Posts Tagged ‘Jinna’


“India has fought several big wars successfully. It has maintained and secured its culture, heritage and dignity. It is one of the oldest cultures in the world. It has sense to understand what is good and what is bad for its fate. It has been survived of its own. It has defeated many strong invaders those invaders who had attacked India after achieving victory on great nations having great culture and civilization. But India has strength to face it and protect it. India has capacity to resolve the challenges. suppose if it has problems with Muslims, it has a capacity to settle it.”

If it is not possible to solve the issue with mutual talks, India will solve it at the point of sword in a battle field. If in doing so, Hindus would get defeated and its existence would end up and its glory would get distorted or it would get vanished totally from the pages of history, it would be a desire of God to finish Hindus. But be sure that Hindus have survived with its glory in continuity. Hence do not underestimate its capacity. Hindus are capable to fight out its war within itself and they are also capable to fight out of their own, the war with others. Hence don’t interfere in our internal matter of India.

Who has said this?

Has it been spelled out by a Hindu fundamentalist?

Is it spelled out by a Militant Hindu Leader?

Has been spelled out by a RSS chief?

No it is said by MK Gandhi to the British.

This British wanted to show their universal wisdom to secure safety of India.

Some people are very much active on abusing, derogating and passing blame on M. K. Gandhi for partition of India, appeasement of Muslims and promoting or imposing J. L . Nehru as Prime Minister of India instead.

It is OK if somebody talks with material and logical arguments and that too for academic purpose in a neutral and non-prejudicial way.

In a democracy political parties are supposed to be democratic. But democracy is not an absolute term. Democracy is a relative term. In a fair democracy, the reflection of people’s voice depends upon the process adopted in party to select the leaders who controls the decisions taken.


A group of persons which tries to educate the people on a system of good governance and then its leaders get elected under a so-called system, by the persons who had faith in that system of governance.

We will concentrate only on Indian Nation Congress.

It was founded by Hume under the instructions of British Crown to provide an interface between people of India and the British Government.

Initially it was a party of “white collar” people.

Likeminded people having faith in the policy and practice of Congress would become a member of the party.

Members will elect delegates before an annual meeting or an extra ordinary meeting is held. Delegate elects the other office bearers including the working committee members and the Chair person, all with some specified delegated powers for governance and making decisions based on the party’s policy. This includes the changes in the constitution of the party.

In short the party is composed of a Party President, High Command, Working Committee, delegates and party members.

All put to gather a party will have constitution, members, workers/leaders of level -4, level-3, level -2, and the level – 1, High-Command and the President. The strength of the leader has nothing to do with the backing of general people once he/she becomes capable to occupy a level post.

This point can be made clear in this way.


Nehru was popular among members. He was an icon of youths. He was capable to introduce fashion, he was in habit to act dramatically, he used to argue with philosophical language.

JL Nehru was popular among youths and level – 3 leaders. This was mainly due to his father’s wealth, his status and he was able to oblige leaders due to money power he had. Money power means, his house had become a guest house for leaders (up to the level -3 leaders) for lodging and boarding.

MK Gandhi had opened the doors of Congress for common men.

MK Gandhi had experienced that any struggle can be made effective and sustainable if the common mass is involved. Once M. K. Gandhi opened the doors of Congress for common mass, the common mass also got entry in the Congress.

JL Nehru had not strong hold at the leaders of Level – 1. This was mainly because, though Nehru had good ideas, he was weak in wisdom and governance. His philosophy of socialism was not acceptable to many leaders at the top due to its vagueness. He had inherited the status in the party due to his father.

The mass was not aware of the political policies related with any specific governance like socialism. Mass had only a desire for independence. The mass was of the opinion that the independence would solve every problem. “There would be rivers of Ghee and Milk in independent India”.


There was some struggle among top leaders in Congress. This struggle was for becoming effective in governance at the top level of the party. Initially leaders from Hindus and Muslims both were in Congress without any communal mindset. At the first stage, Jinna was far more popular than JL Nehru even at all Levels.

But progressively British started to identify people by Muslims and Non-Muslims. Despite of this, most Muslims remained with Congress.

Jinna had no faith in non-violence, disobedience to law, non-cooperation etc… promoted by MK Gandhi. This was also a cause, for becoming less acceptable to most leaders of Congress and the Hindu mass. Despite of this, Jinna was highly honored at top level, due to his skills in pleading the cases against the British Government. Jinna’s good image had prevailed till he joined Muslim League.

It was a long story of political battle between JL Nehru and Jinna. At one stage Nehru insulted Jinna by saying when Jinna was practicing in London, that “Jinna is not capable in political skills. It is good if he could prove his skill of legal practice in London”. This insult, instigated Jinna to come back to India to re-join the politics in a big way.

It is essential to look into the political situation prevailing at that time and also the mind set of Muslims, Hindus and various political leaders of all the communities before we arrive to any conclusion.

Muslims leaders were divided if we take an overview of local elections even after Jinna joined Muslim League. However nobody can deny that Jinna was the most prominent leader among Muslims, by virtue of his own expertize in law and practice besides the backing of British.

Jinna could attract Muslim at a very large scale under communal way in politics. Jinna, basically was secular, but he, for political benefit, used the communal cards.

If we compare the then statements of Jinna made against Gandhi and Congress, were quite similar that of the Nehruvian Cong leaders and its cultural allies making against BJP as a communal party. Jinna used to twist the every action with a conclusion that Congress was a party of Hindus and M. K. Gandhi is the leader of Hindus. The interest of Muslims is not safe.

Jinna’s aim was to take support of Muslims wherever they are. He had strong hold in most part of present Pakistan and some parts of East Bengal. But it was also a truth that in many Muslim dominated areas, Muslims were divided in Congress and some other local leaders.

British knew this, thereby to weaken Congress, British used to tell that they would have to take care of Muslims and other minorities like Sikhs and Dalits and Dravidians. As for the South India, most leaders were with MK Gandhi. Hence ice could not be broken. But as for Sikhs and Dalit the British tried their level best to instigate their leaders.

As for the partition, many people till date are under the impression that the proposal was only to divide India in two parts. But British had tried their best to divide India into multiple pieces. The aim of British was to make India and Congress weak.

Congress leaders initially were very firm on united India. At that time on the proposal of dividing India, MK Gandhi stated that India would be divided on his dead body. That is till he is alive he will not allow India to get divided.


Gandhi was popular among Hindus is beyond doubt. But it was not true for all the elite of Hindus. Some leaders who were outside Congress were against Muslims. Many leaders inside the Congress and outside the Congress were not happy when Gandhi was putting his efforts to not fall Muslims in line with Jinna. His this efforts were taken as the appeasement of Muslims.

The best example is Khilafat movement. Most people are ignorant of the real motives and strategic role of British to confuse Muslims.

India had nothing to do with Khilafat movement. This movement pertained to some other country. It was there between a religious leaders holding the political power too, and the leaders who were against holding both the power by the religious group. They wanted that religious group should hold only power so far Mosq is concern.

This was the concern of that country. But British made it international, and it supported by reformists Muslims. This caused to divide the strength of Muslims world. That is the religious leaders should not have political power.

This affected Indian Muslim leaders too. Congress leaders also poked their nose in the matter. Jinna was not a religious person. He wanted religion and politics should not be mixed up. Since Muslims are more prone to support Mullas, many Muslims became against Jinna.

MK Gandhi knew the strategy of British of dividing the Muslims in some other country. Since Jinna and many Congress leaders have already poked their nose in the matter not concern with Indian Muslims, they tried to attract Indian Muslims. Jinna had very good reason to oppose British.

It may be by tradition or by a law religious leaders are also holding political power, it becomes a part of religion. British should not intervene in the matter which could hurt the religious feeling. Besides this as for MK Gandhi it was an internal matter of that country.

The stand taken by MK Gandhi was understood as appeasement of Muslims. Off course this was a matter linked with early years of MK Gandhi in Politics of India. But this approach of MK Gandhi was used to criticize Gandhi for all the time by his Hindu opponents. (Just like Narendra Modi is continuously taken to target for the 2002 riots by pseudo secular leaders).

Many Hindu leaders were enjoying the division of Muslims on Khilafat movement. Muslims were getting divided in two groups viz. reformist (or secular) and fundamentalist (conservative). Jinna was supporting reformists. Most Muslims of India were conservative. Jinna took MK Gandhi as a leader who was dividing Muslims for political gain of Congress. Hindu conservative took MK Gandhi’s action as appeasement of Muslims.

MK Gandhi was of the opinion that fundamental changes in the law, (the law may be in force by virtue of a constitution or by the long established practice) should come up from the people. the leaders who hold power posts have no right to change any law. This point need very deep thinking to understand the heart of democracy. One can read the articles The Ram who was in flesh and blood is lost ( कहां खो गये मांस और हड्डीके बने राम?) at wwwDOTtreenetramDOTwordpressDOTcom to make it more clear.

The leaders who are not holding power post can only educate the people for the changes in the Law and Practice.

At a later stage MK Gandhi had resigned from Congress. He was not even an ordinary member of Congress party. This was because the people can express their views without any fear and the leaders can follow the changes suggested by the people.



Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Read Full Post »

Fate of undivided India is guesswork

Fate of undivided India is guesswork


There are many columnists and TV anchors that can be identified by the nationalist Hindus, as pseudo secular. Now it is high time to recognise them as anti-national and fix responsibility for their contribution in creating havoc in India.

It is generally observed with Nehruvian Congress leaders that they had always created a havoc and lawlessness in their every term, irrespective of their absolute strength in parliament. Their created havoc and or issues have disturbed the normal lives of Indian citizens. They have not cared to see that their actions could create either an immediate harmful effect or anarchy in time to come. Such non-actions, fraudulent actions and or mal actions were not only because of any challenge they had to face to maintain their power. Many times this caused out of their ego and whims.

JL Nehru had adopted a biased foreign policy. This was due to his short-sight and lack of wisdom. He surrendered to second world’s political ideology.

In doing so JL Nehru had recognised the sovereignty of China on Tibet, despite of warning of Sardar Patel. Further he had wilfully misguided the Parliament on Chinese military intrusion and infiltration on Line of Control. The Chinese attack had created havoc in Indian economy leave aside the loss of land worth 60,000 square miles.

JL Nehru’s oath on regaining the lost land was fake and fraudulent.


You can smell the decisive attitude and roll of JL Nehru, in dividing people through the method adopted by him while dividing Bombay Province. He created hatred among different people of different languages in 1955 by mishandling the same to achieve his goal of power.

Even you can look at the formation of NEFA (North East Frontier Associate) state instead of seven states based on their languages. NEFA got divided on the criteria based on languages, only when the situation became alarming. By the time of this reformation of NEFA enough harm was made to the nation.

During this time a feeling of Anti-Indian was already established in the local people of NEFA. By virtue of the delay in the formation of these states the feelings of anti-Indian went to such an extent that they adopted Roman Script for their own language. This script is quite a defective script for Indian languages, but because local population was adequately converted into Christianity, they found no difficulty in adopting the foreign script. Earlier it was the Bengali script for their own language. It is very common among non-Hindus, all over India, to act as a foreigner in their own country where they and their forefathers took birth.


The mentality and approach of JL Nehru and his daughter (who are till on this date are beloved god and goddess of Nehruvian Congress) was similar. Nehru and his daughter were never serious about the inhuman act of Pakistan Government on Hindus in Pakistan.

Hindus were being driven out by the government of East and West Pakistan during the nineteen fifties and sixties. In fact in 1954 Suharavrdi  Noon had offered to settle the cases of migrated Hindus from Pakistan to India. He had also offered a welcome back to Pakistan. Not only this, but soon after that the President of Pakistan viz. Iskandar Mirza had offered to have a Federal Union of India and Pakistan. Off course, Jinna too had agreed to this arrangement. Why Sardar Patel and Nehru both had rejected it is a different issue. Both these leaders viz Sardar Patel and JL Nehru had different reasons on rejection of the proposal of Federal Union. For Sardar Patel it was a pre-mature suggestion, for JL it was an issue linked with his supremacy in power politics.

It was a matter of surprise as to why the RSS leaders did not agitate though they are and were always active to pass blame on MK Gandhi for the division of India, when Iskandar Mirza proposed Union Federation in 1954? Leave this matter aside for the time being as this is not our subject matter here.

However it was a very good opportunity for Nehru to unite India and Pakistan under Federal Union with proper treaty. Nehru rejected it out rightly in 1954 also, without discussing it with public and without discussing it with his party leaders.

The leaders of RSS also kept mum. They did not agitate against the decision of JL Nehru. According to the own logic of RSS, it was a cognizable offense. This is because  they already had a habit and still the same is possessed that MK Gandhi was responsible for the partition of India. Why MK Gandhi did not go on fast onto death.

Nobody can understand why RSS leaders did not go on fast onto death. Who had prevented them? Who had prevented them to not kill Jinna who only wanted partition?

As for Iskandar Mirza the President of Pakistan in 1954, when proposed for Union Federation, Vinoba Bhave welcomed the proposal of Federal Union. JL Nehru bluntly rejected. RSS kept mum and remain inactive


Though it is a matter of guesswork or research as to how much harmony the Federal Union might have created under undivided India or under Federal Union of India and Pakistan. But those who think themselves secular and also those who want to abuse MK Gandhi both should have come forward to welcome the proposal of Iskandar Mirza and Ayub Khan.


Our one of the prominent so-called secular but to many he is pseudo secular, has once again exhibited his hypocrisy to defend his “world of pseudo secular media”.

The columnists cum Chief Editor IBN 18 Network, has made several discoveries. He has gone back to the beginning of the twentieth century to defend the rights of Muslims.

Now let us look at the approach of the pseudo secular, on minorities in general and on the episode of Assam in particular.



While analyzing any event, avoid the word “Muslim infiltrators” as far as possible. Make use of the word “Muslims” instead of “Muslim infiltrators”


Generalize the violence where the root cause are Muslims. E.g. “… the violent conflict between Muslims and local people has a long history … hence look at these riots with this background…” (But do not apply this logic to Hindu – Muslim riots elsewhere, especially to the riots of Gujarat in 2002)


Avoid comparison. E.g. “… it is not only Bodo-s who have lost homes and land. Muslims too have lost homes and land…” (Avoid the history as to how the Muslim infiltrators occupied the land and houses in Assam).


The root cause of riots in Assam is not deniable because this has highlighted the headlines in many newspapers. But you can minimize or marginalize the root cause.

The root cause is the infiltration of Muslims of Bangladesh. Then tell, the infiltration alias migrations are as old as hundred and ten years. It was a practice initiated right from the early twentieth century. Laborers used to go to North East from Bengal.

This is a wonderful logic of this Editor in Chief IBM 18. It is a matter of research as to why the editor has not gone back to the period of Aryan Invasion. As per Aryan Invasion Theory IAT, Aryans are outsiders. The idea and conspiracy behind the promotion of AIT was to instigate tribal people to get converted to Christianity… “See… India has been attacked and invaded by many. The Aryans are outsiders. They attacked you from North. They made you slaves and backward. They were not the last and least. Hoons and Shakas too had invaded India. Lastly Muslims also invaded India. Now we Europeans have invaded India. We are proving superior. Aryans came early. We came late. This is the only difference. The former have suppressed and neglected you. We will take care of you provided … provided you adopt Christianity.

These are all fake arguments. DNA does not support this hypothesis. But there is an intellectual invasion on these pseudo secular and many others. Leave aside this point. It is not a subject matter.

Why does the IBN Chief avoid the ground situation?

How can you justify the infiltration when the nations are different? In early 20Th Century Indians had a lawful liberty to go to Burma, Oman, South Africa, and many other countries without a passport and VISA. Even we had a right to go to UK. But since 1947 these are all separate nations. Even UK will not permit you to enter without a passport and VISA. There is no country in the world that would allow other nationals in their country and or would regularize large scale infiltrators.



What had been done by Burma? Burma mercilessly drove out people of Indian origin from their country in the early fifties. What to talk about Burma! Pakistan itself had executed massacre in 1947-48 to drive Hindus out of East and West Pakistan. This flow of Hindus did not stop even in the fifties and sixties.

In the late sixties the East Bengal started driving out even Non-Bengali Muslims too, in a very large scale. This was mainly because these Muslims were not supporting the Bangladesh movement. These Muslim infiltrators were numbered in one crore. It had paralyzed the normal life of West Bengal and then that of NorthEastState of India. This had become an international issue.

Indira Gandhi had taken an oath that these infiltrators would be driven out and sent back at any cost. But she willfully failed to do so, to promote her vote politics. The flow of infiltrators is still continuing. These infiltrators are now of the order of five crores and they are spread all over India. This has covered major cities of Maharashtra and Gujarat too besides other states.

The involvement of terrorists in these infiltrators cannot be ruled out. This can be judged from the recent demonstration staged by them in Mumbai against riots in Assam. Is it not a matter of research as to why none of the Muslim and none of the pseudo secular entities made any noise to take care of the Hindu voice? They have neither agitated nor demonstrated for natural rights of Hindu, despite of the massacre of Hindus in Kashmir. Not only have this, but none of them ever bothered to highlight the Hindus’ right to get reinstated in Kashmir to their home in Kashmir.


One cannot generalize the infiltration and marginalize the infiltrations when the infiltration is involved with national insecurity and it paralyses the normal life of citizens. The citizens are victims of bad and malfunctioning of government. They live in miserable condition.


If there are riots and if you do not make a mention of 2002 riots of Godhra After Math, you are not qualified for becoming secular. Similarly the aforesaid columnist has to show that he is a qualified analyst on politics, he says “whenever we criticize the riots of 2002 Gujarat, we are asked to also recall the massacre of 1984. By this way the fundamentalists want to defend the Gujarat riots. You cannot defend one riot by quoting some other riots.”

This argument looks beautiful and the columnist tries to indicate how much sensitive he is about human suffering.

He conveniently forgets that Narendra Modi had controlled the riots in three days and much more Hindus were killed during police fire. Narendra Modi’s government, within no time had re-instated the Muslims in their original home. Whereas in case of Hindus of  J & K, the J&K government and Nehruvian Congress governments have been miserably and willfully failed, and failing continues till date. In fact this is a continuous riot on Hindus.


Why are you not showing your sensitiveness on those humans who are not infiltrators but they are deserted in their own country? E.g. Hindus of Kashmir and Assam.

It is not the duty of victimized people to carry the responsibility of rehabilitation of infiltrators of another country. Infiltrators are infiltrators. They have no rights. If some body occupies my house and if my government fails to protect my rights I have the liberty to kill the tracepassers if he does not leave my house peacefully. I have to act; I have to act violently to see my security. This is what the law of the land says.

Who are these infiltrators? These are the same infiltrators who fraudulently got citizenship under the soft corner of Nehruvian Government.

These are the same infiltrators, who forcibly occupied land and property in India.

These are the same infiltrators, who is turning the sons of the soil into the minority.

These are the same infiltrators who are trying to dominate the sons of the soil.

These are the same infiltrators who have gained a separate nation because they themselves are separate civilisation as per their belief.

This is on the record of recent history.


Shirish Mohanlal Dave




Tags: Nehruvian, JL Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Jinna, Uskandar Mirza, Ayub Khan, Vinoba Bhave, RSS, fundamentalist, terrorists, infiltrators, Assam, Bodo, Muslims, Hindus

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: