Re: Congress and Pakistan
DA what do you mean by enlisting Muslims in struggle of Indian Independence?
Congress at first was not in favor of partition, they didn't give importance to muslims
Re: Congress and Pakistan
Congress at first was not in favor of partition, they didn't give importance to muslims
How is trying to maintain the unity of a country considered as unfavourable to any community ? Can you please explains any discriminatory policies they had in place against the muslims. The conservative Hindu community were also initially against congress because they considered it as supportive of Western cultural invasion . Don't forget that the founding members of the congress were not exclusively indians or Hindus. Some of the initial founder members were Allan Octavian Hume , Dadabhai Naoroji, Dinshaw Edulji Wacha, Umesh Chandra Banerjee, Mahadev Govind Ranade, Sir William Wedderburn etc.
In fact Gandhi transformed the Congress from an elitist party based in the cities, to an organization of the people:
1. Membership fees were considerably reduced.
2. Congress established a large number of state units across India – known as Pradesh Congress Committees – based on its own
configuration of India's states on basis of linguistic groups.
3. All former practices distinguishing Congressmen on basis of caste, ethnicity, religion and sex were eliminated – all-India unity was stressed.
4. Native tongues were given official use and respect in Congress meetings.
5. Leadership posts and offices at all levels would be filled by elections, not appointments. This introduction of democracy was vital in
rejuvenating the party, giving voice to ordinary members as well as valuable practice for Indians in democracy.
6. Eligibility for leadership would be determined by how much social work and service a member had done, not by his wealth or social standing.
Re: Congress and Pakistan
Very informative z- don't have enuf knowledge to contributrle.
Re: Congress and Pakistan
Congress at first was not in favor of partition, they didn't give importance to muslims
That was exactly the position amongst Muslims who didn't trust Congress at that time. I don't know how Congress had tried to face that trust deficit, but we all know that Congress had many Muslim leaders till end.
One thing that might have increased that trust deficit (that was later exploited by Muslim League) was while partition of Bengal was considered as blow to Indian nationalism and unity, whereas annexation of Sindh with Mumbai was not taken as so. While Nehru Report didn't cover Sindh-Mumbai issue at all, Mr Jinnah's covered it as a separate point considering its importance for Muslims.
Re: Congress and Pakistan
How is trying to maintain the unity of a country considered as unfavourable to any community ? Can you please explains any discriminatory policies they had in place against the muslims. The conservative Hindu community were also initially against congress because they considered it as supportive of Western cultural invasion . Don't forget that the founding members of the congress were not exclusively indians or Hindus. Some of the initial founder members were Allan Octavian Hume , Dadabhai Naoroji, Dinshaw Edulji Wacha, Umesh Chandra Banerjee, Mahadev Govind Ranade, Sir William Wedderburn etc.
In fact Gandhi transformed the Congress from an elitist party based in the cities, to an organization of the people: 1. Membership fees were considerably reduced. 2. Congress established a large number of state units across India – known as Pradesh Congress Committees – based on its own configuration of India's states on basis of linguistic groups. 3. All former practices distinguishing Congressmen on basis of caste, ethnicity, religion and sex were eliminated – all-India unity was stressed. 4. Native tongues were given official use and respect in Congress meetings. 5. Leadership posts and offices at all levels would be filled by elections, not appointments. This introduction of democracy was vital in rejuvenating the party, giving voice to ordinary members as well as valuable practice for Indians in democracy. 6. Eligibility for leadership would be determined by how much social work and service a member had done, not by his wealth or social standing.
That was exactly the position amongst Muslims who didn't trust Congress at that time. I don't know how Congress had tried to face that trust deficit, but we all know that Congress had many Muslim leaders till end.
One thing that might have increased that trust deficit (that was later exploited by Muslim League) was while partition of Bengal was considered as blow to Indian nationalism and unity, whereas annexation of Sindh with Mumbai was not taken as so. While Nehru Report didn't cover Sindh-Mumbai issue at all, Mr Jinnah's covered it as a separate point considering its importance for Muslims.
Ok just tell me what made Muslims make Separate party, wht were the issues n in securities tht lead to establishment of Muslim league
Re: Congress and Pakistan
It was formed to represent Muslims propely, who were made believed that they couldn’t be represented by Congress.
Reasons:
**REASONS OF CREATION :
**1 . Hindi and Urdu Conflict .
2 . Negative of Hindu Sectorian parties and Movement .
3 . Problem of Slaughtering cow .
4 . Claim of congress to the only reponsible properties .
5 . Success of Simla Deligation on Nob - 1906 .
Re: Congress and Pakistan
So yes it was congress who indirectly played role for establishment of Pakistan :hmmm:
Re: Congress and Pakistan
It was formed to represent Muslims propely, who were made believed that they couldn't be represented by Congress.
Reasons:
**REASONS OF CREATION :
**1 . Hindi and Urdu Conflict .
Seriously, What was the deal here ? was Hindi and Urdu conflict spread all over british India ? I don't remember reading about such conflict in the south in the pre-independence days. Congress supported the use of native languages so all regions of India were fairly happy with the decision.
2 . Negative of Hindu Sectorian parties and Movement .
Care to elaborate in detail ? How popular were these sectarian parties? Which were they ?
3 . Problem of Slaughtering cow .
How was this a problem ? Cow slaughter is allowed with restrictions in 14 states in India it is completely banned in six states, while there is no restriction in four states
4 . Claim of congress to the only reponsible properties .
What did they feel responsible about ? What were the points of responsibility ? Taking the benefit of a country as a whole what did they propose to claim that responibility ?
5 . Success of Simla Deligation on Nob - 1906 .
Care to elaborate on this? What was the delegation about . What were the key points about ? Why was it successful ? I have no knowledge about this delegation. How was this supposed to benefit the country as a whole ?
Re: Congress and Pakistan
Care to reply to the membership question we discussed about. I understand U blame the congress but elucidating in a clear manner why you blame them would be most appreciated. 
Re: Congress and Pakistan
What was Congress's role in separation of Sindh from Bombay?
Re: Congress and Pakistan
[QUOTE]
Reasons:
**REASONS OF CREATION :
**
*Till 1837 Persian remained the language of administration and Urdu was used only for literary discourse among the urban elite. But extra honourable status of Urdu in the literary courts of Muslim rulers made this new language a status symbol of the elite section of Muslims. ***At the initial period of British establishment in India when East India Company started exercising executive power on behalf of titular Mogul sovereign, they decreed (1837) to abolish Persian from official use and replaced it with English and native vernaculars. They however, accepted Urdu as lingua franca in northern India, where it had already established its dominating position over local vernaculars. The British also allowed Urdu to be the language of courts in northern India. Thus Urdu boosted the morale of the Urdu speaking Muslims and some Hindu elite, whose economic interest was linked with this language, when it got recognition in courts of the region. The Hindu masses however became restive, and demand for official status of Hindi, which was the vernacular in northern India, came to surface. The Muslim elite, who wanted the hegemony of Urdu to continue even though this lingua francawas confined to the urban elite, did not like this demand for Hindi. This was the starting point for Hindi-Urdu controversy, which gradually developed communal overtones.
So its what the perception of a faction of Muslims that made this conflict. Its irony that the same Muslim League after Independence didn’t care much for the language of Bengalis :bummer:
As we already discussed Congress was probably not the party to agitate against the division of Bengal, which was favorable for Muslim peasants in East Bengal. The decision was, however, reversed in 1911 due to agitation of certain groups (which was not supposedly backed by Congress). We, however, do not see Congress favoring such decision as well, meaning thereby, they indirectly supported these groups.
With all due respect to religious sentiments, cow slaughter was reason for riots in many states.
Cow protection sentiment reached its peak in 1893. Large public meetings were held in Nagpur, Hardwar and Benares to denounce beef-eaters. Melodramas were conducted to display the plight of cows, and inflammatory pamphlets were distributed, demonizing those who sacrificed and ate them. Riots broke out between Hindus and Muslims in Mau in theAzamgarh district; it took 3 days for the government to regain control.
The rioting was precipitated by contradictory interpretations of a British local magistrate’s order. He had apparently asked all the Muslims interested in cow slaughter to register, which undertaking was in fact performed to identify problem-prone areas. However, Muslims had interpreted this as a promise of protection for those who wanted to perform sacrifices.
The series of violent incidences also resulted in a riot in Bombay involving the working classes, and unrest occurred in places as far away as Rangoon, Burma. An estimated thirty-one to forty-five communal riots broke out over six months and a total of 107 people were killed
Muslim league’s instance was that Congress was not working for the national interest as was proclaimed. On many occasions Muslims felt that Congress didn’t take up their matters. Division of Bengal and Annexation of Sindh to Mumbai are some of the examples that were used by ML to hilight Congress’s attitude. Moreover, Congress agreed to separate electoral for Muslims in 1916 Lucknow Pact but in Nehru Report of 1929 all of sudden declined to such acceptance. This enhanced trust deficit and Mr Jinah said ‘from now paths of the Hindus and Muslims are separate’.
It was a delegation to Lord manto - then Viceroy of India, where Muslims demanded for separate electoral for Muslims which were agreed by Viceroy and he reassured the Muslims that their political rights and interests as a community would be safeguarded by any administrative reorganization under him.
Re: Congress and Pakistan
What was Congress's role in separation of Sindh from Bombay?
Nehru Report did include the point that Sindh should be separated from Mumbai but if its economically self sufficient. As far as I know, Sindh got port (Karachi) and other rseources, so there was no need to conditionalise such separation.
Re: Congress and Pakistan
Care to reply to the membership question we discussed about. I understand U blame the congress but elucidating in a clear manner why you blame them would be most appreciated. :)
Congress might have given equal rights to all the Members (Hindus and Muslims), but alienation of Muslim leaders like Mr Jinah says that there was some sort of frustration that was not being handled properly by Congress :)
Re: Congress and Pakistan
Reasons:
**REASONS OF CREATION :
**
*
**They however, accepted Urdu as lingua franca in northern India, where it had already established its dominating position over local vernaculars. The British also allowed Urdu to be the language of courts in northern India. Thus Urdu boosted the morale of the Urdu speaking Muslims and some Hindu elite, whose economic interest was linked with this language, when it got recognition in courts of the region. The Hindu masses however became restive, and demand for official status of Hindi, which was the vernacular in northern India, came to surface. The Muslim elite, who wanted the hegemony of Urdu to continue even though this lingua francawas confined to the urban elite, did not like this demand for Hindi. This was the starting point for Hindi-Urdu controversy, which gradually developed communal overtones.
***The hindus were a majority in the UP and Urdu was the language of the minority. But in 1900, the Government issued a decree granting symbolic equal status to both Hindi and Urdu which was opposed by Muslims. Why? This decision seems fair.
However, the order was more symbolic in that it did not provision exclusive use of Nagari script. Perso-Arabic remained dominant in North-Western provinces and Oudh as the preferred writing system until independence.
It has been argued that the Hindi–Urdu controversy sowed the seeds for Muslim separatism in India. However, other historians dispute this, pointing to the development of Muslim separatism in Bengal where Urdu was not spoken. Some also argued that Syed Ahmad had expressed separatist views long before the controversy developed
Again , I don’t think that this can be considered a legitimate cause for partition since Urdu-Hindi contoversy was not applicable to the Muslim majority areas of Pubjab, KP, Sindh and Bengal. That again brings us to the old point of discussion that if this is to be considered as a reason for partition, the muslims must have realised that nothing short of migration would have worked in a region where they were a minority if they were not open to negotiation. So to say that nobody anticipated migration of population and that it was sudden due to partition is a farce.
**
*As we already discussed Congress was probably not the party to agitate against the division of Bengal, which was favorable for Muslim peasants in East Bengal. The decision was, however, reversed in 1911 due to agitation of certain groups (which was not supposedly backed by Congress). We, however, do not see Congress favoring such decision as well, meaning thereby, they indirectly supported these groups.
…
Muslim league’s instance was that Congress was not working for the national interest as was proclaimed. On many occasions Muslims felt that Congress didn’t take up their matters. Division of Bengal and Annexation of Sindh to Mumbai are some of the examples that were used by ML to hilight Congress’s attitude. Moreover, Congress agreed to separate electoral for Muslims in 1916 Lucknow Pact but in Nehru Report of 1929 all of sudden declined to such acceptance. This enhanced trust deficit and Mr Jinah said ‘from now paths of the Hindus and Muslims are separate’.***
OK. Congress considered itself as a national party. It was supporting equality of all communities while ML did not care about other communities except the muslim community. Congress was supposed to consider the wellbeing of all people not just hindus or muslims only. A seperate electorate was never a good idea for a new nation . It is divisive and communal. Not something any responsible National party anywhere in the world would encourage IMO. Do you think it is a good idea and why ?
How did the division of Bengal change the prospects of muslims ? What were the visible changes ? Why did they not push for continued reforms after reunification ? I don’t know anything about sindh, so no comment.
It was a delegation to Lord manto - then Viceroy of India, where Muslims demanded for separate electoral for Muslims which were agreed by Viceroy and he reassured the Muslims that their political rights and interests as a community would be safeguarded by any administrative reorganization under him.*
Again same point as above. What about hindu majority areas like himachal Pradesh or even states with around 10% muslims ? Seperate electorate would have completely sidelined them unless they were a part of state level ruling political parties. Who was accountable for the development of minorities here ?
Story of Pakistan | Simla Deputation
[/QUOTE]
Re: Congress and Pakistan
Congress might have given equal rights to all the Members (Hindus and Muslims), but alienation of Muslim leaders like Mr Jinah says that there was some sort of frustration that was not being handled properly by Congress :)
You cannot say that congress gave equal rights on one hand and muslim leaders were alienated on the other hand. The statement is rather contradictory. What was the frustration ?:)
Re: Congress and Pakistan
You cannot say that congress gave equal rights on one hand and muslim leaders were alienated on the other hand. The statement is rather contradictory. What was the frustration ?:)
I said Congress might have given equal rights (on face of it), but when it came to decisions on policy matters or issues affecting Muslims, Congress attitude was not satisfactory for those leaders and therefore they left Congress. By frustration I meant that someone is part of an organisation and party but he could not convey / deliver to his community.
Re: Congress and Pakistan
As far as I know, Jinnah was the only muslim leader to leave the congress due to ideological differences. Were there any others ?
Re: Congress and Pakistan
Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan from NWFP resigned Congress and joined Muslim League.
Sardar Abdul rab Nishter was Member of Congress (1927-31) and who after joined ML.
A.K. Fazl ul haq also aliented from Congress where he served as General Secretary in 1916-18
These are the few famous names who alienated Congress and joined ML
Re: Congress and Pakistan
Rise of Mahatma gandhi in 1915 after successful South African struggle was challenge to everyone including MA Jinnah, after Mahatma rise Jinnah went back to London and returned with idea of pakistan.
It was bengalis who revolted against it, various movement most notably young bengal movement was reason of reunification, one thing is of note, Bengal was among the few state where pundas were Zamindars:) and atrocity commited by Zamindars is well known, muslims in Bengal were mostly poor farmer, but this partition didn’t acheive the basic goal hence Bengalis reverted back to Bengal.
This is what is what I feel is true reality:k:
Intially congress had dual memebership, one can be member of Hindu Mahasabha and Congress but dual membership with league wasn’t acceptable,after Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, longest president of INC, registered his opposition, dual membership was completely closed.
Yes Some dalits I beleive like jadunath Sarkar, Jinnah claimed League as sole representative of muslims in Simla 1946 conference but paradoxically appointed a hindu dalit leader as representative of muslim league:)
Wrong idea. it was congress who stood with ali brothers during khilafat movement, majority of muslims were member of congress, in UP, poor class muslims, lower caste, supported congress and Zamindar caste muslims supported League, Muslim Legue was party of elite class muslims, none of them had international stature of Mahatma, neither were any of them were capable of launching pan india movement like gandhi could.
The intereim goverment gave department of finance to Liaquat ali khan, Maulana Abul kalam Azad’s cabinet mission plan was based on provincial autonomy, which meant muslim majority areas will be governed by muslims, but liaquat ali khan created problem as even a peon cannot get appointed without his permission. Most enthusiastic muslims who loved League were Hindustani speakers, but Jinnah got pakistan and moved to karchi, leaving many of them to migr
Re: Congress and Pakistan
you want to say tht its wrong tht congress didnt wanted partition in the beginning ???