally. It’s ironic that a village boy who
hasn’t even finished high school has more sense than some of you more
“educated” Pakistanis.
kabir
September 21, 2009 at 6:38 am
Erratum: Amritsaris
yasserlatifhamdani
September 21, 2009 at 10:23 am
“I was talking to my driver recently”
We’ve gone through this discussion many times. I am not going to
repeat what Jinnah said and how partition of Punjab was not our idea.
Such arguments are too fine for the philistines like yourself.
Thanks for quoting your driver as a trump card. I’d rather not quote
the famous Ghalib-mango joke because I fear compulsions of another
kind at play … I can well understand how your driver might be willing
to agree with you…
Now that we have that out of the way… may I please request that you
address Bloody Civilian’s comments?
yasserlatifhamdani
September 21, 2009 at 10:24 am
or Bonobashi’s… for that matter.
PMA
September 21, 2009 at 10:24 am
BC: No I am not MIA. I have followed this thread from the start. I
have not said anything because I have nothing new to say. I have taken
a position on the use of various geographic terms because of their
descriptive limitations vis-a-vis Pakistan. I am in realization of the
evolution of the terms such as ‘Hind’, ‘Sub-continent’, Pak-o-Hind,
and now ‘South Asia’. In true sense non of these terms strictly donate
a precise political entity like a country or a continent does. These
are roughly defined regional descriptions first used by the
academicians and politicos and then adopted by commons without much
realization. I am not sure if Kabir himself understands his own
interpretation of the terms ‘South Asia’ and ‘India’. Therefore it has
been difficult and frustrating to have a meaningful discussion with
him on this subject. About YLH. Well, he thinks that the arbitrarily
drawn Durand line is the western limit of ‘South Asia’. He often
refers to Jinnah’s Pakistan not realizing that the internal dynamics
of post 1971 Pakistan are not same as Jinnah’s Pakistan of 1947.
Before independence the commonly used term was ‘Indian Sub-continent’.
Where is western boundary of this ‘Sub-continent’? The boundary set by
the British or the boundary set by the Mughals? If so then which
boundary? That of 1947, 1879, 1707 0r 1524? It is obvious that there
could be no universal agreement on that. After 1947 the term ‘Pak-o-
Hind’ was in use. Then after 1971 it became ‘South Asia’. There are
those in Pakistan located west of Indus who do not consider their
areas as ‘India’ or ‘South Asia’. Then in the interest of being
inclusive and developing a common Pakistani identity why not to drop
the use of such vague terms? In the environment of current provincial
and regional dissatisfaction, why not to adapt a national narrative
more closely representing the entire nation? This is something for all
Pakistanis to think about.
yasserlatifhamdani
September 21, 2009 at 10:26 am
Bloody civilian,
This little twit (kabir) doesn’t even have the capacity to understand
what you’ve written.
Well argued sir. It is an irony that this fool keeps going in circles
thinking that he is “rebutting” you. He is re-butt-butt-buttin out of
himself.
yasserlatifhamdani
September 21, 2009 at 10:36 am
PMA,
To me “geography” is as imagined an idea as a “nation”. This is why I
don’t agree or disagree with your view on South-Central Asia … to me a
legal nation state and legally defined national identity and national
origin – like Modern Pakistan or Modern India- is the basic building
block.
Here my only concern has been the foolishness shown by Kabir… who by
the way has already conceded that your South Central Asian conception
for Pakistan … and in doing so has blown up his own “Indian
ethnicity” (ethnicity is yet another imagined idea given the
intermingling of all various ethnicities)…
I wonder where Bloody civilian falls in all of this … hailing from a
royal and proud pushtun tribe (sorry if this is divulging too much)
speaking Pushto, Punjabi, Urdu and English with equal ease…
yasserlatifhamdani
September 21, 2009 at 10:45 am
Also…. Kabir mian says that his view of Pushtun as being alien is
because he doesn’t understand the Pushtun language… i.e. Pushtu…
Does he understand Sindhi? Or Gujurati ? or Marathi? or Tamil? or
Bengali? or Kanada? or Telegu?
Interestingly… Pakistan’s four provinces have rather interesting
meeting points:
Hindko exists on the border of Punjab and NWFP … Hindko can be
understood by both Punjabis and Pushtuns… Pushtuns and Balochs
understand and converse with each other in Balochi, Pushto and Farsi…
If you go South… Balochs and Sindhis share many common tribes.. for
example is Brohi a Sindhi or a Baloch tribe? Between Sindhi and
Balochi exists a language called “Brahvi” which is either an ancestor
or a derivative of both languages in my view… and between Sindh and
Punjab exists large tracts of Seraiki which is understood by both
Sindhis and Punjabis…
Pakistan’s unique federalism and linguistic pluralism is entirely
interlinked…. if only we were to give it a chance.
Raza Rumi
September 21, 2009 at 11:41 am
Kabir. Please stop it now. Add something more here. You are a bright
young man and bring fresh pieces of information, research and opinions
here. Your views on identity are respected even if many do not
subscribe to them.
YLH: Let us close this issue. We have to, at the end of the day,
respect what people think of themselves and how they want to be known
and perceived.
It should not be an issue if Kabir metaphorically calls himself an
‘Indian’ or Tibetian…
yasserlatifhamdani
September 21, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Dear Raza,
I completely agree.
None of those who Kabir has argued with have disputed his right to
whatever identity he wants to associate with. He can claim to be a
Martian for all I care. It is his attitude towards those who don’t
agree with his blanket statements that I have taken an issue with.
Bloody Civilian
September 21, 2009 at 3:10 pm
PMA
This is something for all Pakistanis to think about.
i’ve little desire, on a day-to-day basis, to take focus away from
this issue of real and practical importance. mindful of the diversity
and linkages YLH has alluded to above, i believe democracy and its
continuing evolution, from whatever beginnings, no matter how slow and
frustrating, is the only answer. an expanded/inclusive consultative
process of government and policy making is the only hope and way
forward. ‘nek badshahs’ will not work here.. no matter how nek(esp not
of the uniformed variety. not least since the uniform is not seen as
truly representative of this diversity).
the only other issue comparable in importance and urgency is the
fundamentalist threat and the need to defeat religiosity and leave no
room for it in public life.
Bloody Civilian
September 21, 2009 at 6:14 pm
kabir
re. your post of September 21, 2009 at 6:32 am
1) Facts are open to interpretation
really? ok, ok.. i won’t complain about it being ‘condescending’ that
you’re telling me the basics that a 12-year old ought to know …
…i would rather use the time to try and learn something more
substantial from a discussion with you.
in order to be valid, the interpretation has to be put across
coherently and argued with a high degree of consistency. of course the
facts have to be a) correct, b) complete, not partial and c) (which is
linked to b)) not taken entirely out of context. that’s all.
2) You people are free to call yourselves…
i know. it’s just that you end up, knowingly or unknowingly, again and
again, giving the impression like ‘we’ are not. i suspect it is
because your ‘interpretation’ of facts, perhaps, tend to be more
declaratory than explanatory.
btw, who are ‘we’?
3) It’s not my job to constantly correct stereotypes.
you choose, of course. if you re-read my point, it is about the fact
that the fundamental principle is that identity is a choice totally
internal to you and who you and only you feel you are… hence the
subjectivity. it has and should have nothing to do with what others
say or claim. why go off on a tangent talking of the desire to avoid
being stereotyped… is all i was asking… and dilute your argument,
unnecessarily.
please note that i’ve tried to limit my response strictly to your
single post above. mainly in an attempt to explain better where i
might have failed in my earlier post. i’ve no cause to dispute your
identity, whatsoever. i’ve stated that enough times. indeed, if you
wish to challenge anything within the lines above, please do so by all
means. but then, after that, perhaps we should agree to continue this
discussion, if at all, another day another place.
best regards
PMA
September 21, 2009 at 7:00 pm
“to me a legal nation state and legally defined national identity and
national origin – like Modern Pakistan or Modern India- is the basic
building block.”
I agree with YLH on that point. A Modern Pakistan, all inclusive where
each citizen is fully and equally vested regardless of his/her
religion and ethnicity. His review of linguistic and ethnic demography
of Pakistan is very informative. Unfortunately many on this site are
either not informed about it or refuse to take that into account. The
future of Pakistan lies in bringing its diversities toward a common
all-inclusive national narrative. The vague concepts of ‘South Asian’
or ‘Indian’ Sub-continent will not do it for us. Our common narrative
must be ‘Pakistan’.
I also agree with BC when he says: “I believe democracy and its
continuing evolution, from whatever beginnings, no matter how slow and
frustrating, is the only answer. An expanded/inclusive consultative
process of government and policy making is the only hope and way
forward.”
...and I am Sid Harth
