Monoply of Jinnah

[Fawwad Ansari]

Monopoly of Jinnah


Episode # 1


The obvious reason for the separation from India of the region that is now called “Pakistan”, were the irreconcilable difference b/w the 2 major communities inhabiting it. The 700 years of Muslim rule had created in the minds of the Hindus an aversion of Musalmans. Even during this long period though unity of India as country was substantially achieved, the 2 communities never become one nation.

The Muslims who settled in India hated the distinctions of caste system and the concept of untouchables of low caste of Hindus “Surdas”. Muslims believed in equality, irrespective of birth, country of origin, race, creed or complexion.

Though untouchables have been banned by law and Gandhi mostly lived among the untouchables, naming the “Surdas” as “Harijans”.

The 2 nation theory on which Mr. Jinnah founded is argument for “Pakistan” doesn’t require any explanation. Beverly Nicholas who considered Mr. jinnah as the most important person in Asia says in his book ‘The Verdict on India’ that in the course of an interview with him Mr. jinnah had said that the muslim case could be put in 5 words “The Muslims are a Nations”.

Jinnah had been a prominent member of the congress since start of his career then he return from England after completing his education and practicing law for the sometime there, while he was a member of congress his argument of 2-nation theory lets completely wrong to describe him “Communalist”.

In order to keep India united in such away as to save the Muslims from exploitation by the Hindus he had attended many conferences, including Lord Wavel’s conference at Simla and The Round Table Conference. Like many other persons he was a member of congress as well as the Muslim league. This was not a quality of good leader that he was taking chance to be famous or in other words he was blackmailing congress as well as Muslim league because jinnah wanted a big share of ruling in Muslim league or congress.

When Muslims agreed to give him the seat of president in Muslim league. Jinnah agreed to written from England in 1934, to lead the Muslim league in its struggle with both the British government and congress.

Jinnah be against congress because he got a big share (the seat of president) in Muslim League and as well as he be against the British government while he attended lot of conferences of British. The reason that he be against the congress was that congress put him down because Jinnah wanted to get the share without any struggle as well as in the name of Muslims.

Jinnah luchnow pact, 14 points rejoinder to Nehru’s constitutional reforms and his agreeing to discuss matters with ghandi though nothing came out of this interview all this shows that he was willing to compromise if by so doing he could save the Muslims interest.

It was very funny to save the Muslims with interest without helping down in any field. Jinnah never realized the pain that Muslim felt during the struggle for independence; Jinnah never asked the British govt. to provide Muslims all of the things that humans needed to live.

The Lucknow pact is important in this because of politically stability that the congress had agreed to separate electorates which amounted to an admission that Muslims were a separate community (they never considered it as Jinnah’s struggle) and therefore the best course for the British was to divide and quit.

(To be continued)
Fawwad Rafat Ansari

[I M Possible]

@ Fawwad Ansari

Welcome to css forum. Ur posted thread seems good but it is scattered and incomplete. May be its upcoming episodes will complete it.....

Regards

[Qurratulain]

@Fawwad

First of all welcome onboard. It's a very good start of yours on forum's board. Hope you'll have a good time here. Secondly I'm also eagerly waiting for the full version of "Quaid's Monopoly". Only then i'll be able to have my part of comments on the work.


Regards,

[Muskan Ghuman]

Salam Mr Fawwad Ansari & Welcome to the forum with this offensive post.

The nations who consider their heros & benifactors as Monopolator are really worthy to be praised. What a logical points are given...Impressed ...I have found the reason why we are suffering....

No doubt a nation whose youth have such views about their hero is bound to suffer.

Your post is just from 1 of that book which are deliberately written to mislead the new generation about their benifactors. I think you should take a second reading of all affairs related to Pakistan struggle before any further post on the role of Jinnah.

Thanx

[Khuram]

@ Fawwad

First of all welcome to forums...

Perhaps you want to do some bold analysis but apparently your this first episode lacks some important chronology. For example Jinnah never had talked of two-nation theory when he was a member of Congress. Consider your words in this connection:

"while he was a member of congress his argument of 2-nation theory lets completely wrong to describe him “Communalist”."

Secondly Jinnah's decision to leave Congress had no link with Muslim league's offer of presidency for him. He had put forwarded his famous 14 points in his personal capacity and not from the platform of either Congress or Muslim League. It was actually Nehru Report and later on rejection of his 14 points by Congress, which ultimately took Jinnah away from Congress. The apparent failure of Round Table Conferences then took him away from complete Indian politics as well.

The time when Jinnah had accepted the presidency of Muslim League, Muslim League, then was not any big organized political forum whose presidency could be preferred at the cost of leadership position in Congress. Remember that Muslim League could not become a well-organized political forum even at the time of 1937 elections. Evidence is the failure of Muslim League in getting desired number of seats in that election. Muslim League had got proper success only in 1946 elections. Jinnah became president of Muslim League in 1934. But Muslim League had not got any significant importance until the start of second word war in 1939. It was the time when British government was in dire need of support by the Indian people but Congress had refused to provide such support. Congress had the claim that it was the sole representative of the whole Indian Nation. Congress was demanding for the promise of complete freedom for India in return for the Indian Nation's support for British government in World War-II.

On the other hand, complete freedom of India and the transfer of power in the hands of Congress were not in the political and economic interests of those Muslims who belonged to Muslim League. So it was the time when the claim of Muslim League that Muslims were a separate ‘Nation’ got somewhat importance in the eyes of British government. Remember that Congress was demanding for the complete freedom of India from Britain. This demand of Congress was based on its claim of being the sole representative of whole Indian Nation. It was in the interest of British government to avoid the demand of complete freedom by Congress at any cost. British government could avoid this demand by giving more importance to the point of view of Muslim League, which were going against the claim of Congress that only Congress was the sole representative of Indian Nation. Also remember that during World War-II, Congress had adopted the slogan: “Quit India”. As opposite to it, the slogan of Muslim League was: “Divide and quit”. Now just consider what could be the implications of Muslim League’s slogan? What was in the interest of British government?

If British government accepted that India was a single Nation, then it would have to accede to the demands of Congress and so will have to ‘quit India’. But if India was not a single Nation then it’s meaning was that the demand of ‘quit India’ was not the demand of whole Indian Nation. To avoid the demand of Congress was in the interest of British government and point of view of Muslim League was reconciling with British government’s time tested policy of “Divide and Rule”. British government could prolong its rule if it assigned more importance to the point of view of Muslim League. The point of view of Muslim League was “Divide and quit”. Apparently this demand could not be acceptable to Congress. There were far less chances of any actual division of India, in those circumstances. The state of ‘division’ was not likely to happen and so the state of ‘quit’ would also be out of question.

These were the circumstances under which British government thought it necessary to accept the truth of ‘Two Nation Theory’ because it was reconciling to their own policy of ‘Divide and Rule’. At the time of Pakistan Resolution in 1940, the idea of ‘Pakistan’ or separate homeland for Muslims had no solid meanings. Hindu press had made fun of this idea and Jinnah was also not sure whether this idea actually could become a reality or not. In 1946, Jinnah had accepted the proposals of Cabinet Mission and thus had accepted the future of undivided India in the form of a federation; with greater autonomy to provinces. The division of India would have come later; Jawahar Lal Nehru, the then president of Congress, could not properly digest even the idea of greater autonomy to provinces. Although he also had accepted the proposals of Cabinet Mission, but after when both Congress and Muslim League had accepted those proposals, he, in a press conference, un-veiled his ambitions that Congress, after coming to power, would reserve the right to change this type of constitution.

This was the basic mistake of Nehru (and so Congress). As a result of this, Jinnah withdrew his consent to Cabinet Mission proposals and asked for the ‘direct action’ to the Muslims. Then massive scale Hindu Muslim violations started in Calcutta and Nawakhali right from the day of said ‘direct action’. Situation of Hindu-Muslim violence went out of control and now it became apparent that Hindus and Muslims were incapable of living together. The idea of division of India acquired solid meanings in this way. Later tern of events of just one year led to the freedom of India but after its division in two independent states.

Thanks!

[Muskan Ghuman]

for Mr Khurram.

[zorromehr]

salamz...
mr fawad has said
"Jinnah be against congress because he got a big share (the seat of president) in Muslim League"
to this mr khurram replied
"the time when Jinnah had accepted the presidency of Muslim League, Muslim League, then was not any big organized political forum whose presidency could be preferred at the cost of leadership position in Congress"
adding further to mr khurram's analysis i would suggest that at the time when jinnah took this step he was an established/seasoned lawyer in britain and earning million of pounds ...why he forsake all those earnings and life of luxury just to grab this seat of a virtually non existent league ..it was only for the sake of muslims ....

[Qurratulain]

@Muskan

I totally agree with you that nations who forget the contribution of their heroes are bound to suffer. Secondly suggestion given by you to have more readings is also right. But at the same time this kind of discussions helps us to present the true picture in order to falsify such claims.




@Khuram


Good analysis.



Regards,

[Qurratulain]

@Fawwad


Well, by analyzing the post I assumed that the next episode will also tell some details defaming Jinnah. So by keeping my assumption in mind I found it better to have may say right now. First of all I couldn’t understand the term “Monopoly of Jinnah”. I’ve come across this term on few websites, but unfortunately none of them could present the exact meaning of this term. Well Oxford defines the word ‘monopoly’, an excessive possession or complete hold. Your post doesn’t describe that what kind of monopoly it was. Well, if it was Jinnah’s hold of leadership of the Muslims of south Asia, the better term is “Sole Spokesman”, because monopoly is a term used for trade and leadership is not a trade. Surely Jinnah was the sole spokesman of the Muslims of South Asia. I’m not going to rewrite that how and why he was so. All the details in this context are present on my blog which you can access by clicking here.


Now I’d like to present a brief analysis of those writers who attempted to defame Jinnah in any context.

First of All Mr. Mohd Munir (Retd. Chief Justice of Pakistan), in his book “From Jinnah to zia” boldly claims that Quaid had never used the term ‘Ideology of Pakistan”, he claimed such in the light of Quaid’s speech on 11th August 1947 whereby Quaid said,

“You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

Mr. Munir claims Jinnah was a secular leader and never talked about the ideology of Pakistan.

Now let me explain: the ideology of Pakistan is based on Islam, and Quaid’s concept of Secularism completely adheres to Islam, as Qurann says (XLII, 15-25)Allah is our lord and your lord, unto us our works and unto you your works: No argument between us and you.

Secondly Mr. Munir forgot to mention Quaid’s speech on February 14th 1948 at Sibbi Darbar, whereby he said,


“It’s my belief that our salvation lies in the golden rules of conductset for us by our great law-giver, the Prophet of Islam.

Justice Munir deliberately hit Quaid in this book. He holds that his book is the “Part of History”. But, if I’m not mistaken he’s the same Mohd Munir who was appointed as a member of Punjab Boundary commission under Sir Redcliff’s Award. Surprisingly this “PART OF HISTORY”” by Mr. Munir didn’t include a single word about the demarcation of Boundaries (Aug 16th 1947).

There are some other people who criticized Jinnah in different ways, but they also admitted Jinnah as the great leader of Muslims of South Asia. For instance Iqbal Chagla, who’s father was one of the companions of Jinnah, had been involved in some controversial statements about Jinnah. But he also said that,

“Jinnah was not purchasable by goodies or compromise solutions.

Another scholar, Asghar Ali Engineer once raised the question that why didn’t leading Islamic Scholar like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad stood by Jinnah for the cause of partition. Laterly he answered his question himself by saying that the demand of partition was not only for the reason of practice of religion but the security of the basic rights of muslims was also of utmost importance.


I’ll present the analysis of more people (who attempted to defame Quaid) if needed, till then enjoy this.

And one thing that those who blame Quaid-e-Azam for the partition and hold that Muslims in india are in much better condition than that ours. For them i can only say that they are living in fools' paradise. Secondly Quaid is not reponsible for our today's position. Being a father of nation he made a home for us and now its our duty to decorate it. (If father makes home and children can't take care of it after father's death this is the fault of children not father). And if there are problems, Quaid is not reponsible for these but we are and only we can find the solution of these problems by having a constructive and progressive thinking.


Regards,

[QamarCheema]

Dear ladies and Gentlemen

Many a legends gathered around the prominent figures of the history that obscure the crystal of realm though how much lucid. And what is history? A legend agreed upon. It is expected for human beings to commune physical as well as their touching experiences to others. This results in the recitation or recording of proceedings that they believe noteworthy. Such events transpire in a definite framework and array, and there is an unfussy relation between one event and another. This relation, however, is to be exposed and tacit. The appreciation of the significance of the events as they occur in a given background and the understanding of the association between them constitutes genuine history. When such events are related out of their appropriate milieu, they are no longer history but only legends. To discover the hidden truth, one may not be carried away with simple statements of statesmen, but always be skeptical and analyze the prejudice with extreme care especially in terms of recorded history. I would have kept myself out of this controversial post, but I owe to salvage my point of view about the great man “Jinnah”.
Please read full text at my thread:
http://www.cssforum.com.pk/compulsor...at-father.html

Qamar