Partition Reality

[Sid]

I have taken down my quotes from Mr. Seervai's book due to copyright issues. Thnx

 

[A.Rahman]

what was Khilafat movement ? explain.

 

[Sid]

http://www.binoria.org/albineng/august98/khilafat.html

That's one link to give you a 'jist' of what it was all about.

Right now I would not go in to it as that is not the 'objective' of opening this thread. This thread is in response to Mr. Hammers request for quotes and proof from H. M. Seervai's book supporting the claim that Congress forced Jinnah to demand for Pakistan and so IT was responsible for the partition and not Jinnah.

Lets keep to that for the moment. Thnx

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by Sid+Mar 22 2006, 11:06 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sid &#064; Mar 22 2006, 11:06 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Instead of ruining that other thread, I thought it&#39;d be wise to open up a new one as this new discussion warranted it. So Mr. Hammer lets start with some history lessons, shall we?
[/b]

Yes sir&#33;.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 22 2006, 11:06 AM

First of all to understand why partition became a religious thing, we have to understand WHO was the culprit to bring religion in to politics in the first place. Indian history books will tell you that Jinnah did it but I&#39;m afraid to embarass them, but it was GANDHI.

I still have a few of my school history books with me and none of them blame any individual person for partition.Wherever did you get the notion that Indian history books blame Jinnah? Don&#39;t worry, I wouldnt be embarrased. I am not much of a Gandhi fan either.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 22 2006, 11:06 AM

To quote Mr. Seervai:
"... In 1920, Gandhi was appointed President of the Home Rule League in place of Mrs Besant, who left the League because it had become &#39;intertwined with Religion&#39;. This change marked a departure from the growing trend which eminent liberals in England and in India had fostered, namely, to separate religion from politics. The introduction of religion into politics to secure power over the masses in order to arouse their political consciousness is intelligible; but there was a price to pay, and it was paid in full by the partition of India. GANDHI change the object of the Home Rule League from self-government within the British Empire to complete Swaraj - freedom from all ties with Britain.

And how is that wrong? I agree, Gandhi&#39;s hobnobbing with all religious groups doesnt appeal to me either, but I dont find any fault with changing the object of the Home rule league from self-government to complete Swaraj.
Those eminent leaders of Home rule league Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Annie Besant, Bipin Chandra Pal and Lala Lajpat Rai only reached out to educated Indians and people living in the cities.There was no effort from them to include rural India into this whole issue.And none of them liked Gandhi.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 22 2006, 11:06 AM

Further, in the aims of the League, the words &#39;by peaceful and legitimate means&#39; were substituted for &#39;by constitutional means&#39;. When JINNAH protested that under the Rules of the Home Rule League its constitution could not be changed except by a three-fourths majority and without a proper notice being given, whereas the resolution changing the object had been passed by a simple majority, Gandhi, who presided, overruled the objection. Thereafter, Jinnah with nineteen other members (who included Munshi) left the Home Rule League. Munshi has recorded with insight the effect of these events:

Jinnah and other leaders of home league were not in favour of a complete swaraj or freedom. All these leaders were Pro-British. All they wanted was a self-government under the British&#33;&#33;.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 22 2006, 11:06 AM

When Gandhiji forced Jinnah and his followers out of the Home Rule League and later the Congress, we all felt, with Jinnah, that a movement, of an unconstitutional nature,sponsored by Gandhiji with the tremendous influence he had acquired over the masses, would inevitably result in widespread violence, barring the progressive development of self-governing institutions based on a partnership between the educated Hindus and Muslims.To generate coercive power in the masses would only provoke mass conflict between the two communities, as in fact it did. With his keen sense of realities Jinnah firmly set his face against any dialogue with Gandhiji on this point.

How did that result in widespread violence?&#33; I dont understand. Gandhi&#39;s whole damned philosophy was based on some non-violent protests and non-co operation movements that had no violence in them. (except for the part of being thrashed by the British, when they took out these marches).

And how did this turn into some sort of Hindu-muslim discord? &#39;Coz Gandhi had a lot of muslims leaders on his side and Jinnah had a lot of Hindus on his side as well.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 22 2006, 11:06 AM

Another event of importance was Gandhi&#39;s support to the agitation led by two brothers, Mohammed Ali and Shaukat Ali, against the abolition of the Khilafat in Turkey after the First World War, for the Khalif was the spiritual head of the Muslims. That the Khilafat agitation was essentially religious is clear from Gandhi&#39;s own statement in Young India of 20 October 1921.

Thats the funniest part. The Indian muslims started this Khilafat movement with the support of Gandhi and peaceniks to oppose the abolition of the Khilafat in Turkey by the British. But they never really noticed that the British could never &#39;ve achieved that without the help of the Arabs, who they admire so much.
It was the Arab soldiers who finished off the Khilafat.Gandhi acted like a complete idiot as far as this whole episode goes.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 22 2006, 11:06 AM

Gandhi wrote:
I claim that with us both the Khilafat is the central fact, with Maulana Muhammed Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure the safety of the cow, that is my religion, from the Mussalman knife.

LOL...I really can&#39;t understand Gandhi&#39;s logic that if he supports Khilafat movement, all muslims would stop eating the cow.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 22 2006, 11:06 AM

However, Gandhi believed that by supporting the Khilafat agitation he would cement Hindu-Muslim unity. According to Munshi,

To an extent he succeeded there. Even today Indian muslims have a great respect for Gandhi.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 22 2006, 11:06 AM

Jinnah, however, warned Gandhiji not to encourage fanaticism of Muslim religious leaders and their followers. Indeed he was not the only person who foresaw danger in the Khilafat Movement. Srinivasa Sastri wrote to Sri P.S. Siwaswamy Aiyar &#39;...I fear the Khilafat movement is going to lead us into disaster&#39;.
And many other writers have expressed the view that Gandhiji&#39;s support of the Khilafat agitation was a mistake. Years later, in one of his numerous interviews with Mr Richard Casey, the Governor of Bengal, Gandhi informed Casey that:

Jinnah was absolutely right. But I still fail to see how all this could&#39;ve prompted Jinnah to ask for a separate state for muslims.It seems he went against his own principles.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sid@Mar 22 2006, 11:06 AM

The lesson that an appeal to religious sentiment to secure political goals was dangerous to the unity of India was not learnt, and this failure was to lead to disaster in the years to come."
For now this much. When you have read through all of this, I shall continue. Cheers

[post=7532]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

Very interesting Sid. That was excellent. I am looking forward for your next post.

 

[Sid]

Originally posted by Hammer+Mar 22 2006, 05:04 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hammer &#064; Mar 22 2006, 05:04 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>And how is that wrong? I agree, Gandhi&#39;s  hobnobbing with all religious groups doesnt appeal to me either, but I dont find any fault with changing the object of the Home rule league from self-government to complete Swaraj.[/b]

You fail to see the issue at hand here. The main problem that people had was the manner in which Gandhi took the decision. When the &#39;rules&#39; of the Home League clearly stated that a motion cannot be passed without three-fourth&#39;s majority and without a notice being given, Gandhi let it pass by a simple majority and did not give any notice.

Originally posted by Hammer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hammer)</div><div class='quotemain'>Those eminent leaders of Home rule league Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Annie Besant, Bipin Chandra Pal and Lala Lajpat Rai only reached out to educated Indians and people living in the cities.There was no effort from them to include rural India into this whole issue.And none of them liked Gandhi.[/b]

If Gandhi was wise enough, he would have used some other tactic to address the rural India but HE chose religion and mixed it with politics and that was it as far as Jinnah was concerned.

Originally posted by Hammer
Jinnah and other leaders of home league were not in favour of a complete swaraj or freedom. All these leaders were Pro-British. All they wanted was a self-government under the British&#33;&#33;

I&#39;m afraid you&#39;ll have to read the entire book to understand that Jinnah and his supporters did want independance from British rule but wanted it &#39;step by step&#39;, the first step being self-government and strengthening of Indian political institutions before a demand for independance could be made. Gandhi ignored all such practical planning and went outright with his cry for &#39;swaraj&#39; which annoyed the British.

<!--QuoteBegin-Hammer@
How did that result in widespread violence?&#33; I dont understand. Gandhi&#39;s whole damned philosophy was based on some non-violent protests and non-co operation movements that had no violence in them. (except for the part of being thrashed by the British, when they took out these marches).[/quote]
This part, about how &#39;non-violent&#39; Gandhi was and his so-called philosophy, I will talk about in my next post, once again quoting from this great book by Mr. Seervai.

<!--QuoteBegin-Hammer
And how did this turn into some sort of Hindu-muslim discord? &#39;Coz Gandhi had a lot of muslims leaders on his side and Jinnah had a lot of Hindus on his side as well.[/quote]
It did once Congress started acting &#39;imperious&#39; in its attitudes towards the Muslim community and Muslim League after the 1937 elections. I have yet to address any of that at this stage. Hold your horses.

 

[Sid]

Quotes taken down due to copyright issues. Thnx

 

[Sid]

Quotes taken down due to copyright issues. Thnx

 

[sword9]

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 22 2006, 12:29 PM
http://www.binoria.org/albineng/august98/khilafat.html
Right now I would not go in to it as that is not the &#39;objective&#39; of opening this thread. This thread is in response to Mr. Hammers request for quotes and proof from H. M. Seervai&#39;s book supporting the claim that Congress forced Jinnah to demand for Pakistan and so IT was responsible for the partition and not Jinnah.

Your choice of the source of the book written by - Hormusji Maneckji Seervai, is excellent. His credentials are impeccable. I wonder if you also know that he is a decendent of the master ship builder Lovji Nusserwanji Wadia (1734-44).

Althought this thread intends to dwell on the subject of partition and Gandhiji&#39;s role in knowingly or unknowingly having encouraged it, we must keep at the back of our mind that the Indian view of Jinnah&#39;s call for "direct action" in 1946 for the creation of Pakistan, and the massacres initiated therein. These are the unhealing scares that have kept the two nations apart.

The book by HM Seervai on Gandhi and partition is his opinion and analysis on the subject, and food for the intellect, while Jinnah&#39;s call for "direct action" is what most Indians remember.

 

[Sid]

Dont worry my friend, I knew this would come sooner or later. How is the book his OPINION when he is only simplyfying it for the common reader to understand what the CLASSIFIED documents in British Government&#39;s lockers contained for all those years?

He is merely writing in his own words what those documents say. Surely you can&#39;t claim that his direct quotations from personal letters, journal entries, interviews, backdoor political discussions between the concerned politicians of the time, etc are also his opinions? Are you trying to give me a laugh here? History is RECORDED my friend; whether you like it or not, doesn&#39;t change anything. This book is a simple example of that.

You may &#39;accuse&#39; it of being his opinion (which it is NOT - its a narrative of the VERDICT/JUDGEMENT of tons of analyses carried out by major INDEPENDANT historians on subcontinent&#39;s history through the declassified papers) or try to undermine his work by bringing some sort of background of his on the front but like I said, it doesn&#39;t change what happened in the past. JINNAH was CORRECT. You are probably one of those Indians, still in self-denial and who love to live in &#39;legend&#39; than &#39;reality&#39;. The reality is, you CANNOT refute it as there is only ONE version of the official de-classified documents based on 12 Volumes and that is the one Mr. Seervai has relied on.

About the &#39;direct action&#39; that Jinnah called in 1946; I&#39;ll come to that too and &#39;brace&#39; yourself for &#39;more truth&#39; which they don&#39;t tell you about in India which is why Jinnah&#39;s direct action is the only thing on your mind right now. Hold your horses for my future replies. For now, let Hammer digest the previous two.

This is what Mr Seervai had to say about the material he studied and referred to in order for this book to be put together:

&#39;... in 1967, Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced his Government&#39;s decision that documents relating to the transfer of power to India would be published. The editors of the series of documents to be published were to be independant historians, who were given &#39;unrestricted access to the records anf freedom to select and edit documents for publication&#39;. Prof. Mansergh, a distinguished historian was offered, and accepted, the post of Editor-in-Chief. The reference to unrestricted access was necessary because a large part of the documents were most secret. As a result of this decision, 12 volumes of documents, entitled The Transfer of Power 1942-7 (&#39;Transfer of Power&#39 were published under the editorship of Prof. Mansergh, between 1970 and 1983. He contributed an Introduction and Notes to each of the 12 volumes, and discharged his duty as Chief Editor with great skill and complete impartiality. Again in 1973, Mr Penderel Moon published Wavell, The Viceroy&#39;s Journal which contained an almost day-to-day account of the problems which faced Wavell as Viceroy and the manner in which he tackled them from 1943 to 1947.

In 1980, on reading the fresh material which emerged from the 10 volumes of the Transfer of Power, and the Viceroy&#39;s Journal, I believed that the time had come for a reappraisal of the events during the years 1942-1947 which ended with the partition of India. Accordingly, I gave a brief historical account of the transfer of power to India in the Introduction to the undernoted book*.
Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 3rd edn.

This historical account showed that many judgements passed, opinions expressed and surmises made before the official documents in the Transfer of Power, and the Viceroy&#39;s Journal were published, required to be revised, corrected or rejected and that some myths had been destroyed.

However, this brief historical account of about 35 pages was transformed in 1986 into a monograph of 150 pages. Many circumstances led to this change. First and foremost, after my account was printed, the documents in Vols. XI and XII of the Transfer of Power completed the British side of the story of the transfer of power to India. Further, Vol. XII contained revelations about that part which Mountbatten played during the last few months of his Viceroyalty -- revelations which made it necessary to revise radically the contemporary verdict on his services in India, a task made easier by Prof. Zeigler&#39;s official biography entitled Mountbatten published in 1985.

In 1985, Dr Ayesha Jalal published The Sole Spokesman, Jinnah, The Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan. Her book was derived from a Doctoral thesis submitted to Trinity College, Cambridge, of which she was a Fellow. Her carefully researched and well documented thesis propounded the paradox that &#39;it was the Congress that insisted on partition. It was Jinnah who was against it.&#39; In this context, she developed a related theme, namely, that what Jinnah was really after was &#39;parity&#39; between Hindus and Muslims in the Central Legislature and the Central Executive as the only effective safeguard against a permanent domination of the Muslims by an overwhelming and permanent Hindu majority. With the publication of the 12 volumes of the Transfer of Power, the Viceroy&#39;s Journal, Ziegler&#39;s Mountbatten and Ayesha Jalal&#39;s book on Jinnah, authentic material for a reappraisal of what happened during 1942 to 1947 appeared to be nearly complete. The present book Partition of India: Legend and Reality reproduces the monograph I wrote in the Introductory Chapter of the Supplement to my Constitutional Law of India with changes in the form necessary for a separate publication.

A part of the title of this book speaks of Legend and Reality, because the narrative in my book shows that many legends and myths have grown up around Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru, Azad and Patel and around the two Viceroys, Lord Wavell and Lord Mountbatten. With the publication of Wavell, The Viceroy&#39;s Journal, and Vols. IV and IX of the Transfer of Power, the legend that Wavell, although a great Commander and a good man, was unfitted for the delicate political discussion, was seen to be baseless. .....

.... On the other hand, the publication of Vols. X to XII, particular of Vol. XII of the Transfer of Power and Ziegler&#39;s Mountbatten has had the opposite effect of lowering Mountbatten&#39;s character, conduct and stature as a Viceroy. In this present book, I have spoken of this &#39;Great Betrayal&#39; of Punjab when, at a secret meeting on 9 August 1947, he decided deliberately to withhold publication of the Radcliffe Award on Punjab till after partition, although he knew that the Award was ready to be announced on 9 August 1947."

For now this is enough I suppose. My friend, it is a useless exercise to &#39;refute&#39; recorded history.

 

[sword9]

In 1985, Dr Ayesha Jalal published The Sole Spokesman, Jinnah, The Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan. Her book was derived from a Doctoral thesis submitted to Trinity College, Cambridge, of which she was a Fellow. Her carefully researched and well documented thesis propounded the paradox that &#39;it was the Congress that insisted on partition. It was Jinnah who was against it.&#39;

With tons of print media and radio archives present Dr Ayesha Jalal, comes out with this (highlighted above) revalation? Is there even one example of Gandhi (forget the Congress) demanding &#39;partition&#39; anywhere in the archives?

In this context, she developed a related theme, namely, that what Jinnah was really after was &#39;parity&#39; between Hindus and Muslims in the Central Legislature and the Central Executive as the only effective safeguard against a permanent domination of the Muslims by an overwhelming and permanent Hindu majority.

Sid,
Yes that was Jinnah&#39;s demand. But my friend how did Jinnah provide this same &#39;parity&#39; to the minorities of Pakistan? His demand for parity came after the Muslim League lost the provincial elections in 1937 in muslim majority areas. Jinnah wanted to form a coaltion inspite of not winning the required number of seats.

Actions do speak of a persons desires. After independence Jinnah became to the 1st Governor General of Pakistan, while Gandhi did not assume some high and mighty position but retired to his ashram on the banks of the Sabarmati river.

 

[Sid]

Originally posted by sword9+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sword9)</div><div class='quotemain'>With tons of print media and radio archives present Dr Ayesha Jalal, comes out with this (highlighted above) revalation? Is there even one example of Gandhi (forget the Congress) demanding &#39;partition&#39; anywhere in the archives?[/b]

You don&#39;t get it. What Ayesha Jalal said was true in the &#39;essence&#39; what Congress had nurtured, not what they explicitely demanded. You are too keen to pass judgements without enquiring about the entire issue here. Your quoting of parts of my post out of context does no good. If you re-read my post you will know that Mr. Seervai agreed with Ayesha Jalal and that is what this book of his supports. Ayesha Jalal came up with the book in 1985 after the 12 Vols of Transfer of Power were published so previous theories floating around which were NOT based on historical facts were flushed down the drain straightaway when that happened. And Ayesha Jalal&#39;s book is highly regarded in academic/historic circles because she was perhaps the first one to point out this obvious thing about politics of the subcontinent uptill 1947.

<!--QuoteBegin-sword9
Sid,
Yes that was Jinnah&#39;s demand. But my friend how did Jinnah provide this same &#39;parity&#39; to the minorities of Pakistan? His demand for parity came after the Muslim League lost the provincial elections in 1937 in muslim majority areas. Jinnah wanted to form a coaltion inspite of not winning the required number of seats.

Actions do speak of a persons desires. After independence Jinnah became to the 1st Governor General of Pakistan, while Gandhi did not assume some high and mighty position but retired to his ashram on the banks of the Sabarmati river.[/quote]

Jinnah &#39;wanted&#39; to provide this same parity to all as is evident from his August speech; but the unfortunate part was, he was an ailing man and died too early for Pakistan to really benefit from his ideas and vision. About the 1937 elections, dont worry, Mr Seervai deals with that as well. I will be shortly quoting about what really was the case back then.

Jinnah became the first Governor General, because he always led from the front throughout his life. Gandhi didn&#39;t because he was never supposed to (as he was considered more like a spiritual head of Hindus than a political one) because Nehru was vying for the Governer General post as well as Mountbatten. Mountbatten was given the honour because he and Nehru were quite intimate friends (I&#39;m sure you also know that Nehru had illegitimate relations with Mountbatten&#39;s wife) and Nehru contended with being the Prime Minister (which was earlier offered to Jinnah if he gave up his demand for Pakistan).

The main difference between Gandhi and Jinnah was, IMHO, Gandhi always made such hype about everything he did (in desi terms, it would be appropriate to say, &#39;dhong rachaana&#39 while Jinnah did what he wanted to do without much hype. Jinnah did his work like a true lawyer does and Gandhi did his like a religious leader does. Have you ever heard about Jinnah threatening to end his life with a hunger strike, going to jail, etc? NO, because he didn&#39;t put himself in such a desparate position that would require such drastic measures to be taken.

 

[sword9]

I think I&#39;ll have to read the book to understand what Seervai has researched. This posting of extracts does not have the same effect and tends to get bogged in our own prejudices. Could you give the name of the book by HM Seervai?

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 24 2006, 04:26 AM
Mountbatten was given the honour because he and Nehru were quite intimate friends (I&#39;m sure you also know that Nehru had illegitimate relations with Mountbatten&#39;s wife).

This affair is well documented in books about Nehru.

The main difference between Gandhi and Jinnah was, IMHO, Gandhi always made such hype about everything he did (in desi terms, it would be appropriate to say, &#39;dhong rachaana&#39 while Jinnah did what he wanted to do without much hype. Jinnah did his work like a true lawyer does and Gandhi did his like a religious leader does.

This difference was because Gandhi had reached a stature of a holy man amongst the masses, while Jinnah associated himself with the aristocracy.

Gandhi was not scared of taking on the British and went to prison numerous times, non co-operation and non-violence, a method that he used in S Africa.

Have you ever heard about Jinnah threatening to end his life with a hunger strike, going to jail, etc? NO, because he didn&#39;t put himself in such a desparate position that would require such drastic measures to be taken.

True. Infact he never did much to confront the British in anyway.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by Sid+Mar 23 2006, 10:04 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sid &#064; Mar 23 2006, 10:04 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>You fail to see the issue at hand here. The main problem that people had was the manner in which Gandhi took the decision. When the &#39;rules&#39; of the Home League clearly stated that a motion cannot be passed without three-fourth&#39;s majority and without a notice being given, Gandhi let it pass by a simple majority and did not give any notice.
[/b]

That is some petty politics.Not really much of an issue here.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 23 2006, 10:04 AM
I&#39;m afraid you&#39;ll have to read the entire book to understand that Jinnah and his supporters did want independance from British rule but wanted it &#39;step by step&#39;, the first step being self-government and strengthening of Indian political institutions before a demand for independance could be made.

Gandhi ignored all such practical planning and went outright with his cry for &#39;swaraj&#39; which annoyed the British.

Jinnah and Gandhi might have been different in their approach to the question of Freedom. But again this only shows the different style of functioning of two very different leaders. Nothing significant here.
And how do you plan to ask for independance without annoying the British?.They would&#39;ve been annoyed anyway, even if Jinnah&#39;s home league had asked for it after his step by step approach.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sid@Mar 23 2006, 10:04 AM
It did once Congress started acting &#39;imperious&#39; in its attitudes towards the Muslim community and Muslim League after the 1937 elections. I have yet to address any of that at this stage. Hold your horses.

[post=7601]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]
Congress has always been pro-muslim. They were more pro-muslim than the muslim league itself. This trend continues even today.

 

[Hammer]

Okay I think I will reply in detail after you finish posting this whole thing supporting your views that Partition was never based on religious divide.Please do tell me when you are finished.

 

[Sid]

Originally posted by sword9+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sword9)</div><div class='quotemain'>Gandhi was not scared of taking on the British and went to prison numerous times, non co-operation and non-violence, a method that he used in S Africa.[/b]

Yes and it only worked in South Africa. He was pretty hypocritic about it in the subcontinent as evident from the passages I have quoted from Mr. Seervai&#39;s book.
His book is called, Partition of India: Legend and Reality. Be sure to get the latest edition (I think it is 1994).

Originally posted by Hammer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hammer)</div><div class='quotemain'>Jinnah and Gandhi might have been different in their approach to the question of Freedom. But again this only shows the different style of functioning of two very different leaders. Nothing significant here.
And how do you plan to ask for independance without annoying the British?.They would&#39;ve been annoyed anyway, even if Jinnah&#39;s home league had asked for it after his step by step approach.[/b]

You don&#39;t get it yet. Step by step approach was better because it would not have annoyed the British if independance was asked at the right time because after World War II, they were granting independance to most of their colonial outposts and withdrawing anyways (remember that India and Pakistan are not the only countries to get their independance in 1947 from Britain - most countries got it in the time frame of 1947-1951).

<!--QuoteBegin-Hammer@
Congress has always been pro-muslim. They were more pro-muslim than the muslim league itself. This trend continues even today.[/quote]

Really? That is why they were always trying to &#39;persuade&#39; Muslims to vote for them and not the League? No matter what form or political agenda Congress took up after partition, the fact remains that it was a Hindu Nationalist party before the partition and only had a few Muslim members to &#39;show-off&#39; that it represented all of India when clearly it did not. My upcoming post about 1937 elections would shed light on this.

<!--QuoteBegin-Hammer
Okay I think I will reply in detail after you finish posting this whole thing supporting your views that Partition was never based on religious divide.Please do tell me when you are finished.[/quote]

What? I never said that partition was not based on religion&#33; It was because Jinnah wanted to secure the rights of the Muslims in a Muslim-majority state (yes, there is a difference between an Islamic State and a Muslim-majority State) because Congress did NOT agree to his &#39;parity&#39; vision to keep India united. My main objective for the creation of this thread and make Indians understand is that Jinnah was &#39;forced&#39; by the Congress&#39; actions and attitude to demand for Pakistan as his only hope to safeguard the rights of the Muslims of the subcontinent.