From: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Reply-To: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:29:39 GMT

In article <livdnrINNhrh@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu>, hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan
Hyder) writes:
> In article <1992Dec16.150317.2825@seas.gwu.edu> ahmad@seas.gwu.edu (Aftab
Ahmad) writes:
> >In article <liq3i3INN8ci@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu> hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed
Irfan Hyder) writes:
> >>I will first reparaphrase the points I wanted to make for a
> >>more fruitful discussion.
> >>
> >	To me it seems that the Muslims did live harmoniously with "the
> >masters" after the 1857 war. May be just a different point of view.   
> 
> Would you consider the following as "living harmoniously"
> 	1: Khilafat movement?
> 	2: Non cooperation movment?
> 	3: The massacre of Jallianwallah Bagh?




How do these events indicate that muslims and hindus were incapable of living
harmoniously? (If that is what you are implying)


The Khilafat movement was a very curious development. If what I learnt is
correct the muslims (I should not generalize but one can make a loose
association) were demanding the restoration of the caliphate. The Congress
and hindus (in general) supported the call, though frankly speaking the notion
did put some doubts in the minds of many hindus about the loyalties/preferences
of muslims.

Non-cooperation movement != harmonious living : beats me :)

Jallianwallah Bagh massacre was perpetrated by the British. What connection
does
it have with Hindu-Muslim relations ?



> 	4: Imprisonments of Ali Brothers
> 		boli amaaN Mohammad Ali ki
> 		keh jaan beyta Khilafat peh deyna
> 		[Mother of Mohammad Ali jauhar said:
> 		Son give your life on the altar of Khilafat]
> 	5: Imprisonments of Hasrat Mohaani (remember his
> 			perpetual "chakki peesna")



They must have been imprisoned by the British, right?



> 	6: Leaving of Jinnah for England after his disillusionment




Jinnah seemed to get very easily "disillusioned". He probably never thought
that he and his friends may also have been *part of the problem*.




> 	7: After 1935 there was nothing more like "harmony".
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


It was perhaps this single fervent belief popular among the Leaguers which
resulted in the point of no return. 




> 
> 
> >>
> >>2: Sir Syed and like minded people opposed this policy of seclusion
> >>   of the general ulemas. They embarked on a more compromising path.
> >>
> >>3: Generation raised under Sir Syed lost sight of the reasons of 
> >>   (i) why ulemas didn't compromise, (ii) why Sir Syed compromised.
> >>
> >>4: Therefore, we saw between 1900-20 efforts by Mohammad Ali Jauhar and
> >>   co to follow Turkey's youthful march towards modernism.
> >> 
> >	Putting 2, 3 and 4 together, it looks that you see modernism
> >synonymous with "compromising path". Do you see "Suleh Hudeebiah" 
> >(prophet Muhammad's agreement with Meccans) as a compromising path
> >(or modernisim). If you do, then you will have to agree that Aligarians
> >were more "orthodox" than Ulemas if Orthodoxy means following the original
> >lifestyle of prophet of Islam.
> 
> How does "suleh hudaibiya enter the picture here?
> How about Badar, Khayber, Auhud, Khandaq, 
> 	victory of Mecca, Yermouk, Qadsiya...
> 	
> >	I thought the whole point in Hindu-Muslim unity was a claim
> >by Jinnah/Aligarians that they are two different nations - so they
> >must compromise to let the country run. If before 30s and 40s they
> >did not believe the "HIndus and Muslims are two nations", why were 
> >they trying to unite them. See my point!
> What is your point?
> 
> Unity is only possible if you see that "differences" are less than
> the "commonalities". However, if the differences are more than the
> "commonalities" then there is no chance of unity.



No one has detailed out what the DIFFERENCES really were.

IMO the biggest "difference" was the belief held by a majority of the
Aligarh U. and the "ulema" gang that what they really wanted was an Islamic
state. They wanted a dominion where muslims would be in a majority to enable the
rule of the Sharia. This went against concept of "Common Purpose" between 
the Muslims,Hindus,Sikhs,Christians etc. which was held by leaders like
Gandhi, Nehru and others. 

In their concept of what I call *Indian Secularism*, Nehru and Gandhi believed
that the differences in religious beliefs was only in *rituals*. The underlying
message of all religious doctrines was the equality of humans and each religious
doctrine advocated amazingly similar set of values
on which society should be based. Gandhi and Nehru believed that since all
religions basically advocated the same set of principles, a democratic polity
could be created where representatives of the people would legislate civic and
criminal laws guided by these very similar principles. The system would not
reject religion (as wrongly assumed by many Pakistani commentators); instead
the representatives would be sensitive to the relgious beliefs of their
constituents when legislating laws.
 

And I think the Indian version of Secularism has worked great notwithstanding
the upheavals of the last couple of weeks. 

IMO trying to justify Partition by pointing to the Ayodhya incident would be
wrong because the underlying cause for the events can be traced back to
Partition.



  



> 
> That is, in their
> opinion (incorrectly) the difference betwen the two was not so great
> as to matter much in the compromise. However, they realized that
> what the thought was negligible was not so negligible. 
> 


You should state clearly what you think the differences are/were. 

Its not clear if you are implying that the cause of these so-called differences
were the Hindus and hence are to blame for the rise of disharmony.


--Javed.