Dear Roop Let me share my reading regarding Jinnah and the Hindu leadership. Firstly, Jinnah was not a British tout so was never in the good books of British. Secondly, he was not a religious person so there is no question of opposition from the British end. Thirdly, Gandhi, in general and Nehru,in particular, had intimate relations with Mountbatten particularly. They are believed to be very close friends since Nehru met him(Mountbatten) first time in Singapore in March,1946. Partition Plan was announced on 3rd June,1947 was basically redesigned by Jawaharlal Nehru before it was presented in front of other political parties of India. And the favour was obviously given by his close friend-Lord Mountbatten
By
Naila , Lecturer, university
| 03 22 2013 15:48:26 +0000
Jinnah, though a well understanding secular person was afraid of Muslim Legue's rising influence over masses (illiterate and highly religious if not communal) and a being a focused well wisher of Muslims at large in India he questioned Gandhi "How a majority Hindu mandate would allow to survive Muslim culture (Shariat Laws) . Even today whenever laws (in secular ambit) are introduced Jinnah's concern are relevant even today for example Hindu and Muslim personal laws need to be modified since long but Parliament is overcautious when dealing with section 125 OF CPC despite being a secular section, Rajiv Gandhi Govt bowed to Muslim uprising and Parilament even today put an ambiuity. So Jinnah was not ready for radical changes which Free India was going to make in day to day life of Hindus and muslims even Hindu Mahasabha was not acceptable to some of the "secular" changes inevitable to come like "SINGLE" marriage for Hindus. Moreover when Gandhi offered Prime-minister ship to Jinnah he asked how Gandhi would be able to stop the mandate with a Hindu majority parliament in future .
By
chakit swarup, null
| 12 28 2012 04:45:41 +0000
None of them. If you ask me the real culprits were then people who started turning butchers on prodding by a few individuals. Guess they never deserved to live together as fellow countrymen. I hope our generation with the experience to draw from will pass of as better citizens.
By
Vinoy Scaria James, Tour Consultant., Guiders Mission Tours & Travels
| 06 02 2012 21:44:40 +0000
partition was a total mind set of British due to there agenda of "devide and rule" roop sb is quite rite saying Jinnah a secular man... I m still amazed that how can Jinnah be Pak's founder... how can we forget the role of Adena Mount Batten while convincing nehroo for partition... and then division of boundaries not only means separate lands... it also separated hundreds of families from one and other for whole life infact decays... how can we forget the killing of thousands of innocents made by Hindus and Muslims no matter who made it first.. but it was done... thousand young girls were raped... why just for the sake of freedom.... hell with that freedom which made humanity awful.. I m a Pakistani and i had lots of respect for Indians because i think we didn't get freedom on 1947 it was a dealing indeed.... for more instance please read book written by Pakistani "pakistan ki asal kahani.. 68,69 ka inqlab"
By
Waseem Rathore, T.S.O, Kisan oil and ghee
| 06 02 2012 20:22:04 +0000
Roop sir,you have put all the optimistic and positive things about jinnah,you are one of the many indians who hate gandhi and thats right too,but jinnah was 80 percent responsible for partition and the main mine behind that was the friendship of mountbetten and gandhi, but circumstances wer develpoped by jinnah. there was no any other way to stop bloodshedding in the country and to satisfy the provoked muslims. the partion was done on a paper map by english. and jinnah produced those situations.
By
suraj dev singh, B.Tech/B.E. student, Jai narain college of technology,bhopal,M.P.
| 11 03 2009 12:33:31 +0000
In my opinion none of them were responsible,only Britishers were responsible for earing Jinnah specially .He could have agreed to Mahatma Gandhi for not giving attention to become P.M,
By
SB DIKSHIT, STATE QUALITY MONITOR, U.P.R.R.D.A
| 09 21 2009 09:30:58 +0000
Hello Roop, It is a nice topic to discussed but I don't agree with you. According to me only Bristishers were the only one who were responsible for partition. Congress(Gandhi and Nehru) and Jinnah were just the puppets in hands of British council. How could you say Jinnah was not responsible for partition, only if Nehru would be responsible then why did he allowed Muslim to stay in India and why he give Muslims place in parliament. I believe you forget about those Muslim leaders who were in first Indian Parliament after independence.
By
Varun Mittal, Head/VP/GM-Marketing, VRM SoftWeb
| 08 31 2009 16:52:26 +0000
I find it difficult to understand how easily todays gen can blame people then in tht era which is only been explained by historians in the book. Here i m not blaming Jinnah but as the creater of this debate has said tht Jinnah was sidelined or side tracked, i completely disagree. No doubt he was an important person in our freedom struggle, but so were others and so many of them and they never felt sidelined or neglected. But they went ahead with their passion of achieving freedom and thts all they were interested, not in some owning a territory. If like Jinnah everybody out then were interested in having the way they wanted, today there wuld been numerous territories. Its very sad to kno tht the ppl who were understood by everyone around the world are been openly mocked by our own indians. Poor Gandhi, if only he culd have known how his own ppl wuld one day treat him, but then he was a simple man with simple & deep values hardly understood by mortal souls. Its very easy to critisize someone who is not alive 2 clarify. I wish these so called historians wuld interview Gandhi/ Nehru then or their family members for the facts rather than assume things which later bring about the topic for debate...
By
Smita M, Copywriter
| 08 31 2009 11:43:58 +0000
Roop! Is there any relevance now to the fact that partition has already happened before you nad me were born and all we have to do is to see the way forward. what is the use of analysing this ?I bet 75% of the history on any subject is manipulated to the writers views. so NO ONE KNOWS WHATR ACTUALLY HAPPENED. if this has to be answered we certainly will need Gandhi,Nehru,jinnah and Mountbatten here for discussion Probably they also will not come to a conclusion Why debate?
By
Charles davison, Project Manager, Douglas OHI LLC
| 08 28 2009 10:43:41 +0000
Roop as you have just given two brackets,to share the blame it’s not sufficient for-The Most Complex Divorce in History- The Partition: Who: All the names Jinnah, Nehru, Sardar Patel and all those political parties prevailing during 1947, under respective leadership should be held responsible. The sole person, who was against the partition, was Mountbatten as he wanted the British Raj’s gracefully retreat, but “The Partition” was the last tattoo of the dying Raj. Why: In the most spiritual area on earth, it was inevitable that the freedom struggle should take on the guise of a religious crusade, and Gandhi made it one. No man was ever more tolerant, more genuinely free of any taint of religious prejudice than Gandhi. He desperately wanted to associate all the Moslems with every phase of his movement. But he was a Hindu, and a deep belief in God was the very essence of his being. Inevitably, unintentionally, Gandhi’s congress party movement began to take on a Hindu tone and coloration that aroused Moslem suspicions. Their suspicions were strengthened as narrow-minded local congress leaders persistently refused to share with their Moslem rivals what electoral spoils British rule allowed. Although when it came to an administrative decision to be taken, it was Jinnah’s resoluteness that led to the division of India. If today’s India and Indians really want their facts about Partition cleared kindly read the book “Freedom at Midnight” by Larry Collins & Dominique Lapierre, to get an unbiased view.
By
Shiuli Mukherji, Head Strategy Plan- , Region SEA
| 08 28 2009 07:32:48 +0000
|
As respectable and responsible leader's Mr.Gandhi or Mr.Nehru would have agreed for the partition whatever may be reason. But Mr.Jinah suggested migrate entire Muslims from India there the respectable leader"s not obeyed the suggestion and honour. Today we are suffering for the best reason know the ruler of leaders.
By
M.Shankar , Marketing Manager, Mfrs of tubbe products
| 11 05 2009 08:24:08 +0000
ms. sarika....i think u r wrong... gandhiji never was a pupppet, he is a mastermind behind all this things....roop was right, he had soft corner for nehru, n nehru was a puppet of gandhi...thats y he became first prime minister of india.
By
Lokesh kasle, Service engineer, Exide industries Ltd.
| 09 18 2009 11:10:05 +0000
none of the three enlisted :: can one man divide a family:: do root cause analysis ::
By
Ajay Ziz, Dy. Registrar,, University of Jammu
| 09 18 2009 09:11:42 +0000
Only Septuagenarians or Octagenarians who were present amidst the personalities, viz., Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah would be able to clear the air of controversy. There was a tussle between Muslim fundamental forces and Gandhi's so called secular forces. Apparently, Jinnah's fundamental forces have prevailed upon Gandhiji to agree on the partition pact. Gandhiji, according to my opinion, is a victim of circumstances. He held the nerve till then, but had to give it up for larger national interest. Whatever said and done, we have to live with it. Its time, that we work out a friendly strategy to unite both the nations. As Sardar Patel ji united the princely States, let one or more of toostep members play the justifiable role to unite the two countries, rather than debating over who did it!
By
S. Muralidharan, Executive Director, Knowledge Foundation & Campus Around the Corner
| 09 08 2009 09:47:22 +0000
India got divided due to personal aspiration of our leaders in history. Gandhi was the top leader whom everyone loved to hear and obey if he would have conveyed the correct message in proper way. As as senior most and respectful leader, I would put the blame on Gandhi for the division of India. His unclear secularism and no plan to handle the leadership post Independance was the reason for Division and problem of Hindu Muslim trouble. Today,s Indian is large and united because of Sardar Patel else there would have been more division of India.
By
Atul Kumar, `Confidential, Confidential
| 08 31 2009 11:36:23 +0000
Sardar Patail & Nehru was responsible for the Partition of India.
By
Mohammad Asghar Naqvi (Amrohvi), Head Vertical - Recruitment, AN ISO 9001:2008 Certified Company
| 08 31 2009 08:40:36 +0000
Since Nehru -gandhi Dynasty is always anti Indian The legacy was carried forward by Indira Gandhi By signing treaty with pakistan Then her son sat on throne watched Indian massacred below his nose not satisfied went after Indian in Srilanka Now Sonia has made India truly European Mac Burger cost is half cost from the time she took power but rate of RICE and food have gone 5Times , And minister in cabinet showed Mineral water when asked about water scarcity Also giving pension to terrorist shot by INDIAN ARMY So overall we have
By
manish , Freelancer, Freelancer
| 08 29 2009 04:41:15 +0000
Many people hold Nehru as responsible for partition and among those who hold Nehru as responsible there are all types of people – secular as well as communal. The question arises who is really responsible? We Indians and Pakistanis while holding our own leaders as responsible we have completely exonerated the British rulers of their responsibility for partition..
By
rohit batra, Asst. Manager/Manager (Technical), Crowne Plaza Surya
| 08 28 2009 23:00:23 +0000
Partition was no simple process. It was a multi-layered phenomenon in which interests of different classes, the goals of colonial powers and the real politic of the political parties and the individuals all contributed their own share resulting in the tragedy of mammoth proportions One of the popular conceptions has been to blame Mahatma Gandhi for it. A section of Hindu Right wing had popularized that it was Gandhi's policy of appeasing the Muslims due to which Muslims felt emboldened and went on to divide the country. Some opinions accuse Gandhi to the extent that since he had said that Partition would take place only on his dead body, how come he kept quiet and did not oppose Partition? According to other opinion, it was Nehru's ambition to become prime minister that Partition took place.. @jane, pls control your temper and debate polite if you have some knowledge about this topic.
By
shrimal doshi, Commercial Manager, M&S
| 08 28 2009 22:18:53 +0000
both are responsible for this
By
MAGGE SHANKAR RAVI PRAKASH, Associate Consultant, HCL Infosystems Ltd
| 08 28 2009 08:40:30 +0000
it is fact that due to soft corner of gandhi with nehru this thing has hapened
By
Ravi Sheth, business associates, LKP Securities Ltd
| 08 28 2009 05:49:50 +0000
Jinnah was committed to an undivided and unified India until he was brainwashed. He also remained associated with Lokmanya Tilak and was totally committed to an undivided and unified India. If Gandhi had remained adamant, like he did on granting Rs 500 crore for formation of Pakistan, Partition would not have taken place. He however, did not do so mainly because Nehru was his weakness. If you read, 'freedom at midnight'. jinnah was the 1st person to oppose idea of pakistan. Mahatma Gandhi is responsible for the partiotion because at that time he was chief decision maker not Jinnah.
By
Darshil , CEO/MD/Director, Darshil Cotton Company
| 08 27 2009 07:52:20 +0000
I support this. If I am not mistaken, the Khilafat movemnet participation was the one that brought about the change. And its also true that Pt. Nehru was indeed the Mahatma's weakness. Nehru had the demeanor of being very calm, composed and self assured politician. I always have wondered why werent people like Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Lokmanya Tilak and even Jinnah in the coterie of the Mahatma?? Jinnah was by profession a very able and respected Lawyer, known popularly as Barrister Jinnah. He was a very self composed, poised and avery learned man. respected by British for his secualrist views. The difference was that Jinnah thought about the nation too and hence opposed the Khilafat movement. Thats the truning pint in the relationship going sour. Also the biased fact that Jinnah would only seek the safety of Indian Muslims did not rank well with the Mahatma and Nehru and hence they started isolating him from party meetings etc. This isolation prompted him to think seperatist. But again within the limits of being INDIAN!! As per the policy of Divide and Rule, the British govt then proposed the dreaded Two Nation Theory and thus the seperation became inevitable!! I may further add that even I may be right or wrong but the truth will out!! Thanks for the referral Roop. :))
By
Makrand Bhave, AGM - Corporate Business, E18, part of Network 18 Group
| 08 27 2009 02:17:58 +0000
|