my sincere thanx to mtnl cauz of which m posting this blog with a gud delay of 15 days, never mind!
The ongoing show of bigotry and illiberal politics by the “party with the difference” is on display for everyone to see and of course without charge. The biggest proponent of communal disharmony “Mr. Modi” has banned the book written by hitherto his colleague “Mr. Jaswant Singh” citing the hilarious reason of creating resentment among the society even without reading it. And even if he had, that wouldn’t have made even a wit of difference because the actual reason behind the ostensible one is all too obvious. I recently heard the incumbent president of party saying there will be no sort of tolerance against the party principles and IDEOLOGY. But I can’t stop wondering what was he alluding to, BJP and IDEOLOGY, when did that happen?
Even if I assume it has the so called ideology then I can’t recall a better person than “Mr. L.K Advani” to have championed it. His sudden discovery of virtues in “Mr. Jinnah” was not out of blues, I understand why he could identify himself with him. The political careers of both the stalwarts largely depend on poisoning the religion and glooming the future of their respective nations and exploiting the people based on their faith for fulfillment of their desire to rule. The difference only lies in their choice of religion, in case of “Mr. Jinnah” it was ISLAM and in case of “Mr. Advani” it was HINDUISM. So in that respect both of them are secular as they were never attached to the religion emotionally and their love was only political always.
Coming back to the recent issue of “Mr. Jaswant Singh”, it was unjust to expel him for giving vent to his thoughts which were only in line with what his party has done in its political career. But I have no sympathy with him as till very recently he was just one of them, hiding what he now expresses freely in media. But I certainly do not buy his argument of claiming “Mr. Jinnah” to be a great man, why I think so shall become clear as you read further but I leave the choice on the reader itself.
Born in Gujarat in a converted family with Hindu ancestors and Muslim father he did his primary education in India before going London to do Law. In 1905 he started his practice as an advocate in Bombay and was very much inspired by some leaders of the Indian National Congress (INC) like gopal Krishna gokhale and mehta. He became a part of INC but to provide leadership to Muslims and to appease his desire of ruling he joined Muslim League in 1913.
He became president of the league and was instrumental in drafting the Lucknow pact or the Nehru report. Angered over Gandhi ji’s support of khilafat movement which to a law lover like him was wrong and considered it a trick to appeal to masses, he left Inc in 1920. He was a man of modern ideas with modern education and a die hard lover of lawful and just society. No wonder he was very much fashionable and luxurious and a hedonist person. He almost had 200 suits in his wardrobe and was known not to wear the same silk tie twice. Since 1921 he was out of the political mainstream but remain keenly observant of what was happening. In the meantime he was offered the title of “Sir” by the then incumbent Viceroy of India but he politely refused saying I prefer to be Mr. Jinnah. In 1931 he again returned to London deciding never to come back as he was disturbed with his personal life and unhappy with the political. On the behest of League he came to India again in 1935 and became president of the Muslim league. It was this time when he came in to contact with people like “Mohammad Iqbal “which seemed to have changed his approach. In 1939 occurred the unfortunate incident when INC refused to form a coalition government with the league. INC’s intransigence seemed to hurt Jinnah and the following year in 1940 in the Lahore Session Jinnah for the first time demanded a separate state (Pakistan) for Muslims. As it seems, to many and to me as well that the demand for Pakistan was just a bargaining ploy and the partition could have been averted if Congress was ready to cede some ground. At the first Round table conference he was the lone supporter of unitary government as he felt a federation government would certainly promote fissiparous tendencies. It was unfortunate for such a prudent man like him to have become a slave of his ego and desires and demanding the division of India on communal basis which he always opposed. Though people may argue he was not solely responsible of what happened but this is what he had to say when he went for a survey of the refugee crisis in Punjab, he held his head in his hands and exclaimed “oh my god what have I done”.
This explains two things, one he fretted the partition after it happened and second he considered himself also responsible for it. As it might have dawned on him that to assuage your own desires, you can never partition your country.
If congress was too good a party Gandhi ji would have never demanded its dissolution after independence. Like Jinnah Nehru also fretted the partition and wished it could be reverted. What ever made them in hindsight stew what had happened; this will always remain as another glaring blot on Indian history when “religion” a thing made for the betterment of people was once again wielded as a potent tool for the destruction of the mankind by its supporters and promoters. And to prove that history repeats itself we now have so called national leaders like L.K Advani and Narendra modi.
Even if I assume it has the so called ideology then I can’t recall a better person than “Mr. L.K Advani” to have championed it. His sudden discovery of virtues in “Mr. Jinnah” was not out of blues, I understand why he could identify himself with him. The political careers of both the stalwarts largely depend on poisoning the religion and glooming the future of their respective nations and exploiting the people based on their faith for fulfillment of their desire to rule. The difference only lies in their choice of religion, in case of “Mr. Jinnah” it was ISLAM and in case of “Mr. Advani” it was HINDUISM. So in that respect both of them are secular as they were never attached to the religion emotionally and their love was only political always.
Coming back to the recent issue of “Mr. Jaswant Singh”, it was unjust to expel him for giving vent to his thoughts which were only in line with what his party has done in its political career. But I have no sympathy with him as till very recently he was just one of them, hiding what he now expresses freely in media. But I certainly do not buy his argument of claiming “Mr. Jinnah” to be a great man, why I think so shall become clear as you read further but I leave the choice on the reader itself.
Born in Gujarat in a converted family with Hindu ancestors and Muslim father he did his primary education in India before going London to do Law. In 1905 he started his practice as an advocate in Bombay and was very much inspired by some leaders of the Indian National Congress (INC) like gopal Krishna gokhale and mehta. He became a part of INC but to provide leadership to Muslims and to appease his desire of ruling he joined Muslim League in 1913.
He became president of the league and was instrumental in drafting the Lucknow pact or the Nehru report. Angered over Gandhi ji’s support of khilafat movement which to a law lover like him was wrong and considered it a trick to appeal to masses, he left Inc in 1920. He was a man of modern ideas with modern education and a die hard lover of lawful and just society. No wonder he was very much fashionable and luxurious and a hedonist person. He almost had 200 suits in his wardrobe and was known not to wear the same silk tie twice. Since 1921 he was out of the political mainstream but remain keenly observant of what was happening. In the meantime he was offered the title of “Sir” by the then incumbent Viceroy of India but he politely refused saying I prefer to be Mr. Jinnah. In 1931 he again returned to London deciding never to come back as he was disturbed with his personal life and unhappy with the political. On the behest of League he came to India again in 1935 and became president of the Muslim league. It was this time when he came in to contact with people like “Mohammad Iqbal “which seemed to have changed his approach. In 1939 occurred the unfortunate incident when INC refused to form a coalition government with the league. INC’s intransigence seemed to hurt Jinnah and the following year in 1940 in the Lahore Session Jinnah for the first time demanded a separate state (Pakistan) for Muslims. As it seems, to many and to me as well that the demand for Pakistan was just a bargaining ploy and the partition could have been averted if Congress was ready to cede some ground. At the first Round table conference he was the lone supporter of unitary government as he felt a federation government would certainly promote fissiparous tendencies. It was unfortunate for such a prudent man like him to have become a slave of his ego and desires and demanding the division of India on communal basis which he always opposed. Though people may argue he was not solely responsible of what happened but this is what he had to say when he went for a survey of the refugee crisis in Punjab, he held his head in his hands and exclaimed “oh my god what have I done”.
This explains two things, one he fretted the partition after it happened and second he considered himself also responsible for it. As it might have dawned on him that to assuage your own desires, you can never partition your country.
If congress was too good a party Gandhi ji would have never demanded its dissolution after independence. Like Jinnah Nehru also fretted the partition and wished it could be reverted. What ever made them in hindsight stew what had happened; this will always remain as another glaring blot on Indian history when “religion” a thing made for the betterment of people was once again wielded as a potent tool for the destruction of the mankind by its supporters and promoters. And to prove that history repeats itself we now have so called national leaders like L.K Advani and Narendra modi.
4 comments:
yaar can nt undersatnd these lines
according to me jinnah left congress arnd 1920 and i think muslim league never participated in nehru report that is waht it is famous for....
your these lines confused me
"He became president of the league and was instrumental in drafting the Lucknow pact or the Nehru report."
Angered over Gandhi ji’s support of khilafat movement which to a law lover like him was wrong
khilafat was nt supported by congress and ghandiji never supprted it untill the there occured a trade off bw congress and muslim league
because it was personal matter of only muslim relegion
i think.......may be i could be wrong
yes that's what i wrote he left congress in 1920.and nehru report was drafted only for the muslim league.
yeah congress initially didn'
t support khilafat movement n jinnah was also against it hence i infer he was secular as he was ready to cut across communal lines.but later he was influenced by sum fanatics n his own ego.support for khilafat movement was absolutely wrong no matter who so ever did it.
jinnah was intially secular but later on around 1939 onwards he became communal ...perhaps for personal gains which is evident from jinnah's "dirty trump card" which he played...
1 that muslim league will be only representative of muslims . if no partition occurs ....else partition is inenvitable ... coz this would hav gave jinnah lot of salves as muslims ( monopoly)
Post a Comment