Secularism: Another face of Masonic Lodges? PART II

By Naveed Tajammal                                                                          

The Secularist Movement was started by certain elements which were the real pressure groups, as well the intellectual class of the later Ottoman Empire, whose efforts, were the culmination and introduction of the idea of secularism in the new constitution of a new Turkey in 1924.These people, who were infused with this thought process, brought a disaster for the Muslims of Turkey. The purpose of highlighting Ottoman Turkey as a case study, though very briefly and practically in general outline, is to state that, just because the Turk leadership of that time had done a blunder due to pressure of the then superpowers, we need not think about it as an example to follow, for reasons, as will be explained. These blunders have resulted in a chain reaction of events. A study of which however brief is a must. The intellectual class which had spearheaded this move were ethnically and religiously not the actual Turks, as the term goes. I had earlier stated, that the composition of the Turkish Empire were fifty percent Muslims, as late as 1910.However,at the time of the start of the 1839 and 1856 so-called reforms ,”tanzimats”, the  Muslim population was much less as in between this period and  by 1910 the Empire had lost a lot of its area, courtesy, it’s weak sultans  and the leadership factor .

The powers of that time were obsessed with breaking Turkey, as they are with us now, with the balakanistion map so eagerly being propagated for us, and its merits too. Reverting back to the Empire, and its, population as it stood, at the start of 20th century ,the inhabited; Iannina, Scutari, Kossovo and Monastir. They were Muslims Orthodox, as Albanians, as well as Catholic Christians. The Bulgarians, inhabited, Salonica, Kossova as well Monastir. All were Orthodox Christians. Here it is pertinent to note that the Headquarter of ‘The Committee of Union and Progress was based at Salonica, or Salonika. The Freemason Jews, lent a powerful support to the work of the Committee. The later leader of Turks, Mustapha Kamal, was a key figure of this organization.

I had stated earlier, the Empire had 300,000 Jews all over. Business and commerce was in their hands. The Greeks followed next. What happened to Adan Meneders, and his hanging much later ,on 16 sept.1961,along with Fatin Rustu Zorlu and Hasan Polatkan, was an interconnected sequence, spread over decades of resistance  against secularism. The Servians, were in Kossova and the Christians, the Greeks, were spread all over doing business in the Empire, and were Orthodox as well as Greco-Christains. The Kutzo-Vlachs(Macedonians) were Christians. The Lazes, found in Trebizond and East were Muslims as well as Christians. The Kurds were in Erzerum, Sivas, Seert, Angora, and Mosul, all were Muslims. The Circassians, spread all over Asia Minor were Muslims. The Arabs, in the Empire, were in Adana, Aleppo, Syria, Baghdad, Sanjak of Jerusalem, Hejaz, Yemen, Beirut and Basra. All being Muslim Armenians, lived in Istanbul, as well in ,Vilayets, of Turkey, in Europe. Also in Sivas, Angora, Trebizond, Adana, Erzirum, Bittlis, Mosul, Van and Aleppo. All were Gregorian and Christian Catholics.

The Jews had spread in Europe courtesy the Empire, on whose destruction they were bent upon. They retained the jugular of business, in the Empire. a sect of Jews called the Samaritan, were confined to Napluze, a Vilayet of Beirut,(province).The Chaldeans or the Nestorians, who then spoke Syro-Chaldaic, and partly Arabic too, were in Baghdad, Mosul, Aleppo, Beirut, and  Mamurat -ul-Aziz.

The Melchites, or the Syrian, were Greco-Catholics, who were Greeks, ethnically, spoke Arabic, but, were united Orthodox Christians, as went the classifications and lived all over Syria. The Jacobites/Syrians, who spoke Arabic, were all Monophysite, as well Jacobite Christians. The Monites, spoke Arabic, but in their churches ,it was Syro-Chaldaic. They were located around Mount Lebanon and Beirut. All were Monophysite, (Catholics). The Druse, and the Mendaties, or Ben-i-Yahya, too were located around Mount Lebanon and the Sanjak of Hauran & Basra. They were all Sabaeans. The main aim of these, other than Muslim races was to disrupt and destroy the Empire.

The first to go were the “Janissaries“. This will be explained later, as to why they were, axed.

Now , to have a brief insight in the administrative set up of the Empire, is also a must. Muhammad The Second, the Conqueror of Constantinople  in 1453, had created a very free set up,with not much of red tape, as the term goes. He presided over all key matters, and led the army too .The administration was composed of “Kazas” or Cantons, under command of a Kazi. The Sanjaks, or departments, came under Alia Beys or Mir-i-Livas(Colonels and Brigadiers) with one horse-tail banners. The Vilayets were under, Bey- Ler –Beys Pashas with two-horse tail banners. In war times all Bey-Ler-Beys served under the Grand-Vezier. The title of Vezier was also held by six or seven persons, They all met under a “Kubbe” or a Dome,(Cupola) as the Hall of the Divan had a massive Cupola. The Veziers were also Pashas, with three-horse tail banners. Here it should also be kept in mind that prior to the reforms of 1839,the Empire was much larger and had more Christians,.The Arabs were cut off after the Arab revolt spearheaded by T. E. Lawrence, and the new party which now rules Arabia,(Saudi Arabia).

The Christians hated the Turk, because, he had taken over the capital of their Eastern Roman Empire.In 1529,he was at the gates of “Vienna” Austria, and Khair Ud Din called Barbarossa  had made the Mediterranean Sea a Turkish Lake.

In 1683,the  brilliant, “Kara Mustapha“, the Grand Vezier, with an army of 500,000 was again at Vienna. This time, he wanted the conquest of the whole of Germany, and create an Ottoman Province, from Rhine to Danube. The weak ruler, Muhammad the Fourth, could not bear the Grand Vezier. So, planned his destruction while Kara Mustapha led the army but in history such fickle minded weak rulers have always existed. Hence in the middle of the war, Kara Mustapha was executed at Belgrade, by the cowardly Sultan’s orders. Eventually, the Turkish Army deposed him, and brought forward, Sulaman The Second. Now, the “Jannissaries” revolted. All these events were manipulated & led by a constant interference of the super powers, and the Christian population, as well the Jews, ended in the 1839 and 1856 Reforms. By 1821,the Greeks had revolted on the behest of the  Russians. It was only the timely help of Mehmet Ali, the Pasha of Misr(Egypt),who saved the day by the Protocol of 4 April 1826,signed,at St. Petersburg, on the behest of British, vide this Treaty, Greece was to be governed by its own elected authorities and would have independent commercial relations. The further end on Turks by the superpowers came at battle of Navarino, on the 20th Oct.1827.With this came the axe on the “Jannissaries” and the end of the main fighting force of the Turks.

Poor leadership, always destroys, an organization which it is unable to control, and then dies its own death. A new leadership, controls the events, and leads the same nation, once declared dead by all, on a new path.

Ruining empires and nations, is and has been, the policy of various pivotal powers of the past, present and will be of the future, too. unless we awaken up to these facts of life, and counter the moves. The nations are always mislead by propagandists, working in various modes and using different means of implementing their ends. the unwary and unwitting gullible people are taken for the high jump, where the damage has already been done, as is, in our case; we must arise to these problems and re-adjust our thought process.

We study history, or political process, which is an ongoing event with a purpose. The point of all drawing room discussions is to exchange ideas and arrive at some mental conclusions. If a debate continues without an end, it is a waste of time, and effort. The purpose to my mind is, we should, analyze and try to stay away from something which has been proven a failed experiment, as was, and is, the case of secularism, in Turkey.  Hence these articles, are meant, to give, a reader more insight into the course of events which led to the situation at hand in a brotherly country.

Our people fail to understand that, the political events are a chain of events ,which, a player had played in the past, and they affect our lives to in one form or the other, even now so, instead of remaining a “pawn in the game”. We  too,  should do something about it rather than be used by others.

The present policy, is the old “Statesman “policy being used on us, the power players in this case, subvert the loyalty of the victim nations population from its governments, which eventually travels down to the very foundations of the country’s military power. THIS is in reality the final objective, in the first place. A militarily weakened nation is then targeted, and  destroyed by dismemberment or balkanization, to use a more current terminology. But this term, remember originated from the nation that was the Osmanli Empire till the last century, the Headquarter of our Muslim  Khilafat. The present case study, the scourge of the west had been it’s “Jannissaries”. A corrupted Turkish word, from the word, “Yenni-Cheri” or the new troops .The entire corps was commanded by the “Agha” of the Yennicheri, called “Oj Ak“(the hearth).It was divided into “Ortas” or units, of varying numbers. The “Oda” or the room, was the name given to the barracks in which they were lodged. Sultan  Sulaman The First, had organized them into 196 orta’s, divided into three classes, “Jemaat’ had 101,ortas;Beuluk,had 61,and,Sekban had 34 ortas. There were also additional 34 ortas of apprentices. In the peace times, the ortas were 100 men strong, in war times 500.

The distinction, between the different classes, was in duty, they performed,. The Jemmat; or the “Yaya Beiter” were charged with the frontier duties, The Beuluk, had the privilege to serve as the Sultan’s guards, and kept the sacred banner in the war and the peace. The sacred banner was the flag of The Holy Prophet.

Until 1574, the effective strength of the Yennicheri, including the Ajami ,was not allowed to exceed 20,000. In 1805, they numbered 112,000.and at the time of their destruction they were 135,000.

The ‘Yennicheri’ were spread all over the Empire, guarding all the vital places. It was this fighting machine which was destroyed by, the weak and cowardly  Sultan Mahmud The Second, on the orders of his mentors  ie the powers. And, they want to disband our armed forces too.

Let us have a better insight into the function of this remarkable institution, which kept the Empire in one piece while it was in existence. The Code of Conduct, was a creation,which only effected them. Implicit obedience to the officers, perfect accord and union among themselves, abstinence from luxury, Islam was the code, enforced by the rules of “Haji Bektash” a learned, pious Muslim, saint.

Yennicheri, were entitled to special rules ,regarding, a death penalty, if awarded to them, promotion was by seniority. They could be punished and admonished by their own officers. Only the infirm and unfit were pensioned off. They were not allowed beards, nor to marry, nor to leave their barracks, or engage into trade , but to spend the time in drill and in the practice of the “art of war”.

In the time of the peace, the Janissaries (Yennicheri) could not carry arms, but were armed with clubs, only in the frontier were they allowed arms in peace times.

The Janissaries, banner, was of white silk, on which verses from the Quran, were embroidered, in gold. This banner was planted besides the “Agha’s” tent, in the camp, with 4 other flags, in red cases and a three horse tail banner/standard.

Each orta, had its flag, half-red and half-yellow & placed before the tent of its commander in the start. The  Janissaries, bore no other, mark of distinctive nature, save a white turban. This was converted into red with gold work on it. The officers had the difference in the color of the boots, the commanding officers, of the Beuluk, wore red boots, the others yellow,while the junior wore black.

Thus on 10 June 1826, Mahmud The Second, ordered the destruction. A fatwa, was issued by the Shaikh-ul-Islam, the flag of the Holy Prophet was “unfurled” and Ibrahim Agha the Artillery Commander opened cannon fire on the barracks. They were asked to ‘’surrender’’, which was replied with the cry of “Olmaz” (never or not possible). None survived, the massacre, the barracks were burnt down, men burnt, but none pleaded for mercy. Such was the unity and discipline, amongst them. The rest of 135,000, men too met the fate as stoically. All over the Empire. The reason being the flag of the Prophet had been “unfurled” on them by a devious Sultan. The cause of non resistance was that the Jannissaries, had been the custodians of the same flag, in the past. It was the “unfurling ” that created special circumstances and was the signal of the final act,” to do or die.” for it. Thus died the manhood of the Empire .With its destruction ended the State, eventually, which had been the gravest threat to the whole Europe, within a year, the powers of  the West had forced the ill-fated Sultan by “The Treaty of London’’,6th July 1827, to grant autonomy to Greece. And to be governed by a Prince of their choice(Christian).

With the destruction of ‘Yennicheri’, Mehmet Ali, Viceroy of ‘’Egypt’’, too revolted and was at the doors of Istanbul, from the Eastern and Southern side. He was  made by these powers, a hereditary ruler of Egypt ,by a ’’farman’’ issued by the new Boy Sultan, Abd- ul -Majid(1839-61)Through him these powers introduced, edicts ,called “tanzimats “,much to the pleasure of the merchant classes and traders of the Empire, who were all Christians & Jews, for whom all these efforts in the breakup of the structure were done, through the hands of a doomed Sultan, named Mahmud The Second. Followed by a equally ill omen ed ruler.

CONTINUED…..

(The writer has over 26 years of experience in Investigative Historical Research)  

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Saeed Piracha  On August 20, 2010 at 11:40 am

    What a jolting & tremendous paper Tajammal. Alas! For our Leaders who need to read this to learn from the mistakes of other nations! Will they?

  • Raheel Dogar  On August 20, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    The parralel drawn between Turkey and what’s happening now in Pakistan is uncannily frightening.
    I am looking forward already to the Part III.
    Fascinating read.

  • Saulat Khan  On August 20, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was a secret Jew, whose ancestors were given shelter by Osmani Caliph after Spanish inquisition. And those secret Jews gave the price to World Muslims by destroying the Caliphate after Sultan Abdul Hamid refused to allow Jewish State in Palestine.
    He was not even a Turk. He was a Doenmeh (secret Jew). He achieved the objective of not the Turks but of the Doenmehs who slowly took over the Ottoman State by openly converting to and practicing Islam but secretly practicing their old religion… He was not a Turk, let alone ‘Father of the Turks’. He was a Doenmeh who wore first a Muslim mask, then a Turkish mask.

    The following is from “The Literary Digest”, October 14, 1922, page 50 :

    “A Spanish Jew by ancestry, an orthodox Moslem by birth and breeding, trained in a German war college, a patriot, a student of the campaigns of the world’s great generals, including Napoleon, Grant and Lee – these are said to be a few outstanding characteristics in the personality of the new “Man on Horseback” who has appeared in the Near East. He is a real dictator, the correspondents testify, a man of the type which is at once the hope and fear of nations torn to pieces by unsuccessful wars. Unity and power have come back to Turkey largely through the will of Mustafa Kemal Pasha.

    …… There was the pasha himself, tall, still young, good-looking, narrow-hipped, wide-shouldered, with gray, rather sad eyes that spoke eloquently of his Spanish-Jewish ancestry – for Kemal, like Enver Pasha, tho an orthodox Moslem, is descended from those Spanish-Jewish families that, given by Christianity the tolerant choice between death, conversion and exile, found asylum and happiness in the Sultan’s domains – and with strong, high-veined hands, broad and flat across the wrist – the hands of an artist, a dreamer, yet, too, those of a doer, a man who knows how to clout his dreams into facts. ”

    This was the origin of the most important group, numerically and historically, of Islamic Marranos. The faithful Mohammedans call these hidden Jews “doenmehs”, the renegades. ….. Over the years the “doenmeh” movement became firmly established in Asia Minor. In the nineteenth century the sect was estimated to have twenty thousand members. Salonika remained its main seat until that city became Greek in 1913.
    Here is a quotation from Joachim Prinz’s “The Secret Jews”, page 122 :

    ( I did not make the story nor any member of World Muslims. From the same book written by a Jew, the World can know how Jews lived under Caliphate, Spain to India and Yemen to Bosnia and how Jews were placed in high post. But what we know now is that the World Muslims who protected the Jews from inquisition after inquisition by European Christians; were fooled and by the same Jews Caliphate were abolished. )

    ” …
    The revolt of the Young Turks in 1908 against the authoritarian regime of Sultan Abdul Hamid began among the intellectuals of Salonika. It was from there that the demand for a constitutional regime originated. Among the leaders of the revolution which resulted in a more modern government in Turkey were Djavid Bey and Mustafa Kemal. Both were ardent “doenmehs”. Djavid Bey became minister of finance; Mustafa Kemal became the leader of the new regime and he adopted the name of “Ataturk”. His opponents tried to use his “doenmeh” background to unseat him, but without success. Too many of the Young Turks in the newly formed revolutionary Cabinet prayed to Allah, but had as their real prophet Shabtai Zvi, the Messiah of Smyrna. ”

    Mustafa Kemal’s ancestors, who came from Spain after the fall of Islam, were given shelter under the Caliphate. You can get the above book – “The Secret Jews, by Joachim Prinz, 1973”, from most of the Public Libraries in USA and other western countries.

    • naveed tajammal  On August 20, 2010 at 2:47 pm

      Dear Sault,
      Thankyou indeed, Quest,for, knowledge never ends,the jewish connection of mustapha,now seems real,and the damage he did ,was but expected from him.

  • Rameez Sultan  On August 20, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Today 98% of Turkey’s population is officially Muslim but the proportion of practicing Muslims is as low as 20%. However unlike in Europe where church attendance gradually fell in Turkey it is the result of a systematic attempt to constrain and weaken Islam by successive Kemalist secular governments and the military.
    The hostility towards Islam began in early 1920s. A military commander, Mustafa Kemal Pasha led the Turkish War of Independence to form the Republic of Turkey as the successor state of the defunct Ottoman Empire. For this Mustafa Kemal became very popular and adored by all Turks. Thereafter he became the first President of the Republic of Turkey. The Turks venerated him so much he was given the name ‘Atatürk’, meaning Father of the Turks, (honorific name formally presented to him by the Turkish Grand Assembly in 1934.)
    Ataturk prohibited religious education. The existing mosques were turned into museums or used for the regimes secular purposes.
    The faithful Turkish and Kurdish Muslims be they Sunni, Shia or Sufi were powerless against Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s regime and his military. But they tried to resist the oppression and even led rebellions. But he was too strong for them and Ataturk suppressed the rebellions after massive bloodsheds. (e.g. Seyh Sait rebellion in southeastern Turkey which claimed nearly 30,000 lives before being suppressed had its roots in religious grievances.)

    Mustafa Kemal Ataturk died in 1938. After that some of his preposterous laws were revoked by his successors due to their harshness and the fact that Islam was always a strong force at the popular level despite the suppression.
    However, I hope & wish, our rulers can see the light of the day before it is too late.
    An excellent eye opener Naveed & Saulat,thank you for sharing the link.

    • naveed tajammal  On August 20, 2010 at 2:51 pm

      THANKYOU RAMEEZ,
      you too have shared information,but,rulers may or may not see the light of the day,but i hope our nation will.

  • SAMEEH  On August 20, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    What surprises me is Jinnah’s admiration of M Kemal, in his press interview in 1938 Jinnah described Kemal Ataturk as the greatest Musalman of the modern age and Turkey an example for all Muslims. What is your take on this Dr Tajammal?

    • naveed tajammal  On August 20, 2010 at 6:00 pm

      Dear sameeh,
      would it be possible to get a reference of this press interview ? so i could read it in full,in 1938 mustapha kamal had died.well even till his death mustapha,was No Muslim,by any yard stick.Except in name,Kindly read out the complete text of this article,two more parts are still pending,i have adequately covered the post 1924 period.

      • SAMEEH  On August 20, 2010 at 7:45 pm

        Please check out Page 4.Link:
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/34098746/We-are-a-Nation-Excerpts-from-the-Speeches-of-Quaid-i-Azam

      • naveed tajammal  On August 21, 2010 at 4:57 am

        Thankyou sameeh,
        will get back after going through the text.

      • naveed tajammal  On August 21, 2010 at 6:47 am

        Dear Sameeh,
        I did read the full text of the speech given by Mr.Jinnah,on 25 December 1938,at Patna,it was,to highlight on the recent death of Maulana.Muhammad ali,his contributions, to the efforts,for the Muslims,of British india,here like wise,he paid tribute to kamal (attaturk),and Dr.Iqbal,SAYING,that their contributions had proved,that Muslims Nations are coming into their being.the rest of the speech was on the hindu mindset,and a wish,of development of National self and National Individuality.(Exactly what i am trying to do), the subsequent speech is of Mr.Liaqet Ali Khan,given on 25 March 1939,asking for an independent muslim state,the editors note below the speech states this was the first time,on record that a demand for a seperate Muslim Homeland was asked for ! On August 15 1939,is yet another speech of Mr.Jinnah,stating ‘Muslims and Hindus are poles apart’,as all this happened because the hindu refused to acknowledge Muslims as a ”NATION’,EVEN THE WILY GANDHI ,was adamant,that musilms and hindus exist together,as a single nation,i.e under a hindu Raj.
        BUT, further on Mr.Jinnah does say in the same speech,that, he is being unjustly condemned as the worst,”musalman”in this country…………”.
        This book compiled by the efforts of,Dr.Sarfraz hussain mirza,under,a tittle of ,”We are a Nation” has around 197 pages. to read it all would need time.
        Thankyou, sameeh, but no where i found,what you had stated or the remarks which are attributed to MR jinnah. ????
        but thanks, all the same for providing a new window,to study.

  • Kaukab Rizvi  On August 20, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    Politically and socially, Turkey has changed a lot since Mutafa Kemal, and so has Pakistan since Jinnah. But the difference is Mustafa Kemal, if he were to return today, would still be able to recognize the country he created 80 odd years ago. The country is still called Turkish Republic, the name given by him. It has the same territorial boundaries; and secularism (the centerpiece of Kemal’s reforms) is still protected by the constitution even though it has come under some pressure lately by the headscarf lobby. On the other hand, I doubt if Jinnah would recognize the country he left behind — neither territorially nor ideologically. Quadi Azam had left behind a much larger country with a short name, Pakistan. Today, he will find a lot smaller country with much longer name — Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
    Turkey, it seems, is gradually beginning to emerge from the shadows of the armed forces and moving towards a stable democracy. It had two peaceful and free elections in a row.
    And the Armed Forces are, hopefully, learning to live with civilian governments in command. All indications are Turkey will remain politically stable in the foreseeable future.
    Turkey’s secularism is a bit different than the secularism that we see in Eruope or USA. It’s a bit aggressive kind of secularism, which, when introduced, might have had a rationale but it is beginning to present some problems. For example, women with headscarves are not allowed in schools, colleges and government buildings. It so happens that the new First Lady wears a headscarf. She can and will live in the President House but cannot participate in any reception held there. That’s sound funny. Doesn’t it. They will have to do something about it. A Turkish columnist, Mustafa Akyol, put it very nicely:

    “Secular democracy should be neutral. It should not take sides with any religion — nor against any religion”.
    The New York Times, in a an editorial in 2007, summed the emerging situation in Turkey in the following words, some of which are also relevant to Pakistan:

    Though nearly all of Turkey’s 70 million people identify themselves as Muslim, the Turkish Constitution calls for strict secularity in public life. The insistence on secularism, in place since the country’s founding in 1923, was intended to counter what were viewed as anti-modern strains within Islam that impeded development. Over time, however, it led to the entrenchment of a secular ruling elite and the exclusion of more openly devout Muslims. In recent years, that observant group – which also accounts for much of the Turkish middle class – has fought back at the ballot box and scored victories.

    Secular Turks have been understandably anxious about the ascendancy of Mr. Gul’s Justice and Development party. Widely known for its Islamist roots, the party now holds all the top offices in government. Mr. Gul himself has attracted a great deal of attention because his wife wears the Muslim headscarf, a visceral affront to some secularists.

    They fear that religion may creep into government and then into their own lives, encroaching on precious freedoms such as women’s rights. Mr. Gul and his party have pledged to maintain a secular government, and their five-year record in power so far – a time of economic growth and legal reforms that have brought Turkey closer to joining the European Union – suggests that they will keep their word.
    The military, which has toppled four elected governments since 1960, waves the banner of Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, in its ferocious embrace of secularism. But Ataturk’s ultimate goal was for Turkey to become a Western-style democracy. And in such a democracy, the military exists to serve the government, not the other way around.
    I hope I will not be castigated for saying this, but Jinnah(I admire the man not only for creating a homeland for us but also other qualities) was not without faults like anyone else.
    I quote M J Akbar in his write up:
    JINNAH : disturbed spirit
    Mohammad Ali Jinnah, aristocrat by temperament, catholic in taste, sectarian in politics, and the father of Pakistan, was the unlikeliest parent that an Islamic republic could possibly have. He was the most British of the generation of Indians that won freedom in August 1947. As a child in the elite Christian Mission High School in Karachi, he changed his birthday from 20 October to Christmas Day. As a student at Lincoln’s Inn, he anglicised his name from Jinnahbhai to Jinnah. For three years, between 1930 and 1933, he went into voluntary exile in Hampstead, acquired a British passport, set up residence with his sister Fatimah and daughter Dina, hired a British chauffeur [Bradley] for his Bentley, kept two dogs [a black Doberman and a white West Highland terrier], indulged himself at the theatre [he had once wanted to be a professional actor so that he could play Hamlet] and appeared before the Privy Council to maintain himself in the style to which he was accustomed. He wore Savile Row suits, heavily starched shirts and two-tone leather or suede shoes. Official portraits in Pakistan present him in a more “Islamic” costume, but the first time he wore a lambskin cap and sherwani was on 15 October 1937 when he presided over the Lucknow session of the Muslim League. He was 61 years old.
    Despite being the Quaid-e-Azam, or the Great Leader of Muslims, he drank a moderate amount of alcohol and was embarrassingly unfamiliar with Islamic methods of prayer. He was uncomfortable in any language but English, and made his demand for Pakistan — in 1940 at Lahore — in English, despite catcalls from an audience that wanted to hear Urdu. His excuse was ingenious: since the world press was in attendance, he said, it was only right that he speak in a world language. The brilliant lawyer was never short of a convincing argument.

    He married a beautiful young Parsi girl, Ruttie Petit, child of a wealthy non-Muslim Bombay business family who was disowned by her parents for marrying outside her faith. Ruttie wore fresh flowers in her hair, silk dresses, headbands that sparkled with diamonds, rubies and emeralds, and smoked English cigarettes in ivory holders. The marriage frayed, but it produced a daughter, Dina, who loved her father but was more reticent about the nation he created. Dina stayed back in India, and must have been the only Indian to wave a Pakistani flag from her balcony on 14 August 1947. In an incident poignant with Wodehousian overtones, Jinnah, who wore a monocle as a young barrister, recalled his first “friction with the police” to his biographer, Hector Bolitho [Jinnah, Creator of Pakistan, John Murray, 1954]. It was during an Oxbridge boat race: “I was with two friends and we were caught up with a crowd of undergraduates. We found a cart in a side street, so we pushed each other up and down the roadway, until we were arrested and taken off to the police station … [and] let off with a caution.” It was the only time Jinnah went to jail. In contrast, the first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, who gave up Savile Row for unshaped homespun cotton, spent half the years between 1920 and 1947 in a series of British prisons.

    1920 was a seminal year of the freedom movement, for Mahatma Gandhi took over its leadership and launched the non-cooperation, or Khilafat, movement with a marriage of two currents: the overall anger against British colonisation and the Muslim outrage against the defeat of the Caliph of Muslims, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, and the fall of the holy cities, Mecca and Medina, to the British in the First World War. When Gandhi allied with the ulema, and challenged the rule of law, Jinnah, a pre-eminent leader of the Congress as well as the Muslim League, objected. He walked out of the Nagpur session of the Congress rather than endorse Gandhi’s leadership. As he said, “Well, young man. I will have nothing to do with this pseudo-religious approach to politics. I part company with Congress and Gandhi. I do not believe in working up mob hysteria.”

    The young man was a journalist, Durga Das. The older man was Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The reference is from Durga Das’ classic book, India from Curzon to Nehru and After. Jinnah said this after the 1920 Nagpur session, where Gandhi’s non-cooperation resolution was passed almost unanimously. Jinnah’s decision was entirely in character with his liberal-secular record.

    On 1 October 1906, 35 Muslims of “noble birth, wealth and power” called on the fourth Earl of Minto, Curzon’s successor as Viceroy of India. They were led by the Aga Khan and used for the first time a phrase that would dominate the history of the subcontinent in the 20th century: the “national interests” of Indian Muslims. They wanted help against an “unsympathetic” Hindu majority. They asked, very politely, for proportional representation in jobs and separate seats in councils, municipalities, university syndicates and high court benches. Lord Minto was happy to oblige. The Muslim League was born in December that year at Dhaka, chaired by Nawab Salimullah Khan, who had been too ill to join the 35 in October. The Aga Khan was its first president.

    The Aga Khan wrote later that it was “freakishly ironic” that “our doughtiest opponent in 1906” was Jinnah, who “came out in bitter hostility toward all that I and my friends had done. He was the only well-known Muslim to take this attitude. He said that our principle of separate electorates was dividing the nation against itself”. ON PRECISELY the same dates that the League was formed in Dhaka, Jinnah was in nearby Calcutta with 44 other Muslims and roughly 1,500 Hindus, Christians and Parsis, serving as secretary to Dadabhai Naoroji, president of the Indian National Congress. Dadabhai was too ill to give his address, which had been partially drafted by Jinnah and was read out by Gopal Krishna Gokhale.

    Sarojini Naidu, who met the 30-year-old Jinnah for the first time here, remembered him as a symbol of “virile patriotism”. Her description is arguably the best there is: “Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emancipation, languid and luxurious of habit, Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s attenuated form is a deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance. Somewhat formal and fastidious, and a little aloof and imperious of manner, the calm hauteur of his accustomed reserve but masks, for those who know him, a naïve and eager humanity, an intuition quick and tender as a woman’s, a humour gay and winning as a child’s, a shy and splendid idealism which is of the very essence of the man.”

    Jinnah entered the Central Legislative Council in Calcutta [the capital of British India then] on 25 January 1910, along with Gokhale, Surendranath Banerjea and Motilal Nehru. Lord Minto expected the Council to rubber stamp “any measures we may deem right to introduce”. Jinnah’s maiden speech shattered such pompousness. He rose to defend another Gujarati working for his people in another colony across the seas, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Jinnah expressed “the highest pitch of indignation and horror at the harsh and cruel treatment that is meted out to Indians in South Africa”. Minto objected to a term such as “cruel treatment”. Jinnah responded at once: “My Lord! I should feel much inclined to use much stronger language.” Lord Minto kept quiet.

    On 7 March 1911 Jinnah introduced what was to become the first non-official Act in British Indian history, the Wakf Validating Bill, reversing an 1894 decision on wakf gifts. Muslims across the Indian empire were grateful. Jinnah attended his first meeting of the League in Bankipur in 1912, but did not become a member. He was in Bankipur to attend the Congress session. When he went to Lucknow a few months later as a special guest of the League [it was not an annual session], Sarojini Naidu was on the platform with him. The bitterness that divided India did not exist then. Dr M.A. Ansari, Maulana Azad and Hakim Ajmal Khan attended the League session of 1914, and in 1915, the League tent had a truly unlikely guest list: Madan Mohan Malviya, Surendranath Banerjea, Annie Besant, B.G. Horniman, Sarojini Naidu and Mahatma Gandhi. When Jinnah did join the League in 1913, he insisted on a condition, set out in immaculate English, that his “loyalty to the Muslim League and the Muslim interest would in no way and at no time imply even the shadow of disloyalty to the larger national cause to which his life was dedicated” [Jinnah: His Speeches and Writings, 1912-1917, edited by Sarojini Naidu]. Gokhale that year honoured Jinnah with a phrase that has travelled through time: it is “freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will make him [Jinnah] the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity”. In the spring of 1914 Jinnah chaired a Congress delegation to London to lobby Whitehall on a proposed Council of India Bill.

    When Gandhi landed in India in 1915, Jinnah, as president of the Gujarat Society [the mahatmas of both India and Pakistan were Gujaratis], spoke at a garden party to welcome the hero of South Africa. Jinnah was the star of 1915. At the Congress and League sessions, held in Mumbai at the same time, he worked tirelessly with Congress president Satyendra Sinha and Mazharul Haque [a Congressman who presided over the Muslim League that year] for a joint platform of resolutions. Haque and Jinnah were heckled so badly at the League session by mullahs that the meeting had to be adjourned. It reconvened the next day in the safer milieu of the Taj Mahal Hotel. The next year Jinnah became president of the League for the first time, at Lucknow.

    Motilal Nehru, in the meantime, worked closely with Jinnah in the Council. When the munificent Motilal convened a meeting of fellow-legislators at his handsome mansion in Allahabad in April, he considered Jinnah “as keen a nationalist as any of us. He is showing his community the way to Hindu-Muslim unity”. It was from this meeting in Allahabad that Jinnah went for a vacation to Darjeeling and the summer home of his friend Sir Dinshaw Manockjee Petit [French merchants had nicknamed Dinshaw’s small-built grandfather petit and it stuck] and met 16-year-old Ruttie. I suppose a glorious view of the Everest encouraged romance. When Ruttie became 18 she eloped and on 19 April 1918 they were married. Ruttie’s Parsi family disowned her, she separated from Jinnah a decade later. [The wedding ring was a gift from the Raja of Mahmudabad.]

    As president Jinnah engineered the famous Lucknow Pact with Congress president A.C. Mazumdar. In his presidential speech Jinnah rejoiced that the new spirit of patriotism had “brought Hindus and Muslims together for the common cause”. Mazumdar announced that all differences had been settled, and Hindus and Muslims would make a “joint demand for a Representative Government in India”. Enter Gandhi, who never sat in a legislature, and believed passionately that freedom could only be won by a non-violent struggle for which he would have to prepare the masses.

    IN 1915 Gokhale advised Gandhi to keep “his ears open and his mouth shut” for a year, and see India. Gandhi stopped in Calcutta on his way to Rangoon and spoke to students. Politics, he said, should never be divorced from religion. The signal was picked by Muslims planning to marry politics with religion in their first great campaign against the British empire, the Khilafat movement.

    Over the next three years Gandhi prepared the ground for his version of the freedom struggle: a shift from the legislatures to the street; a deliberate use of religious imagery to reach the illiterate masses through symbols most familiar to them [Ram Rajya for the Hindus, Khilafat for the Muslims]; and an unwavering commitment to the poor peasantry, for whom Champaran became a miracle. The massacre at Jallianwala Bagh in 1919 provided a perfect opportunity; Indian anger reached critical mass. Gandhi led the Congress towards its first mass struggle, the Non-Cooperation Movement of 1921.

    The constitutionalist in Jinnah found mass politics ambitious, and the liberal in him rejected the invasion of religion in politics. When he rose to speak at the Nagpur session in 1920, where Gandhi moved the non-cooperation resolution, Jinnah was the only delegate to dissent till the end among some 50,000 “surging” Hindus and Muslims. He had two principal objections. The resolution, he said, was a de facto declaration of swaraj, or complete independence, and although he agreed completely with Lala Lajpat Rai’s indictment of the British Government he did not think the Congress had, as yet, the means to achieve this end; as he put it, “it is not the right step to take at this moment. You are committing the Indian National Congress to a programme which you will not be able to carry out”. [Gandhi, after promising swaraj within a year, withdrew the Non-Cooperation Movement in the wake of communal riots in Kerala and of course the famous Chauri Chaura incident in 1922. Congress formally adopted full independence as its goal only in 1931.] His second objection was that non-violence would not succeed. In this Jinnah was wrong.

    There is a remarkable sub-text in this speech, which has never been commented upon, at least to my knowledge. When Jinnah first referred to Gandhi, he called him “Mr Gandhi”. There were instant cries of “Mahatma Gandhi”. Without a moment’s hesitation, Jinnah switched to “Mahatma Gandhi”. Later, he referred to Mr Mohammad Ali, the more flamboyant of the two Ali Brothers, both popularly referred to as Maulana. There were angry cries of “Maulana”. Jinnah ignored them. He referred at least five times more to Ali, but each time called him only Mr Mohammad Ali.

    Let us leave the last word to Gandhi. Writing in Harijan of 8 June 1940, Gandhi said, “Quaid-e-Azam himself was a great Congressman. It was only after the non-cooperation that he, like many other Congressmen belonging to several communities, left. Their defection was purely political.” In other words, it was not communal. It could not be, for almost every Muslim was with Gandhi when Jinnah left the Congress.

    HISTORY MIGHT be better understood if we did not treat it as a heroes-and-villains movie. Life is more complex than that. The heroes of our national struggle changed sometimes with circumstances. The reasons for the three instances I cite are very different; their implications radically at variance. I am not making any comparisons, but only noting that leaders change their tactics. Non-violent Gandhi, who broke the empire three decades later, received the Kaiser-I-Hind medal on 3 June 1915 [Tagore was knighted the same day] for recruiting soldiers for the war effort. Subhas Bose, ardently Gandhian in 1920, put on uniform and led the Indian National Army with support from Fascists. Jinnah, the ambassador of unity, became a partitionist.

    The question that should intrigue us is why. Ambition and frustration are two reasons commonly suggested in India, but they are not enough to create a new nation. Jinnah made the demand for Pakistan only in 1940, after repeated attempts to obtain constitutional safeguards for Muslims and attempts at power-sharing had failed. What happened, for instance, to the Constitution that the Congress was meant to draft in 1928? On the other hand, Congress leaders felt that commitments on the basis of any community would lead to extortion from every community. The only exception made was for Dalits, then called Harijans.

    Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who remained opposed to partition even after Nehru and Patel had accepted it as inevitable, places one finger on the failed negotiations in United Provinces after the 1936-37 elections, and a second on the inexplicable collapse of the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 which would have kept India united — inexplicable because both the Congress and the Muslim League had accepted it. The plan did not survive a press conference given by Nehru. But to blame Nehru alone is completely erroneous. He had just been named Congress president, replacing Azad, since the party president would head any interim Government pending freedom. But he was hardly the supreme authority in the party. Gandhi could have intervened at any moment, but did not. Nehru had strong reservations about the right of the units to secede; Jinnah may have accepted a “moth-eaten” Pakistan but Nehru was not ready to accept a “moth-eaten” India. Azad disagreed, arguing the classic Congress case that since communalism was a British poison, it would ebb once Indians ruled their own state; he was ready, in other words, to give Indians a chance to prove that communalism was a passing phenomenon and flourish as a united nation.

    Jinnah responded with the unbridled use of the communal card, and there was no turning back. His protest culminated in the call for Direct Action; this in turn engendered the carnage of the Calcutta riots; which, in turn, led to the massacres of Bihar riots. The prospects of unity were washed away in the blood on the streets and mudpaths. A deeply saddened Gandhi spurned 15 August 1947 as a false dawn [to quote Faiz]. He spent the day not in celebrations in Delhi but in fasting at Calcutta. Thanks to Gandhi — and H.S. Suhrawardy — there were no communal riots in Calcutta in 1947.

    Facts are humbling. They prevent you from jumping to conclusions.

  • naveed tajammal  On August 20, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    Dear Kaukab,
    It is a interesting revealing reading,However,leaving aside the other face of Mr.Jinnah,can i assume,that you are implying that, the Partition should Not have taken place ??

    • Kaukab Rizvi  On August 20, 2010 at 7:31 pm

      Not at all, I am trying to see Jinnah in terms of his admiration & subscribing to admiration of Jinnah.

  • viqar  On August 20, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    Are we not mixing up things? we started with secularism and not the history of Turkey or the history of making of Pakistan. Pakistan was made possible through the efforts of secular leaders while the religious leaders with out exception, opposed the creation of Pakistan. Pakistan was made for the Muslims to lead life according to their will with out overwhelming interference of the greater majority. only a secular system will satisfy such a demand where Suni, Shia, Wahabi, non-Muslims and non-believers all could live and contribute to the society. If such a system was followed we would have not needed to guard the Mosques of various sects. In short, in modern Secular system “Hate” is discouraged and “Tolerance” encouraged. Laws are made for the common good of every citizen; religious freedom is guaranteed to all. Not necessarily, the Western Secularism is perfect. They invariably show prejudice to Islam specially, in Europe. If religion is left to the individuals, each person will strive to display the best face of his or her belief.

    • naveed tajammal  On August 21, 2010 at 5:47 am

      Dear Viqar,
      I will agree,with you on the score,that this write up deals with,the subject heading,that secularism,is another face of the masonic lodges,however,none have discussed who are the people who adhere to the call of the masonic lodges,and why so ? yes,the history,being the background of the founding fathers will be part of any group discussion,as is always,as for an analogy the balkanization ,of the ottoman empire,has been given,and in-between are similarities seen in the efforts to do same to us,the destruction of ‘yenicheri’ was the leading cause,followed by the flower of the ottoman army,a 100 years later, in the snows of Caucasian mountains,courtesy ,mustapha kamal.That is how the spirit and will of the nationhood was broken,these actors,have always existed.As to our leaders of a time now gone,being secular well now we are wiser,let us not confine ourselves to their perceptions or wisdom,definitions,of various terms undergo changes, as per the needs.as to the pecking order within the many schools of thought within the fold of islam,they have existed,recall the ‘ Mu’tazilite’s”, and the third option.but do also keep in mind the object of any group discussion which i feel, is, the interaction with different mindsets,and from them we learn,their point of view,the deductions are and will remain yours to conclude.

  • Syed Ataur Rahman  On August 20, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    I read Tajammal Sb spell bound. Some of the others who have commented are no less and provided excellent write ups, quotes and views. It is great education personally for me…
    Regards
    Ata

  • Javaid Ahmed  On August 20, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    A very well researched article and a lot of facts presented very clearly. Thanks for posting it.

  • SHWEBO  On August 21, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Simply splendid and at the same time very scary as you link history of Turkey with own country. It appears that history is repeating itself and we are ignorant. Balkanization theory is very much in circulation and Mustapha Kamal and Pashas’ characters are very much on the scene as we see our previous ruler who boasted of being impressed by Mustapha Kamal and the present one is no less than Pasha as he also claims to have ancestoral links with Turkey.

  • zubair  On August 22, 2010 at 10:17 am

    To break Turkey, the West had to first destroy Janessaris. Is there a parallel here when the West is out to get to our ISI and the Army?
    Zubair

  • DIL  On March 22, 2014 at 11:10 am

    The YENNICHERI of the Ottoman Empire was destroyed by the Mehmud II and the YENNICHERI of Pakistan has weakened by the KIANI and now br SHAREEFS,,,,in order to balkanized,,,,,,

Trackbacks

  • By Eric S Brown Garage on August 21, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    Related……

    […]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[…]……

  • By Waldo Glos on November 16, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    newsletter software…

    […]Notification of usage of image[…]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: