'Road to Sangam', a movie to inspire Reformists

[porus]

accountability,

On the first reading of your post, it struck me as the stuff out of which conspiracy theories are made. However it is a thought-provoking insight and demands further research.

I read the few comments on Amazon.com on Jaswant Singh's book, 'Jinnah: India Partition, Independence', which Humsafar referred to earlier in the thread. Jaswant Singh appears to corroborate your story.

I remember discussing this issue with friends when the Richard Attenborough' s film 'Gandhi' was released way back in 1982. They made points similar to yours but I dismissed them then. I have ordered Jaswant Singh's book and may have more to say after reading it.

[Al Zulfiqar]

accountability,

On the first reading of your post, it struck me as the stuff out of which conspiracy theories are made. However it is a thought-provoking insight and demands further research.

I read the few comments on Amazon.com on Jaswant Singh's book, 'Jinnah: India Partition, Independence', which Humsafar referred to earlier in the thread. Jaswant Singh appears to corroborate your story.

I remember discussing this issue with friends when the Richard Attenborough' s film 'Gandhi' was released way back in 1982. They made points similar to yours but I dismissed them then. I have ordered Jaswant Singh's book and may have more to say after reading it.

porus,

what i know from my father, who was very much involved in the independence struggle at the grassroots level and had met gandhi personally several times, is this.

gandhi personally never wanted the partition of india and indian society or politics divided along communal lines. in fact he had a deep respect and understanding of jinnah and his views. gandhi may have been a devout hindu, but that did not make him any less respectful of other religions, in the same way that it is possible to be a devout muslim and still respect and have understanding of hindus and the hindu faith and develop strong friendships with them as most of us of enlightened minds do.

jinnah on the other hand was not a devout muslim who observed the practices of islam very religiously. in fact he enjoyed his pipe and evening peg of scotch better than any englishman. it was the opportunistic ambitions of Nehru, who realised that as per gandhi's compromise plan, if jinnah were to become the first prime minister of india, nehru would miss the boat and age would pass him by, and the strong arm tactics of the hindu hardliner Sardar vallabh patel, that basically hardened the stance of Jinnah. When independence was on our doorstep, Gandhi realised that his influence over events was waning and against his wishes and commands, the scenario played out.

A liberal, modern, half-hearted muslim like Jinnah now had no choice but to take up the cudgels for islam and muslims. Increasingly he was being vilified and pushed into the corner. Nehru and vallabh patel never actually expected that Jinnah would go to the extent of demanding a separate state and actually see it through. With extremists on both sides now baying at their heels, the british too decided to capitalise on this unexpected opportunity and divide india as that would mean 2 weak nations engaged for decades in turmoil. That has come true and the mutual trust and respect between Gandhi and Jinnah has been swept into the garbage bins of history by bigots on both sides.

If some sense of compromise and trust had prevailed and personal ambitions and religious extremism, esp on the part of vallabh patel, been set aside, one of the most catastrophic events in human history would not have occurred.

This is precisely what jaswant singh has detailed and his conclusion, as well as advani’s, that Jinnah was a secular man, does not sit well with hardline hindus. If Gandhi was such a hindu fanatic with a sinister agenda, he would not have been gunned down by the RSS assassins. Gandhi’s friendship with khan abdul ghaffar khan, maulana azad, sir mohammed iqbal and other muslim leaders is well known. None of them have ever been quoted saying an unkind word about Gandhi. In fact when gandhi was assassinated, the entire nation, incl. the muslims mourned as one and were drowned in sorrow.

Jaswant singh and many others have actually credited Jinnah with being the only leader in the modern era to have actually created a state from nothing, with very little means or resources. He had no weapons or arms, no army or support except his ideology and convictions. even the british hated him but eventually sided with him based on their own interests and the intransigence of nehru/vallabh patel.

The whole equation was very complex and the tragedy is that something as cataclysmic as the partition of a sub continent involving migration of millions, death and untold misery and suffering was based not so much on ground realities but more on personalities.

[Humsafar]

Porus, my response to accountability was more tongue-in-cheek. He called my view unbalanced and then goes on to spew his completely, biased opinion. That is rich. Of course he is talking nonsense - unless he can backup his opinion with facts and evidence.
This is not say that Gandhi was a saint. He was wily and shrewed and made his share of mistakes. He is as much hated in India as he is revered. He can be guilty of many things but not of waning to "create a Hinduland". That is simply not true.

Br questions, you're right, let's not turn this into an India/Pakistan debate. I personally do not believe in nationhoods or nationalism. People everywhere are the same - it's politics and power that create divisions and mentalities of hate.

[Humsafar]

Zulfiqar, I like your post.

[ghulam muhammed]

More on Jinnah:-

Jinnah... and Ruttie - Interesting History !

Ratan Bai Petit married Jinnah (founder of Pakistan) in 1918

Born a Parsi, she converted to Islam on her 18th birthday and left her father's mansion with two pets only to marry Jinnah.

Exactly eleven years later she was dead of an overdose of painkillers to treat her abdominal cancer.

Jinnah never married again and died a lonely man.

Known as the nightingale of Bombay, Ruttie died on her 29th birthday on 20 February 1929

How did they meet ? :

After his return to India Jinnah chose Bombay for his residence since he no longer had any interest in Karachi after the demise of his mother. His father joined him there.

In the next two decades on his return from London, Jinnah established himself first as a lawyer and then as a politician. Devoted completely to his work he sailed between England and India and from one stage of his political career to the next.

Jinnah vacationed in the north in Darjeeling in 1916, staying at the summer home of his friend Sir Dinshaw Maneckjee Petit, the son of one of the richest and most devoutly orthodox Parsis of the nineteenth century.

It was in that summer that he met Dinshaw's only daughter Ratanbai.

Born on February 20, 1900, Ratanbai, or Rutti as she used to be called, was a charming child. '…Precociously bright, gifted in every art, beautiful in everyway. As she matured, all of her talents, gifts and beauty were magnified in so delightful and unaffected a manner that she seemed a 'fairy princess' - Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan.

She was sixteen at that time and Jinnah was about forty. He was enamored by her beauty and charm and she was awe struck by Jay, as she called him ( How innocent she was )

Jinnah spoke to Sir Dinshaw about inter-communal marriages, to which his friend had replied that he was not opposed to them. When Jinnah put forth his offer of a marriage proposal for his daughter Ruttie, Sir Dinshaw was taken aback. He refused bluntly and said there was no chance of his ever agreeing to such a thing. That was the end of their friendship as Sir Dinshaw never gave in. He forbade Ruttie to meet Jinnah while she lived in his house. The couple patiently waited for two years required for Ruttie to come of age. In February 1918 Ruttie turned 18 and was free to marry. On April 18, 1918 Ruttie converted to Islam at Calcutta's Nakhoda Mosque. On April 19, 1918 Jinnah and Ruttie married at a quiet ceremony.

The Raja Sahib of Muhamdabad and a few friends attended the wedding. The wedding ring that Jinnah presented to Ruttie was a gift from the Raja.

Nobody from Ruttie's family attended the wedding.

The first few years of their marriage were a dream for both of them. They were a head- turning couple; he in his elegant suits, stitched in London, she with her long, flowing hair decked in flowers. There was no limit to their joy and satisfaction at that time. Their only woe was Ruttie's complete isolation and ostracism from her family.

Jinnah's political life began to take its toll on his time in 1922. His heavy work schedule did not allow him to spend enough time with his young and vibrant wife. Though she was supportive of his work, the element of his lack of time was taxing for her. She could not lure him away from his work. She was engulfed with feelings of desolation. By September of 1922 she packed her bags and took their only daughter Dina with her to London.


Though her heart was still set on life with Jinnah, she could not accommodate herself to his busy schedule. From London she wrote a letter to her friend Kanji in India in which she said: 'And just one thing more - go and see Jay and tell me how he is - he has a habit of overworking himself and now that I am not there to tease and bother him, he will be worse than ever '

When she returned from England, the couple tried to give their marriage another chance, but Jinnah was involved in campaigning for elections as an independent Muslim for the general Bombay seat. Jinnah was to undergo a five-month tour to Europe and North America. He decided to take Ruttie along as an attempt to save their failing marriage. But in this trip the rift grew. There was no chance of reconciliation and in January 1928 the couple separated.

Ruttie lived at the Taj Mahal Hotel in Bombay, almost as a recluse, her health failing drastically. On February 20, 1929, Ruttie Jinnah died. It was her 29th birthday.

She was buried two days later in Bombay according to Muslim rites. Jinnah sat like a stone statue throughout the funeral. But when asked to be the first to throw earth on the grave as the closest relative, Jinnah broke down and wept uncontrollably. Later Justice Chagla said, 'That was the only time when I found Jinnah betraying any shadow of human weakness.'

Jinnah had been good to his wife.. He had been a doting husband, fulfilling the demands of his young and enthusiastic wife. She also, had played her part justly, had supported him and encouraged him in his career. But the lack of time fatefully pulled them so far apart that eventually no reconciliation was possible. The time of their separation was a trying one for Jinnah, in the photographs of this period he is never seen smiling.

Miss Dina Jinnah the beloved daughter of Mr Jinnah is the mother of Nusli Wadia (of Bombay Dyeing).

She will be 92 very soon.

[porus]

Porus, my response to accountability was more tongue-in-cheek.

Yes, that was quite obvious.

al Zulfiqar, Humsafar,

Philosophically, I am very close to your views but must reserve judgment on Gandhi/Jinnah until after I have read more. I find myself woefully inadequate to provide further input at the moment.

Both of you have made great contributions and given both Jinnah and Gandhi your careful consideration. That is good. Thank you for your posts.

Ghulam Muhammad,

That was a great human interest story about Ruttie. I can imagine it to be good material for a documentary. Thanks.

[Al Zulfiqar]

Zulfiqar, I like your post.

thanks humsafar. porus, it will be interesting to read your take after going through jaswant singh's book.

[ghulam muhammed]

About Hindu sacred texts Gandhi said, “My belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired… I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense. … Every word of the printed works passing muster as `Shastras’ is not, in my opinion, a revelation … The interpretation of accepted texts has undergone evolution and is capable of indefinite evolution, even as the human intellect and heart are …. Nothing in the shastras which is manifestly contrary to universal truths and morals can stand… Nothing in the shastras which is capable of being reasoned can stand if it is in conflict with reason.”

[Humsafar]

Porus, i saw the movie. I liked it, though it dragged a little for my taste. It could have been more tightly edited. The subject matter is interesting, the tension between the main character and the mulla is well handled. The "baraat" and boycott reminded me so much of our experiences in udaipur that we continue to have to this day. But at the heart of the movie is the Muslim question and where their loyalty lies - a very sensitive subject which I think could have been more nuanced. The burden of guilt is shown to weigh more heavily on the Muslims. But it is also true that among poor, uneducated Muslims the tug and pull of Pakistan is still there, but I think with the old guard - who had seen and heard about the Partition - passing away Pakistan in the Indian Muslim psyche will matter less and less. Of Indian Muslims I know (Bohras and others) they are fiercely nationalistic. So there are two sides to the coin, but the other side was not given enough airing. Gandhi looms large over the story, and I think all the hoopla about him should have been toned down a bit. What I didn't like was the unnecessary and irrelevant references to Pakistan, and most egregious of all, Jinnah's picture in Muslim homes. I maybe wrong, but I don't think Indian Muslims care so much about Jinnah. Overall a good movie. Thanks for telling us about it.

[accountability]

Porus: I am looking forward for your insight.

Al Zulfiqar: nice post. Sardar Vallab patel was planted in congress by Gandhi and with his active support.
This is from vallab bhai's biography.
"Sardar Patel returned to India in 1913 and started his practice in Ahmedabad. Soon he became popular. At the urging of his friends, Patel contested and won elections to become the sanitation commissioner of Ahmedabad in 1917. Sardar Patel was deeply impressed by Gandhiji's success in Champaran Satyagraha. In 1918, there was a drought in the Kheda division of Gujarat. Peasants asked for relief from the high rate of taxes but the British government refused. Gandhiji took up peasants cause but could not devote his full time in Kheda. He was looking for someone who could lead the struggle in his absence. At this point Sardar Patel volunteered to come forward and lead the struggle. He gave up his lucrative legal practice and entered public life."


Hamsafar: I did not say anything out of blue. Neither did I spew any bias. I was simply stating the facts. Gandhi was a devout hindu, Jinnah was non practicing muslim. Gandhi did not raise one single time his voice against aparthied in south africa. Gandhi wanted INC disbanded after partition. Nehru can be rightly credited to write secular constitution of present India.
Offering Jinnah the prime ministership was non starter. Jinnah and Gandhi both knew it will and can never happen. Jaswant singh's book corroborate my assertions. If you would also call it a nonsense.
Pakistan's population is 170 million, Bangladesh is 170 million, India has more than 300 million muslims. These are statastical facts. Gandhi has seldom delivered speeches, He had never categorically laid out his plan for independence of India as one nation. Civil disobedience movement was a signal to british and show his hold on masses. It also showed british that he is the only force to reckon with. This is how I look at it, you may have a different perspective. which we both are entitled to.

In present day secular India, half the states are ruled by hindu nationalists. They discredit Gandhi for not doing enough, but not for doing nothing.

[Al Zulfiqar]

accountability,

the excerpt you have provided from sardar patel's biography does not in any way imply that gandhi was specifically looking to introduce a hindu hardliner into the freedom struggle and the congress. all it shows is that he trusted vallabh patel based on his legal acumen and his committment to take up the cause of freedom. to insinuate that this was some sort of grand hindu conspiracy on the part of gandhi is a bit much and somehow prejudiced. no one, neither gandhi, the british nor jinnah himself knew or could predict in 1913 how things would play out some 3 decades later.

i find your statement about gandhi not giving speeches and not having laid out any concrete plan for freedom from british rule, quite strange and unsubstantiated, when there is tons of archival material contradicting that in print, film and other media. as i have said earlier, my father had personally attended dozen's of gandhi's speeches where vast gatherings of public attended. he was extremely lucid in his speech, simple in his words and sincere in his purpose and thoughts. and his message was clear - the right to self determination and an end to foreign occupation.

What very few people realize and tend to forget is that the hard fought freedom for both india and by default, pakistan, would not have been won without the grassroots support from the british public, support which Gandhi shrewdly solicited and built up by writing a series of ‘open letters’ to the british electorate which he challenged the major british newspapers to publish. His emphasis on the moral basis of his struggle and his exposure of british double standards held the much touted world’s oldest democracy to the test and the moral outrage of the ordinary brits against their own government finally turned the tide in our favor.

One can accuse Gandhi of perhaps misreading certain elements in his congress party and their secret agendas, and of not imposing his views strongly enough during the final days leading to independence, but no one can accuse him of parochialism or skullduggery and a hidden hindu agenda or insincerity in dealing with other non-hindu leaders or their followers. To accuse him of being a power crazy megalomaniac who was out to prove to the british his rabble-rousing capabilities, is a an utterly unjust and prejudicial comment and shows a complete ignorance of history. As I have said earlier, it was his non-violent, moral stance and self sacrificing attitude which earned the respect of the british public (and the entire world) and confused and shamed their govt.

The beginnings of the congress was in itself a strange phenomenon, founded as it was by annie besant, a Christian and led in the early days by the muslim stalwarts liaqat ali and mohamedali. Gandhi was deeply indebted to them all and the other muslims, his contemporaries, maulana azad, khan abdul ghaffar khan and others.

I would not blame you for the anomalies which show up in your comments, as I have been quite surprised and disappointed by the skewed version of history and the independence struggle being taught and disseminated in Pakistan. If Jinnah were to be alive today, he would have roundly condemned the fascist, hypocritical and islamophobic society that Pakistan has become today and the sullying of the memories of great men like Gandhi and even jinnah himself. His vision of Pakistan of being an ideal muslim state where the secular ideas and generosity of the prophet mohammad would be emulated and the muslim citizen would discover his renaissance and Pakistan would lead the Islamic world as a role model is in ruins today.

Atleast in india we have had many public figures, hindus themselves belonging to hindu-centric parties, who have had the guts to acknowledge the secular personality of Jinnah and protest the attempts to vilify him. It would be the day when on the other side of the border someone had the guts and the honesty to vice versa acknowledge the greatness of Gandhi, without whom there would be no Pakistan today.

[jamanpasand]

Accountability.
Very good post. Keep it up against predominantly biased opinions. Just curios why Gandhi was shy in delivering public speeches ?

[porus]

What I didn't like was the unnecessary and irrelevant references to Pakistan, and most egregious of all, Jinnah's picture in Muslim homes. I maybe wrong, but I don't think Indian Muslims care so much about Jinnah.

Humsafar,

The reference to Pakistan and Taliban is not completely irrelevant as these two have had fingers pointed against them in several terrorist attacks in India. This in turn reflects badly on Muslims there as they are seen to be sentimentally attached to Pakistan. I agree that showing Jinnah's picture in a Muslim's home is is irrelevant and most probably does not reflect reality.

Pakistanis do not much like Gandhi and Nehru and Hindu Indians do not much care for Jinnah. I have experienced this a number of times in my contacts with them. However, the film erred in trying to create a false stereotype of a Muslim doting on Jinnah so much as to hang his picture in his home.

[Human]

Accountability.
Very good post. Keep it up against predominantly biased opinions. Just curios why Gandhi was shy in delivering public speeches ?

Jamanpasand from my point of view, you are actually with the predominantly biased opinions of Gandhiji as are most people in Pakistan.

I enjoyed reading Al Zulfiqar's posts as he scribes eye witness accounts of his father from the independence movement times, rather more credible than the conspiracies people sketch out based on their own assumptions.

Also, Gandhiji was not a flash personality. He was not out for attention like a Bollywood filmstar or an International cricketer. He was rather out there to fight for independence, non-violently. He was not a POLITICIAN and thus we cannot expect him to be a good (not shy) public speaker.

[Al Zulfiqar]

human, thanks for your comments.

gandhi was such a self-effacing personality that when independence was at hand and he could have become independent india's first prime minister or even its ceremonial president, he declined both. not only that, he was of the firm opinion that the indian national congress, which was formed with the sole aim of mobilising indian public opinion and achieving independence, should be disbanded. his motives behind this were so altruistic as to be considered totally foolish in today's dishonest world when anything goes in the name of politics. he did not believe in taking undue advantage politically of the huge surge of support which would be obviously enjoyed by the congress and with his firm moral stance believed that this would lead to opportunists and dishonest and unpatriotic people jumping onto the bandwagon.

as he had feared, for almost 30 years, congress enjoyed political monopoly and lost the moral standing on which it was founded. their unbroken run of power corrupted them and it was only the unexpected resistance of jayaprakash narain and the truth and strength of his movement due to which the congress suffered an ignonimous defeat and had to re-invent itself in the 70's.

my request to those who view any comments favorable to gandhi as biased, can you please reproduce any authenticated writings or recorded speeches of jinnah where he has said any words against gandhi as a cunning hindu opportunist, megalomaniac, dishonest politician or wily anti-muslim bigot? once pakistan had achieved independence, surely there was nothing to stop him from speaking his mind fearlessly?

[Right]

Why Sardar Vallabhbhai PAtel is called as anti muslim ?
As a first home minister of India, he has put his great efforts in uniting India by taking away the Kingdoms of kings and of Nizams.

[Humsafar]

Zulfiqar,
I agree with your posts - detailed and eloquent.

Accountability,
In your original post you said Gandhi was committed to creating a Hindu India. Prove this. Your "facts" are irrelevant detail.

Janampasand,
Are we to understand that your anti-India and/or anti-HIndu stance is not biased?

[ghulam muhammed]

How many rigid followers of the erstwhile dai (Taher Saifuddin saab) or how many of his children take an active part in India's FREEDOM STRUGGLE ? Or was there a baraat in being a freedom fighter ?

[Fatwa Banker]

It is unfortunate, but had India remained a single country, Gandhi's idealism would have eventually been proven wrong. As the inevitable demand for a Muslim state would have been bloodier and the country more fragmented had it occured at a later date. Even Pakistan was unable to remain a single state leading to the war and separation in '71.

[Aarif]

I think Gandhi was the most selfless freedom fighter that we ever had in the history of India. Portraying him as biased Hindu would be a grave mistake. On one hand we have Gandhi who never claimed anything for himself or his offspring after India acheived freedom. On the other hand we have people like Nehru, Jinnah and Patel who had political agenda right from the begining. Nehru always wanted to become the Prime Minister and Jinnah always felt threatened by Nehru's ambition. Jinnah knew that if he will stay back in India after independence he will be completely sidelined by Nehru and Patel. That is the reason he demanded Pakistan. Yes, Gandhi was a devout Hindu but not a fanatic. He openly criticized the caste system that prevailed so strongly among Hindus during that era. In fact he gave the name "Harijan" to the untouchables. Gandhi's dream was united India which never came true because of people like Nehru and Jinnah. Look what Nehru did to India. He made Indian politics his family affair. His offsprings ruled India for decades untill Rajiv Gadhi died. And look at the offsprings of Gandhi. People do not even know their names. Probably the only mistake that Gandhi made was of supporting the appointment of Nehru as the first prime minister of free India. Also, today we have 300 million muslims in India because Gandhi allowed them to stay back instead of throwing them out of the country and sending them to Pakistan during partition. He strongly supported Hindu-Muslim unity asking the Hindus to treat Muslims as their brothers. And this is precisely the reason why hardcore Hindus like Modi hate Gandhi. People like Thackeray beleive that during partition we should have sent all the muslims to Pakistan so that we would never have had this Hindu-Muslim problem in India. In fact Gandhi was killed by Nathuram Godse because he supported the cause of Muslims in India. I think Einstein is right when he says the following for Gandhi:

“Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth.”

[Smart]

I agree with the posts of Aarif and Al Zulfiqar above.

M. K. Gandhi was religious, but not communal. he has left behind a large body of writing, which clearly says so.

Equating religiosity with communalism is not right. Jinnah and Savarkar, the proponent of the Hindutva ideology were both not religious, but who were staunch communalists. Jinnah was a non praying, scotch drinking guy, whereas Savarkar claims to be an atheist. Both, however propounded the insiduous concept of nationality based on religion.

The communalists on both the sides fed off each other. However the concept of citizenship and nationality based on religion was first propounded by the Hindutvawadis in the 1920s and 1930s.