Posts Tagged ‘Patel’

Akbar’s misplaced perception of ‘hatred’ – a rejoinder By M.T. Hussain, Dhaka

December 15, 2008

14 December 2008

Akbar’s misplaced perception of ‘hatred’ – a rejoinder By M.T. Hussain, Dhaka

This has a reference to the Indian journalist Mr. M J Akbar’s item published in a Dhaka English daily on the 12th December, 2008, wherein he has blamed the Muslim League leader Jinnah for his Two Nation Theory that, according to him, gave birth to ‘hatred’ and the partition of the British India in 1947. How much he was right?

The historical truth is that during the colonial British rule in India for two centuries (1757-1947), misfortunes fell no doubt on the whole population, but the Muslims as a religious group felt more badly than any other religious group en bloc. The Muslims’ feeling so perceived might not have been reasonable as some of the Congress leaders did maintain, but the Muslims in general had that feeling generated not in a day or two but for many valid reasons over the period of the British rule.

The alienation of the Muslims from the British and their native good boys had many good valid reasons. First, the Muslims en bloc turned almost pauper in matter of decades beginning enforcement of the Permanent land settlement in 1793 A.D. by forfeiture of almost all of their landed property that remained theirs for centuries. The final blow was the application of the so-called Sun Set Law in 1841 that took away the remnant few of some other Muslims landed property. In addition, the Muslim learned society was also labeled in reality as uneducated almost overnight through introduction of the English education system abandoning formally in 1835 the century old but developed Muslim education system and then in two years replacement of the official Persian language until then for centuries in India had been the Muslims media for higher education by English. Thus poverty in terms of economic fortune and ignorance so far as higher level of learning was concerned became the obvious fate of the Muslims who earlier had been fortunate on both accounts. Such changes of socio-economic status had the impact not only in backwardness but also instilling a sort of inferiority complex and alienation from both the British rulers and the newly emerging native elite who happened to be all non-Muslims. Another stark reality was that as the English historian and highly learned and experienced bureaucrat William Wilson Hunter had in 1871 stated very clearly how the well off Muslims in about one hundred years of the British rule in India became poor and destitute.

There were, no doubt, other poor Muslims even during the Muslim rule, but their richer co-religionists would maintain and care for them in needs. Unfortunately, when the richer and educated ones turned poor and disadvantaged except very few, the whole Muslim mass had nothing but complete darkness all around.

The other crucial fact was that the Muslims of Bengal, of East Bengal, in particular, had the worst exploitation suffered not only for the British rule but also more so for their henchmen but native lackeys who perpetrated torture and inflicted exploitation of the most cruel nature. Poet Rabi Thakur’s epic poem ‘Dui Bigha Zami’ is a replica of the cruelty of the landlords during the British rule whose overwhelming large numbers in East Bengal happened to be the Hindus but their tenants at will Muslims- subsistence farmers, day laborers, artisans etc. who had short of bare necessities to sustain life and living.

Such subjective conditions prevailing in society made the Muslim League gradually popular as the people through growing awareness and so shied away not only from the better organized Congress but also from the Krisak Sramik Proja Party led by the early nineteen thirties charismatic leader of Bengal, a Muslim, A.K. Fazlul Haq.

Whatever might have been others appreciation about the psyche for the shying away, the Muslims felt akin with the Muslim League and they made it themselves popular organization by 1940s, particularly when Muhammad Ali Jinnah took up its leadership at the second go in mid 1930s.

Jinnah was an astute politician, if not a statesman. He developed his own strategy for the disadvantaged Muslims of the subcontinent, to win over both the British and the Congress. The Two Nation Theory happened to be his effective strategy to establish a Muslim majority nation out of the Himalayan sub-continent along with the departure of the British granting self rule and independence. As soon as that was achieved due to his strong iron will thus defeating all adversaries and Pakistan got to its start on the 14th August 1947, he took not long time to redefine the nature of the country as a modern democratic and welfare nation guarantying equal rights and protections to all citizens of the country irrespective of religion, race, caste, ethnicity etc.

As is known to all Jinnah was never a communal Muslim who bread hatred as no Muslim can be. He had been a Congress worker and leader for decades and afterwards getting tired of the Hindu Congress leaders, not in personality score but for perceptional difference in problem solving, he parted with the Congress for good and joined the Muslim League providing full dedication and commitment. The Muslims, as well, deeply appreciated his commitment and took him as their Great Leader or the Quaid E Azam. Incidentally, the term Great Leader, was first conferred to him in address not by the Muslims but by the India’s great leader M.K. Gandhi.

He was so broad minded and liberal in thinking that even after the Muslim mass and the other League leaders had been fully committed to secure independent Pakistan, he went on trying compromising formula to keep India united as per the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946. He went further on and nodded go ahead to Huseyn Shaheed Sohrawardy and Sarat Bose to make greater Bengal independent, not only keeping that outside the proposed Pakistan but also of independent India, if the other party or the Congress would accede to any such proposition. Unfortunately, the greater Bengal plan failed just as the Cabinet Mission Plan not for Jinnah’s ‘hatred’ of anybody but for the clear hatred of the Congress leaders like Nehru, Patel etc. Is this not the truth of history?


June 2, 2008


Ghulam Muhammed on June 1st, 2008 9:00 am


I am surprised that Sudie feels Brahmins are so innocent that if they are named in any context, an injustice is being committed. He should read literature by Dalits and Dravidians, with open mind to know how strongly they have suffered injustices meted out by the racist Brahmins. Muslims have suffered at their hands, especially during the partition. Partition was cleverly imposed on Muslims, both by the British to carve out a ‘military outpost’ for themselves, by exploiting Jinnah’s ego as well as his loyalty to Aga Khan, who were old loyalists of the Crown and were very judiciously used by the British whenever they needed them. The Brahmins in Indian National Congress were represented by Pandit Nehru, who with Gandhi and Patel, agreed to partition India, with a sinister conspiracy to rid India of Muslims. Brahmins, themselves migrants to India, made out as if all Muslims, and overwhelming majority of them in united India, were not from outside but were and are the real sons of the soil. The whole community that formed about 30 percent in British India was divided in three antagonist groups, by Nehru and Indira, both Brahmins. In sixty years of Indian independence, Muslims have been so devilishly persecuted for the alleged sin of partition, that they had no confidence left to challenge the false propaganda of the power grabbers. In United India, one can see that Muslim population percentage with a democratic constitution, would have been ruling the whole subcontinent. I can go on and on, listing the sins of Brahmins and Brahminical conspiracies. The trouble with Sudie is that he cannot see his back. There is no smoke without the fire. If Brahmins are clearly pointed out as the culprits in the plight of the Muslims, one can see how all Brahminical political groups — Congress, BJP, Communists — all led by Brahmins are blatantly perpetrating crimes against Muslims and still hide behind the pious garb of secularism. A day will come, when the 3% Brahmins will not be able to concoct and flaunt the 85% Hindus as majorities. And for their atrocities on OBC, Dalits and Muslims, they will be singled out and ostracised in the same manner as they have ostracised others.


Sudie on June 1st, 2008 12:02 am


I somehow see a lot of anger against the “Brahmins”. I wonder what these refering are to. Is it claiming that “Brahmins” get special privileges in India?; if its so I would surely like to find out where. Or is it that Brahmin have an additional edge in the education system. In a system that judges peple just by marks and not by overall personality, I must say that in comparison to the US , India is much more democratic. At least in the US one can show ones family influence to get into the Ivy league universities. No such opportunity exists in the elite Indian institutions.

Too much time is spend finding scapegoats – whether its the “Muslims” or the “Brahmins”. Effort would be better spend to ensure that the classes who clamour for priviledges can perform as well as the so called “forward” caste students. Needless to mention – a frustrated soul more often than not seeks invisible enemies that introspects the flaws within.