Why gandhi supported kalifah movement and jinnah didnt?

[Capt.Popeye]

Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
In 1945, Winston Churchill's Conservative Party suffered a thumping defeat at the General Elections. They won some 250 against the Labour 400, giving Labour, and Clement Attlee , a majority of nearly 150 (these figures are approximate, from memory).

Joe, i'd like to add just a little foot-note to your well-written exposition;

After this crushing defeat at the polls (which went beyond Churchills' worst nightmares), Churchill had this to say- "My sovereign gave me the order of the Garter (he'd just been knighted), my people gave me the order of the boot".
He never recovered from this unprecedented political reverse, shunned politics and spent increasing amounts of time away from his country- icluding time spent as guest on Aristotle Onasssis' yacht.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I never contradicted Jinah's Vision, But his Struggle of Pakistan become Reality largely because of two Sole Reasons
1. Muslims were Damned illTreated and Backward From Hindus in almost every walk of Life
2. Religious views were exploited to strenthen the Notion that Hindus and Muslims can never live Together as both have varying degrees of Faith and Religious Practices.

Haven't it Been for Religion Partition wouldn't have occurred.

It need hardly be said that as a staunch admirer of Jinnah, I disagree with your views completely and irrevocably. As late as the CMP, Jinnah fought to salvage his vision of a constitutional structure allowing Muslims to live in dignity and grow and prosper without being swept away by a brute majority. If he had given such an edge to religion, rather than to the betterment of his people, a section of the population marked off by their religious affiliation, he would have stood out for a clear division years, even decades before 1944.

Jinnah's vision was not, emphatically not Allama Iqbal's vision. YLH on PTH has proved that conclusively. The two great men respected each other; neither borrowed his ideas whole-sale from the other. Jinnah's vision clearly emphasised a homeland for the Muslim, not, emphatically not an Islamic homeland.

Regarding point 1, while I sympathise with the plight that Muslims found themselves in, I feel no need to subscribe to your highly tendentious and wholly misleading description of Muslims being "Damned illTreated and Backward From Hindus in almost every walk of Life". Damned? Ill treated? In what capacity did Hindus do this to Muslims, under a British rule that had no axe to grind on either side? The Muslims claim that they were discriminated against, the Hindus claim (if you read the effusions of Rig Vedic immediately before) that the Muslims were toadies of the British, sabotaged the independence movement and got Pakistan as a reward. With this evidence, we can safely conclude that an administration abused by both sides was in all likelihood an equal and even-handed administration.

If anything, Muslims suffered a lag, of perhaps fifty to a hundred years, in taking to British education. While the Hindus thronged the colleges of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay from their inception, the Muslim hung back and sulked in his dreams of imperial glory until Sir Syed Ahmed dashed a cup of cold water in their collective face. If anything, it was Jinnah's efforts to overcome this collective disadvantage that led to the constitutional experiments which he put forward, and which the CMP endorsed and put forward in their turn, a protection which Ambedkar, for instance, lost no time in claiming in its earlier, humbler form of electoral protection and a quota in education, for his own constituency.

But a plea that the Muslim was actively oppressed and socially pushed around by the Hindu is totally false, and verifiable to be false by the testimony of those who were alive in those days and have left records. It was not a Damned illTreated and Backward From Hindus in almost every walk of Life that fought for its rights, it was an active and aggressive segment of the population that feared an apocalyptic future. It was always a fear of what was to come, never a fear of what was present-day reality that was behind Muslim insecurity during that period.

One of the hall-marks of this division between what you have claimed and what happened was the analysis of the involvement of Muslims by Hamza Alavi, whose brilliant study made it clear that Pakistan was driven by the educated Muslim salariat, not, I repeat not by the down-trodden religious-minded Muslim that you have erected instead, I regret deeply to say, as a wholly fictitious substitute.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe, i'd like to add just a little foot-note to your well-written exposition;

After this crushing defeat at the polls (which went beyond Churchills' worst nightmares), Churchill had this to say- "My sovereign gave me the order of the Garter (he'd just been knighted), my people gave me the order of the boot".
He never recovered from this unprecedented political reverse, shunned politics and spent increasing amounts of time away from his country- icluding time spent as guest on Aristotle Onasssis' yacht.

Aye, aye, Cap'n, Sir.

I'd like to refer you, in addition, to the iconic Decisive Battles of the Western World by J. F. C. Fuller. In the course of his arguments, Fuller, a wholly anti-Communist figure, who was supposed by some quarters to be far closer to the Germans other than Hitler than was good for a figure of his name and fame, goes on to point out that Churchill and Roosevelt adopted a policy towards Europe, indeed, to the world that simply gave Stalin carte blanche.

We need only remember that Roosevelt died before the war ended, and Churchill was 'booted' out, to appreciate the wholesale debacle that imperialism suffered after the war. For the next five decades, the balance of the 20th century, it fought a rear-guard action, bound to lose, and today, I think we can safely conclude that it is almost defeated.

In this context, and against this background, for somebody to be considering Sarila seriously really does my BP no good.

 

[Manas]

Everyone mayn't be a fan of leftist Romila Thapar and Ayesha Galal version historical bandwagon , so what there are some keep it close to chest and believe it as gospel of truth giving scant regard to what actually transpired on the ground with meaningless pontification like what he/she had said and Jinnah was so secular though he kept talking about Hindu & Muslim are two nations since the time first indian converted to Islam.

I would rather go by actions since I hear it much louder than vocal speech or unclear intentions any day including the night.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Even if Allama Sahab and Jinnah Sahab's relation were purely professional, they did join hands on a common cause did'nt they? Even in professional relations, a high level of mutual understanding is required, otherwise, even a professional relation becomes very fragile. Their relationship was very plutonic, which is why they worked for a common goal, with common thought processes.

Why on earth are you trying to project an alliance that never was?

Jinnah was a clear-headed rational barrister, one of the finest legal minds in the Empire; Iqbal was a mystic. Their personal habits differed like chalk and cheese.

What common grounds would the two have found?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Everyone mayn't be a fan of leftist Romila Thapar and Ayesha Galal version historical bandwagon , so what there are some keep it close to chest and believe it as gospel of truth giving scant regard to what actually transpired on the ground with meaningless pontification like what he/she had said and Jinnah was so secular though he kept talking about Hindu & Muslim are two nations since the time first indian converted to Islam.

I would rather go by actions since I hear it much louder than vocal speech or unclear intentions any day including the night.

Romila Thapar? what did she have to say on this topic? Any particular work of hers that you would like to cite?

In general, I am not able to understand what you are trying to say. Are you aware of the meaning of the word 'nation' and its distinction from constituted state?

And what actions are you referring to?

Please don't make this a Hindu Muslim rant or I will report you - again - immediately to the moderators for necessary action.

 

[Manas]

But it doesn't explain the fact that even a single South Indian Muslim didn't choose to go Pakistan.

your assertions are scary.BUt I see it quite an usual style of urs.

No,its not true that even a single South Indian Muslim didn't choose to go Pakistan. There are many muslim from south India particularly the rich aristocrats from the state of Hyderabad and Myrose did go to Pakistan.Though later on some came back as they found Pakistan culturally very different from south India.

 

[Manas]

Romila Thapar? what did she have to say on this topic? Any particular work of hers that you would like to cite?

In general, I am not able to understand what you are trying to say. Are you aware of the meaning of the word 'nation' and its distinction from constituted state?

And what actions are you referring to?

Please don't make this a Hindu Muslim rant or I will report you - again - immediately to the moderators for necessary action.

sir, you are unnecessarily getting agitated.

I gave my general impression how leftist historians tend to see and write about history and the fact that some find that very comforting.

No, I'm not going to make a Hindu Muslim rant , never so don't preempt it pls.Thank you.

Are you aware of the meaning of the word 'nation' and its distinction from constituted state

I know their meanings,but you are probably hinting at some more complex.Right?

 

[Joe Shearer]

sir, you are unnecessarily getting agitated.

I gave my general impression how leftist historians tend to see and write about history and the fact that some find that very comforting.

No, I'm not going to make a Hindu Muslim rant , never so don't preempt it pls.Thank you.

How is your general impression about leftist historians relevant to this topic? Which leftist historian has written about these topics that we are discussing? And who is it who find it interesting?

 

[Rig Vedic]

It is difficult to understand why you should set the sensational History for Dummies theories of an untrained amateur trying to make money from his presentation of hair-raising theories conjured out of thin air against the evident state of the world and of Britain in those days. There is nothing to justify such an analysis. Sarila's status as ADC is wholly unimportant. There are enough military men on board this forum who will inform you in excruciating detail about the nature of duties carried out by an ADC and about the profile of person picked for such duties. These are not the brains of the service, whichever service is involved; these are the socially acceptable, typically upper-class, at least presentable young men who can be counted upon not to trip over the tea tray, spill a drink down a guest's gown or be sick after excessive potations. Ideally, they should be the supporting arm under a guest thus afflicted.

History writing? Not really.

Looking at Sarila's theory presents a very sad picture. While it is a matter of some happiness that it gave a few hours of occupation and absorbed reading attention to somebody at any rate (I personally found it sickening in its contrived sense of the sinister elements of history, a foreign service version of What The Butler Saw), there is absolutely no reason to ascribe any more seriousness or heft to it than there is to put a value to the hypertensive burblings of an Arnab Goswami. In some senses, Arnab Goswami is at times more credible.

Joe, Sarila quotes from plenty of official documents in his book ... your long and rather intemperate ad-hominem attack is not enough to rebut him.

Anyway, here are some comments by reviewers ...

"An impressive range of documentary sources illuminates a controversial era with skill and conviction. Historians and general readers alike will learn much from the sweep and drama of the narrative." - Sir Martin Gilbert (official biographer of Winston Churchill)


"A meticulously researched, highly readable, fascinating version of the last days of the Raj" - Mark Tully

"[Sarila's] penetrating intelligence...shines a light on the diplomatic world of hints, pressures and concealed motives on the route to partition" - Sunday Telegraph

As regards Churchill, it is naive to think that the policies he had pursued had become irrelevant because he had lost an election. In the UK, as in several other nations, there is a state and then there is a deep state. Take it or leave it, no time to elaborate at present.

 

[T-Faz]

Why on earth are you trying to project an alliance that never was?

Jinnah was a clear-headed rational barrister, one of the finest legal minds in the Empire; Iqbal was a mystic. Their personal habits differed like chalk and cheese.

What common grounds would the two have found?

Muck like 'Pakistan ka matlab kya', this alliance too was manufactured to give Jinnah a more religious outlook. It is because Iqbal was the only one from the founding fathers who had dwelled into Islam extensively (though not without controversy) through his writing. The others were either far too liberal, or from sects that would make most Pakistani's itch in the wrong place, dont mind the obscenity if you may.

Don't be surprised if you hear such things like, Iqbal and Jinnah used to 'sit together and talk about Islam' or how 'Iqbal brought Jinnah back from London'.

The establishment used Iqbal to give Pakistan a more religious background, he was purposefully made into the 'religious' one because he had written about Islam and he become the scapegoat to promote religious fervor.

But as you might know, most Pakistani's only know half of Iqbal, the other half has been buried because it would make everyone itch in the wrong place again.

His religious affiliation along with his families, his family problems and his habits are well known to historians but not to the common man.

Iqbal himself was aware of the position he could reach, if he decided to ditch the sect he belonged to. He did exactly that and a man who was once a thorn in the eyes of Mullahs became Maulana Iqbal.

 

[T-Faz]

As regards the formation of Pakistan, and the role played by the British and Jinnah, a good source is the book "The Shadow of the Great Game – The Untold Story of India’s Partition" by Narendra Singh Sarila, Carroll & Graft Publishers, New York, 2006. Here is a review that gives many interesting facts:

Here is a better review from 'The Spectator':

Not so duplicitous as painted

Narendra Singh Sarila has a theory. Because he is a man of high intelligence and has researched diligently into the sources, his theory must be treated with respect. As one of India’s most senior ambassadors he is well qualified to assess the limitations of state papers and to distinguish between what politicians say and what they really mean. He is moderate in his judgments and, for the most part, fair in his treatment of individuals. The only pity is that he is almost entirely wrong.

His thesis, as is made clear by the title of his book, is that the British attitude towards the independence of the Indian subcontinent was largely shaped by the politico-strategic considerations of the ‘Great Game’, which had bulked so large in the minds of the imperial power over the previous century. On this analysis, the British favoured partition and worked successfully to achieve it because they did not trust a Congress government to provide a bulwark against Russian incursions into the area. Only a strong, independent Pakistan could be relied on to protect the Himalayan frontiers and the rich oil fields of the Middle East.

There is evidence to support this thesis. No one can reasonably deny that the schism between Muslim and Hindu in India, though not invented by the British, was fomented by them on the principle of divide and rule. It is also true that the senior military figures of the Raj traditionally favoured the Muslim — clean-limbed, honest fighting men — against the wily and untrustworthy Hindu. Wavell for one regularly put on record his conviction that British interests would best be protected by forging a close alliance with the Muslims and advocated withdrawing British troops into the Muslim majority areas and leaving the rest of India to stew in its own juice.

But it is a far cry from this to assuming that in 1947 such considerations bulked large in the minds of the Labour government or of Mountbatten. Mountbatten’s instructions when he went to India as the last Viceroy were categoric: ‘It is the definite objective of His Majesty’s Govern- ment to obtain a unitary government for British India and the Indian States.’ Sarila maintains that this was eyewash, that Attlee from the first was bent on creating Pakistan: ‘Working behind a thick smoke screen, he wove circles around Indian leaders and persuaded them to accept partition.’ This analysis assumes, first that Attlee was paying far more attention to the issue than in practice he had time or inclination to do, and, second, that he was pursuing a policy directly opposed to that which he professed in public. In terms of his own character or according to the demands of realpolitik, this does not seem remotely probable.

Still more is this true of Mountbatten. Sarila notes that in his reports and minutes Mountbatten ‘scrupulously avoided any reference... to British strategic considerations’. This is adduced as evidence of Mountbatten’s duplicity; Sarila does not seem to have considered the possibility that at that time such considerations hardly entered Mountbatten’s head. Over Kashmir, Mountbatten from the outset maintained that the wishes of the population should be established by a plebiscite and that the state should then accede accordingly to India or Pakistan. When the maharajah acceded to India, Attlee, according to Sarila, made it clear to Mountbatten (by then governor-general) that this was contrary to British interests. ‘Like the good soldier that he was [a description that would have made the governor-general shudder] Mountbatten immediately fell into step with HMG.’

In fact there is no reason to think that there was any difference of view over Kashmir between Mountbatten and Attlee, or that Mountbatten in any way changed his policies as a result. It is a notorious weakness of Indian historians that they assume the British were far more clever and subtle than in fact they were. On the occasions when Mountbatten sought to behave deviously he made his intentions embarrassingly obvious; over Kashmir he was commendably consistent and resolute, even if in the end he failed.

Off his home ground Narendra Singh Sarila is sometimes alarmingly slapdash. One can forgive him for repeatedly getting wrong the complexities of British aristocratic titles or for thinking that a man educated at Harrow must be a Harrowian. One can excuse Wellesback for Wittelsbach (or, for that matter, Zeigler for Ziegler). But when one is told that Sir Ramsay McDonald was succeeded as prime minister by James Baldwin one begins to sense that the author is not entirely at home in British politics. There is no evidence that a proofreader or moderately competent sub-editor has come within striking distance of this text; some sentences are so convoluted that they defy analysis.

This is a pity because, even if the reader does not accept Narendra Singh Sarila’s thesis, it still deserves attention. It is also relevant to the present day. ‘Many of the roots of Islamic terrorism sweeping the world today,’ the author believes, ‘lie buried in the partition of India.’ The Shadow of the Great Game does not fully bear out this contention but there is enough truth in it to provide an extra reason for reading this thoughtful, interesting, if essentially wrong-headed book.

The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India’s Partition | Narendra Singh Sarila | Review by The Spectator

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

plz don,t mind faz bhi you are trying to prove that in one sense Quaid and Iqbal were crooks and they merely played in hands of British establishment...
it,s mean TWO nation theory was nothing more than a drama to colour blind Muslims on name of Islam.

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

Khilafat movement was driven by Islamic emotions of indian Muslims and many renowned persons like maulana abdul klam azad (who even called india as darul hareb) , Ali brothers(panislamic) and many others + Gandhi led that movement.... here Gandhi entered into alliance because of his desire of hindu-muslim unity and also it provided base for his projection as a future leader and when he saw that interests of hindues are in danger because of many events in which hindues were also massacred so he pulled back to save interests of hindues.
On other hand Quaid -e-Azam very shrewdly warned Muslims of future troubles because He knew that other than moral support Muslams of india can do nothing as Arabs were looking for separation from Ottomans and Turkish peoples under Mustafa Kamal were looking for independent Turkey rather than Ottoman empire. So he was very right because this movement at end failed very badly and add great loss to muslims. about 18,000 tried to migrate to Afghanistan but were sent back. Most of them died in very poor condition. On other hands most of the muslims lost their jobs that added to economic plights of Muslims. Many other lost their life and property in violent riots.

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

Why on earth are you trying to project an alliance that never was?

Jinnah was a clear-headed rational barrister, one of the finest legal minds in the Empire; Iqbal was a mystic. Their personal habits differed like chalk and cheese.

What common grounds would the two have found?

their common ground was < securing the interests of Indian Muslims>
these interests cover every thing from economic interests to religious interests. that was basic motive of PAKISTAN and Quaid was very rational in his demand for PAKISTAN because he knew rights of Muslims would be surely undermined by hindu majority.