This blog entry is a reply to Mr Yasser Latif Hamdani's insightful piece on Nehru Report named ''Jinnah, M C Chagla and Nehru Report''.
You can access the article at:
http://pakteahouse.net/2011/10/25/jinnah-m-c-chagla-and-the-nehru-report/
First of all I would like to say that it is always a pleasure reading Mr Hamdani's articles focusing particularly on the surrounding events leading to partition. Even when I disagree with his conclusions, I still admire his zeal for the subject of history which is often ignored in our part of the world. The point of writing this reply is not to dispute his analysis on Nehru Report but rather to complement his insightful take on it. I share his conclusion that it was actually Nehru Report that led to parting of ways between Jinnah and Congress leadership rather than later events. However, I have something to add to this debate. Therefore, the point is to add a further dimension to this debate.
By no means I adhere to a reductionist account of history presented mostly by Indian historians that focuses too much on divide and rule policy of the Britishers but still there is one particular incident that needed to be mentioned in the context of this historical episode. In February 1928, Lord Birkenhead wrote a letter to Viceroy Lord Irwin:
''I should advise Simon to see at all stages important people who are not boycotting the Commission, particularly Muslims and depressed classes. I should widely advertise all his interviews with representative Muslims. The whole policy is now obvious. It is to testify the immense Hindu population by the apprehension that the Commission having been got hold of the Muslims, may present report altogether destructive of Hindu position, thereby securing a solid Muslim support and leaving Jinnah high and dry.''
[Source: Frederick Edwin Earl of Birkenhead: The Last Phase , by The Second Earl of Birkenhead, published by Thornton Butterworth page 258]
How can we explain this letter? Here was an opportunity for Congress to negotiate and come to terms with Muslim League and Jinnah but by exploiting the fears of Hindu Mahasabha, Congress was somehow forced to lose this golden opportunity. It was Birkenhead who wanted Jinnah to feel alienated.
Secondly, I believe at the time of Nehru Report the views of Khalafatists Muslims were in consonance to that of Jinnah. As far as my reading is concerned, despite the Khilafat fiasco, at the time of Simon Commission Muhammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali represented no different views than Jinnah. Speaking rhetorically Shuakat Ali remarked about Nehru Report:
''As a young man I was a keen observer of greyhounds, but I have never seen greyhounds deal with a hare as the Hindus proposed to deal with the Muslimms''.
As for Muhammad Ali Johar, he has this to say about it in 1930. Speaking in an aggressive tone he denounced Gandhi and Congress in these words:
''Gandhi is working under the influence of communalist Hindu Mahasaba. He is working for the supremacy of Hinduism and submergence of Muslims''.
Having said that, there were some Khilafatists leaders such as Maulana Azad who endorsed Nehru Report.
I was glad to see a Co-Pakistani admiring Motilal Nehru. The truth of the matter is that Motilal Nehru was cornered by a belligerent propaganda run by Lala-Malaviya Gang who were bitterly opposed to his non-communal politics. In my view, CR Das and Motilal Nehru were probably the two most liberal and non communal Congressmen during 1920s.
Finally, I would like Mr. Hammdani to shed more light on the roles of two muslim delegates of Nehru Report Committe named Ali Imam and Shoaib Qureshi. I think it is unjustified to put all the blame on young Chagla. All these circumstances must be taken into account.
Once again I would thank Mr. Hamdani for persistent work on Jinnah and subcontinental history which seriously needs objective consideration on our part. So, keep on writing Mr Yasser. :-)
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Scent of Faith!
A man in love, no matter what he says
The smell of love wafts love-ward from his mouth
He speaks of jurisprudence, what emerges?
From mystic poverty a sweet effulgence
He blasphemes, the scent of faith arises
He offers doubts, no doubt we grow more sure
Rumi from Masnavi 1: 2880-82
The smell of love wafts love-ward from his mouth
He speaks of jurisprudence, what emerges?
From mystic poverty a sweet effulgence
He blasphemes, the scent of faith arises
He offers doubts, no doubt we grow more sure
Rumi from Masnavi 1: 2880-82
On twitter and Facebook!
Social Network sites are places where everyone has something to say, everyone wants to be heard. Perhaps no one wants to be understood.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
History, Memory and Lies!
''History isn’t the lies of the victors as I once glibly assured Old Joe Hunt; I know that now. It’s more the memories of the survivors, most of whom are neither victorious nor defeated…or…. What had Old Joe Hunt answered when I knowingly claimed that history was the lies of the victors? As long as you remember that it is also the self-delusions of the defeated’ Do we remember that enough when it comes to our private lives?''
(The Sense of an Ending by Julian Barnes)
Friday, October 21, 2011
Each man kills the thing he loves!
Failed lover shoots college girl, himself to death!
'LAHORE – A desperate young man killed his 18-year-old girlfriend, a student of Kinnaird College for Woman, and moments later also took his own life at the foot bridge built in front of the college on the Jail Road, eyewitnesses said. The death dance was danced on Monday afternoon.' (Courtesy The Nation)
How can you kill someone you love? The boy didn't love the girl and definitely confused his ignoble vanity with such a noble thing as love. Such a deplorable act can only stem from a patriarchal society where males don't cease to impose their will on the other weaker sex. The guy must have been a psycho or abnormal person. These are the stereotypical reactions that I have witnessed in the aftermath of this tragic incident.
The purpose of my blog entry is not to exploit the current situation but rather to explore the complexity of the situation that is generally dismissed summarily by our society. I am using this example as a means to an end. For years I have been thinking about the issue of dark side of love. Nothing can be worse than the recent episode. So, the question arises then what is love? Was the guy really in love with the girl? I think the answer is not a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
Despite being a romantic myself, I have always held the belief that love is perhaps the most selfish of all human desires. As an ideal, love is deceptive. It deceives us into thinking that in love we negate our self for the beloved. This is probably the most commonly held view. In popular culture, Love seems to be equated with selflessness or self abnegation. I object to this understanding. Love genealogically stems from selfishness. Love is not begging; its appropriation. What is love of knowledge then? Its nothing other than possessing knowledge. Same applies to romantic love. Its emanates from human selfishness. The problem arises when the ego devises a strategy to 'win over' the other by giving the pretense of altruistic garb. In fact, the ego makes the lover believe this pretense. Blinds him.
In my view, nothing demonstrates the truth of my diabolical take on love than this current tragedy. The boy may genuinely have been in love with the girl. He might genuinely have thought that his life revolves around that girl. The question then arises as to how could the guy had done such a deplorable act? The answer may not have depended solely on one factor but the dominant factor seems to be the selfish love impulse. The impulse to possess. Reckless lovers make their beloved the center of their universe. Their only idol. So, when failure in love encounters them; they prefer being an iconoclast to being pagans. They destroy the same idol they had themselves created.
In conclusion, every beautiful thing of value emanates from something immoral or bad. The root of flower is always ugly. Love is no different either. Such a holy thing stems from something so unholy i.e Vanity.
'LAHORE – A desperate young man killed his 18-year-old girlfriend, a student of Kinnaird College for Woman, and moments later also took his own life at the foot bridge built in front of the college on the Jail Road, eyewitnesses said. The death dance was danced on Monday afternoon.' (Courtesy The Nation)
How can you kill someone you love? The boy didn't love the girl and definitely confused his ignoble vanity with such a noble thing as love. Such a deplorable act can only stem from a patriarchal society where males don't cease to impose their will on the other weaker sex. The guy must have been a psycho or abnormal person. These are the stereotypical reactions that I have witnessed in the aftermath of this tragic incident.
The purpose of my blog entry is not to exploit the current situation but rather to explore the complexity of the situation that is generally dismissed summarily by our society. I am using this example as a means to an end. For years I have been thinking about the issue of dark side of love. Nothing can be worse than the recent episode. So, the question arises then what is love? Was the guy really in love with the girl? I think the answer is not a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
Despite being a romantic myself, I have always held the belief that love is perhaps the most selfish of all human desires. As an ideal, love is deceptive. It deceives us into thinking that in love we negate our self for the beloved. This is probably the most commonly held view. In popular culture, Love seems to be equated with selflessness or self abnegation. I object to this understanding. Love genealogically stems from selfishness. Love is not begging; its appropriation. What is love of knowledge then? Its nothing other than possessing knowledge. Same applies to romantic love. Its emanates from human selfishness. The problem arises when the ego devises a strategy to 'win over' the other by giving the pretense of altruistic garb. In fact, the ego makes the lover believe this pretense. Blinds him.
In my view, nothing demonstrates the truth of my diabolical take on love than this current tragedy. The boy may genuinely have been in love with the girl. He might genuinely have thought that his life revolves around that girl. The question then arises as to how could the guy had done such a deplorable act? The answer may not have depended solely on one factor but the dominant factor seems to be the selfish love impulse. The impulse to possess. Reckless lovers make their beloved the center of their universe. Their only idol. So, when failure in love encounters them; they prefer being an iconoclast to being pagans. They destroy the same idol they had themselves created.
In conclusion, every beautiful thing of value emanates from something immoral or bad. The root of flower is always ugly. Love is no different either. Such a holy thing stems from something so unholy i.e Vanity.
Yet each man kills the thing he loves
By each let this be heard.
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word.
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!
(Oscar Wilde- Ballad of the Gaol)
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)