Monday, 28 November 2011

Hasrat Mohani vs Mahatma Gandhi.

Though born to a lower middle class Jewish family, Rufus Isaacs, like Jinnah, rose to become one of the great barristers of his day. As a politician, he gathered up all the glittering prizes- he was a Cabinet Minister, Lord Chief Justice, an Ambassador to the U.S, and finally Viceroy of India.
His aim was to give India full provincial autonomy in return for co-operation from Indian politicians- hoping that the older moderates, many of whom had proven administrative talents, would school the young radicals in responsible government.
 Rufus Isaacs wished to use all his discretionary powers as Viceroy on the side of the Nationalists in India so as to prevent it turning into another Ireland- then experiencing the horrors of  Civil War. This was because, Rufus was a Liberal and his party had been torn apart over Ireland. Moreover, as a Jew, he hated racial or creedal animosity and well knew that they fester most when responsible, representative, self government is denied.
Meanwhile, Mahatma Gandhi had promised to deliver 'Swaraj' within a year, thus at last out-flanking Annie Beasant who was the great orator of the age. However, Gandhi refused to say what Swaraj actually meant.
Rufus Isaacs- or Lord Reading as that swindling Jew had taken to calling himself- tried to trick our great Mahatma into speeding up the handover of power by 15 years. However, Gandhiji- who, I may mention, was of purely Aryan descent- was able to see through this Semitic plot to get the British out of India. Not so, alas! Maulana Hasrat Mohani, the tender hearted Urdu poet as I read here.
Gandhi's true brilliance arises from his immaculate logic. Hindus and Muslims have different creeds. Maulana Hasrat had accepted the Muslim creed. Gandhi had accepted some creed or other- maybe even Hinduism. Since 'creeds aren't such simple things like clothes which a man can change at will and since, for creeds, people live from age to age', it therefore followed that one should go on demanding Swaraj, since that was the Congresswallah's creed and creeds must be kept up, but never give the British any opportunity or excuse for escaping from the burden of ruling India.
Nothing can bring about the 'absolute and indissoluble union of Hindus and Muslims'- since both are 'creeds' and 'creeds can't be changed at will and persist from age to age- it therefore follows that Indians should never accept Swaraj of any sort. They should non-cooperate with evil Jewish swindlers who are trying to make India self-governing so that it will become rich and import more goods and services from England.
This is the truly devilish aspect of Western Civilization as revealed by 'Hind Swaraj'. Those bastards not only rule over us, they also want to make us rule ourselves as that is the only way we can  become more prosperous and strong. Why? Only so they can make more money by selling things to us. Only so they can feel more secure by entering into defence pacts with us.
This is the true 'sitam zareefi' of the British tyrant. In Mohani's ghazals, we look in vain for such ingenuity on the part of the tyrant-beloved, in contriving chains for the hapless lover. But the Mahatma saw farther than the 'Progressive' poet. After all, he alone had, entirely gratuitously, offered his own life as a sacrifice on the battlefield for his King-Emperor, not once but three times.
The British broke Gandhi's heart. In the end, the bastards just left. Worse, they continue to rub salt in the wound by saying it was Gandhi who chased them away!
Not Mohani, not Firaq, only Ghalib could foresee such cruelty!


zaḳhm par chhiṛkeñ kahāñ t̤iflān-e be-parvā namak
kyā mazah hotā agar patthar meñ bhī hotā namak

Majnun, the thoughtless tots who wound you are not without fault
Ah! What pleasure would there be if their rocks too were salt?


Anonymous said...

The Nagpur resolution made an equation between Swaraj and Khilafat. Mahatma Gandhi's point was that to seek to define Swaraj more rigorously would naturally result in the demand for a more rigorous definition of Khilafat.
History shows that the Mahatma was right. Every attempt to define the content of Swaraj- e.g. the Nehru report- proved divisive esp. on communal lines.
Khilafat itself proved a pipe dream as the Turks had been moving in a Nationalist, as opposed to Islamist, direction and this trend accelerated with the abolition of the Caliphate, the adoption of the la din (Latin) alphabet, the banning of the fez, etc.

windwheel said...

I suppose Nagpur was particularly important to Gandhi. Jinnah had been booed off the stage for refusing to call him Mahatma. Annie Beasant's silk robes no longer swished in the background. No one was interested in her Tibetan Mahatmas on the astral plane. Henceforth, Khaddar was to go hand in hand with Khilafat. Stuff Gandhi hated- like kids doing well at high ~School or College, lawyers doing well in legal practice, clever people talking to clever people in drawing rooms- was condemned by the Congress. Nagpur gave Gandhi everything he wanted. Things could only go downhill from there.
The British couldn't be trusted not to follow up Jallianwallah with Dominion status, just as they had followed up the Concentration camps of the Boer War with just handing South Africa to Smuts and his ilk.
The 'coolie' issue and the Pass laws and so on, was supposed to be a stick for the Brits at Westminster to beat the Boers with. But Smuts used the 'yellow peril' argument to chuck out the Chinese so as to show the mine owners who was boss. Ultimately, Gandhi played into his hands and helped humanize him. Come to think of it, Smuts wasn't much cop as a lawyer/negotiator either. At least not initially. Finally Lord Roberts stopped him tying himself into sillier and sillier knots by saying 'don't sweat it mon,' (Bobs was a Jamaican rapper)'the Liberals will be back in next election.'
The truth is provincial politics under the Pax Brittanica was as dull as ditch-water. Gandhi spiritualized politics by apotheosizing utter fatuity.
Enoch Powell said all political careers end in failure. Gandhi's was conceived in sheer sententious stupidity, was self-manured by failure piled upon abject failure, yet ended trailing clouds of glory.

Anonymous said...

Gandhiji emphasized soul force and satyagraha because the knew 'power corrupts.' His only mistake was to put the matter in religious terms by saying Hindus and Muslims should have indissoluble unity. The fact is if he had plainly stated that the politicians of India, regardless of caste or creed, would cut each others' throats and divide the country for their personal gain and grip on power, then the news would have been too unwelcome. The real damage to Hindu Muslim unity was created by greedy politicians who had zero interest in religion.