Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad: A single man

Published: February 23, 2011

“These two countries [India and Pakistan] will now focus on the military and society will not develop,” predicted Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad in a well-known speech in Delhi.

The man who uttered these words was as free as his name suggests. An opponent of the partition of united India, people living on either side of the Indo-Pak border both adore him and criticise his views. Not only did he criticise partition, he went on to condemn all those who played a role in the historic events of August 1947.

He questioned whether Jinnah could actually be a Muslim leader, citing his westernised lifestyle. He ridiculed Gandhi’s ideals of non-violence. He opposed Nehru’s biased attitude towards Indian Muslims and denounced his relationship with Lady Mountbatten. Above all, he heaped criticism on Vallabhai Patel, whom he considered the prime architect of Partition.

Watching the play “Maulana Azad” in Delhi last month not only introduced me to Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad’s philosophy, but also gave me the opportunity to understand his vision. Written and directed by M Sayeed Alam, “Maulana Azad” was a solo performance by renowned Indian actor Tom Alter, who is known to audiences as the green-eyed gora who speaks impeccable Urdu and plays most of the ‘foreigner’ roles in Indian TV dramas.  “Maulana Azad” is a two-and-a-half hour long monologue and Alter carries its stupendous weight effortlessly. Making excellent use of props and displaying superb tonality, Alter animates the history of the subcontinent brilliantly, leaving the audience spellbound.

Throughout the play, Maulana Azad dictates notes to his friend and secretary, Humayun Kabir. The book that is being drafted is Azad’s autobiography, India Wins Freedom. The agreement between Humayun and Azad binds Azad to speak only in Urdu. This makes the play a treat to the ears: the audience gets to hear impeccable Urdu sprinkled with strains of Arabic and Persian. When Azad drifts away from political discussion to an entire gamut of non-political affairs ranging from white jasmine tea to his love for his wife, from music to the holy city of Mecca, and from cigarettes to the jailer Cheeta Khan, the play becomes doubly amusing.

Presenting a balanced version of history, the script allows the audience to glimpse a clear picture of Azad’s multi-dimensional personality, including his sense of humour, the poet within, his ego and his uniquely balanced commentary on the political events and personalities of his times. The audience is also introduced to various political dilemmas the leaders of those times had to face.

During the play, Azad criticises Jinnah for using religion for political ends, but this is balanced by his mentioning that Jinnah was left with no other choice but to do so – and that it was actually the top tier of Congress that transformed Jinnah, a champion of Hindu-Muslim unity, into Quaid-e-Azam, a leader who considers nothing but partition to be the solution for the Muslims of India. Azad also confesses to having made the biggest mistake in his life by choosing Nehru as his successor as the President of Congress. But then he quickly adds that Nehru would also agree with that statement. He appreciates Gandhi for being principled but expresses his extreme disappointment on his stance on partition and how the Vallabhai Patel-Jawaharlal Nehru-Lord Mountbatten trio influenced his political decision-making.

His basic argument against partition is that it would be a major loss to Muslims on both sides. On the Indian side, Muslims would lose their majority and on Pakistan’s side, the Muslim population would not be able to compete with India nor would it be able to solve the issues of Indian Muslims. He believed that partition would give birth to two states that would always be in confrontation with each other.

The real Maulana Azad’s views earned him a contentious status in both India and Pakistan. Many Pakistanis consider his ideas of secularism and nationalism to be against Islam. In India, he is also criticised by many for not doing enough to prevent partition. But after watching Alter’s captivating performance on stage, you don’t really care about how politically incorrect or offensive Maulana Azad must have been at his time. You just wish you could’ve met him, even just once.

Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine, February 20th, 2011.

Reader Comments (41)

  • Rehan
    Feb 23, 2011 - 7:35PM

    Pakistanis will never accept that the first Education Minister of India was a greater personality than the founder of Pakistan.Recommend

  • Talha
    Feb 23, 2011 - 8:20PM

    Now before some Indian comes along and posts a link to the interview of Maulana Azad with Shorish Kashmiri, its best to state beforehand that the interview is fake and was manufactured by Kashmiri in the early 70′s. Forged Interview – Kashmiri & AzadRecommend

  • PakiIndian
    Feb 24, 2011 - 12:06AM

    If people like Azad and Bacha Khan (Abdul Ghafar Khan) would have been heard, the situation of “Great Indians” regardless of religious backgrounds would have been quite different.Recommend

  • Malik Wazir
    Feb 24, 2011 - 12:13AM

    @Rehan: It matters very little who, among great personalities was greater. The fact is that not Pakistanis, but Muslims of India chose for their leader a middle-class, thoroughly westernised (in outward appearance) Kathiawari lawyer who couldn’t even speak their language and always chose to address them in English only over a true-blue aristocrat of Mughal and Meccan Arab descent who spoke not only the most crisp Urdu but also Arabic and Farsi as his mother tongues and was thoroughly well versed in their religion. That says something.
    And no, when Muslims of India discarded Maulana Azad as their leader, Jinnah had no pretensions of returning to India to take up the leadership, so there is no competition there.Recommend

  • Malik Wazir
    Feb 24, 2011 - 12:37AM

    After reading this article I’m left with a intense desire to see this play. It sounds marvellous. One must try to make distinction over artistic representation of a personality on stage and the reality. The article does a fair job of differentiating between the man and the character but readers haven’t taken the cue, it seems.
    For the sake of setting the record, it is well worth keeping in mind, when criticising Jinnah that right up to January 1947 Jinnah tried to find the best formula to both avoid a caesarian partition and yet find ways of providing constitutional safeguards for India’s Muslim population which he deemed essential in the forthcoming democracy. His acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan was to the same end. Moreover, Jinnah, unlike all other Indian leaders, did not rely on inflaming communal or nationalist sentiments. That was his main contention with Gandhi in fact. Until Direct Action Day of August 46, and then, it is not only argued, but spelt out by Jinnah himself, only because there was no option left, as the character of Azad in the above play also suggests.
    In my opinion, the main reason I can see of Azad’s failing as a leader (though it is very hard to judge reason behind public sentiment unless a thorough ethnographic study is done) was his joining and supporting Khilafat Movement and promoting nationalism. ‘Once bitten twice shy’ as they say, and the public, especially Muslims had, after wholeheartedly supporting the Johar brothers initially, seen their dismal performance and how their high horses had no connection with the ground. They were not going to fall for it again.
    This is popular failing. On an intellectual level, one is amazed though, how such a thoroughly sophisticated, highly cultured and so vastly educated man, completely at home with religious sciences rationalised the most flawed and sham philosophy on which Johar brothers based their various flights of fantasy (better known as movements). India is dar-al-harb and Muslims must migrate… where? to Afghanistan… and we know what happened to those poor hapless souls who did migrate. Osmali Khialafat is about to be usurped by vicious, unforgiving Christian European powers, we must suport them: give your jewelry, your money, to send to Istanbul. The Young Turks were elated. Ataturk said ‘Thank you very much, and please don’t worry about us, we have stood against the vicious christians and saved ourselves by sacking our Khalifa. But thanks anyhow for floating our national bank, for without your donations, Republic of Turkey would have had the most tough time.’ Apart from the inherent flawed logic of these movements, what surprises me is that how Maulana Azad reconciled this with his secular principles? Surely he was more knowledgeable than that.
    We all have skeletons in our closets. It’s best to leave them there.Recommend

  • Feb 24, 2011 - 1:39AM

    I am assuming that the author is a Pakistani Muslim. Why I am saying this is because only a Pakistani will say something like “heaped criticism on Patel” and not say anthing to qualify that statement. And only a Pakistani would say ” balanced by his mentioning that Jinnah was left with no other choice but to do so”. I excuse the author because his hero is Jinnah and every person is entitled to hero worship.

    I have read Maulana’s riveting book (one of the best for that era) and you are right he criticises Patel and Nehru. But as an Indian, and yes, they are my heroes, I know that these gentlemen for all their faults were working towards a secular India where citizens would be equal under the law. Not a bad goal. And if you could remove your blinkers for sometime, I would recommend that you read an account of how Patel and Menon with Mountbatten’s help went about getting the over 600 odd princely states and their self-serving rulers to ruthlessly fall in line. Funnily enough, the ruler of kashmir would have received a better deal if he had acceded to Pakistan since Jinnah had given one ruler (Jodhpur I think) a blank sheet of paper on which to write his demands (Source : Freedom at Midnight)Recommend

  • Vin
    Feb 24, 2011 - 3:20AM

    Imagine India+Pakistan+Bangladesh+ Afghanistan+nepal+Bhutan+Srilanka+Maldives being one UNION of nations… combined population would be close to 1.7 billion and access to middle east where oil and cultural links would gaurantee supply of oil and other energy resources… A population of 1.7 billion is the largest market in teh world and teh whole world would have bent head over heels to appease us and cater for us….This subconitnent could have beaten China, US, and Europe if we learn to live in peace…
    I pray that all religion intolerance and the words such as Kafir etc must not be taught to kids and teh future generation.. please teach all your children to love all as children of God and all religions as Religions of God…
    Indian Subcontinent must prosper and become Soney ki Chidiya once again …Recommend

  • Sardar Khan
    Feb 24, 2011 - 5:49AM

    Listen to the great man Abul Kalam Azad…here:


    Recommend

  • Truth Prevails
    Feb 24, 2011 - 8:49AM

    Reality : Pakistan and India are two sepaarte countries now. Todo: We all need to live together peacefully. Ultimately having a single currency and still maintaining our identities politicial, social or religious. There is quite a lot of synergy out there that wil benefit both the nations but alas poitical pandits on both sides wouldn’t want this to happen fearing a loss of vote bank!Recommend

  • Talha Masood
    Feb 24, 2011 - 10:20AM

    Listening and rationally thinking about the decisions made in partition era make me confuse! of what is right or what was wrong! :s

    But anyways, whatever had to happen already did happen. Now the both countries should move forward and should improve their inter-relationship. Extermism from both side of the border should be controlled by not only the respective governments but also by the common men….as it has never paid us anything except volience and instability……lets try moderation! (to both of my fellows in Pakistan and India)Recommend

  • Ramin
    Feb 24, 2011 - 11:03AM

    Did he say that Pakistan will become a terrorist state?Recommend

  • Hello
    Feb 24, 2011 - 11:21AM

    two nation theroy is DEAD…Recommend

  • Probyn
    Feb 24, 2011 - 12:44PM

    @Rehan:
    Ofcourse…this is only your own opinion!Recommend

  • Talha
    Feb 24, 2011 - 2:20PM

    @Rehan

    That is your opinion and not a fact.

    Greatness is personified in achieving the feats you set out to accomplish.

    While Jinnah succesfully managed to get opposing sects under one banner, he also created a nation with paramount opposition for a number of groups.

    In comparison Maulana Azad was not able to achieve what he wanted to.

    That is the difference and that is the reason some cannot digest to this day.

    Btw, a guy with the title Maulana will be more attractive to some, wouldn’ t it. Recommend

  • PakiIndian
    Feb 24, 2011 - 3:50PM

    I believe leaders from the past always leave behind their legacy in the form of their teachings and political visions…these great leaders wanted us (Pak-Ind-BD) as one Unit… it never happened and it may never be materialised in future but at least we may start thinking as “One”… United we stand!! we have been Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Budh from centuries..and there had been no reasons for splitting apart in the past, why suddenly in 20th century? because it was a need of the British Raj to keep the neo-Colonialism rolling…and so far its quite successful, unfortunately. Recommend

  • PakiIndian
    Feb 24, 2011 - 4:06PM

    @Talha
    well, i agree with you but upto certain extent e.g. the “formula” you have explained to fulfill the criteria of being a leader. however, the argument of Jinnah being successful based on the reason that he “created a nation” … is not very convincing. To be honest (being a Pakistani) Jinnah has got a support of the post-world war II affected and drained out British Raj, if i say it was the core objective of British to “divide” (and then rule) i believe many would agree to the statement despite a substantial opposition as matter of “text-books” dilemma. India is not the sole example of post-colonialism division but there are plenty others.Recommend

  • Vish
    Feb 24, 2011 - 4:29PM

    His name was Abul Kalam Azad not Abdul kalam AzadRecommend

  • M J Akbar
    Feb 24, 2011 - 4:52PM

    How come a person blames Gandhi for his non-violence??How come a person say that Jinnah was not a muslim because he was westernised??How come a person say that Jinnah had no way other than partition??who is this person?? no mention about him in histroy books..Recommend

  • ravi
    Feb 24, 2011 - 4:59PM

    @Vin:
    and how are you assuming to feed such a huge population?????
    Do replyRecommend

  • G.Din
    Feb 24, 2011 - 6:22PM

    @Rehan:
    “Pakistanis will never accept that the first Education Minister of India was a greater personality than the founder of Pakistan.”
    I do not, nor will want to, persuade you to think otherwise, for having a hero is better than having none at all since Pakistani movement was not blessed with any other leader of any stature. However, blind hero worship cannot be allowed to downgrade the stature of a decent man, a loyal and a principled friend, who served his country and faith much better than Jinnah did without being challenged.
    If one reads the biographies of the two dispassionately enough, there is no doubt that Abul Kalaam Azad was head and shoulders above a man who cartwheeled all over the place and somersaulted in his positions on all important matters repeatedly. I suggest (which can be proved quite easily) that Jinnah was no better than a garden variety opportunist shyster. And because he was so intelligent, brilliant and had the highest education in his field, he was successful in hoodwinking his followers before being exposed. His contemporaries recognized him for what he was – an undependable, untrustworthy, intensely competitive man who did not mind playing hookie with any principles he would start with. His followers also discovered this facet of his character just after Pakistan had been achieved. There were repeated attempts of assassinating him.
    Abul Kalaam Azaad and Jinnah – no contest!Recommend

  • Feb 24, 2011 - 7:46PM

    There are many versions on the division of India. But one thing is clear, it proved good for India and bad for Pakistan. Recommend

  • PakiIndian
    Feb 24, 2011 - 9:13PM

    @ravi:
    No one feeds no one in this world. its nature, nature knows how to maintain itself.Recommend

  • Balma
    Feb 25, 2011 - 12:24AM

    Someone here said that Jinnah was highly educated.
    He was not highly educated. His schooling was limited to ten years. the only formal education he had was matriculation…and, no it was not a high education level even in those days. Recommend

  • G.Din
    Feb 25, 2011 - 3:01AM

    @Balma:
    Jinnah was a Barrister at Law, a brilliant one at that. It was not easy in those days, especially for a man to become a barrister. He returned to England, having concluded that he had no future in Indian politics against the likes of Gandhi, Patel and Nehru, all charismatic figures, because he just did not have the charisma needed to lead Indians at that time. He was at one time considered, even given the title “the Best Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity” because he was staunchly secular and spoke against Gandhi in opposition to Muslim issues. While he was in England, Muslim League realized that rabble-rousing in the streets alone would not get them Pakistan; they needed a spokesman to negotiate with the British. Although Muslim League leaders had not much love for him, he was co-opted by Liaqat Ali Khan to be their spokesman. He even traveled to England to convince him to come back. Those very Muslim League leaders had called him “Kaafir-e-Azam”. But for Jinnah, it was another job. In the beginning, his convictions did not coincide with that of Muslim League. One wonders if they ever really did. He was diametrically opposite to that rabble-rousing crowd. For the most part he spoke English, hardly confirmed to the requirements of his faith in any matter, always was dressed immaculately, had his suits custom-tailored in England. This is the man his wife fell in love with and married, probably much against her (Parsi) family’s wishes. What a transformation took place in Jinnah! His wife must have been flabbergasted. She did not accompany him to Pakistan, never traveled there either.
    Since he was so different from all those “followers” around him, he probably felt all alone except for the fiercely loyal company of his sister, Fatima, who sacrificed a great deal for him.
    It was poignant to read about his wish to “return to my home in India” in an interview he gave just before his death.. He had a house in Mumbai which is now in bad repair.Recommend

  • Balma
    Feb 25, 2011 - 7:48PM

    Din Sahib,
    Thank you for the write up.
    In those days, one could practice law in England or in India(Pakistan) without going to a college. That is all what I stated. His formal education was limited to 10th class.

    Also, I don’t believe Muslim League guys ever called him Kafir-e-Azam. These were Jamat-e-Islami and Ahrar types who called him kafir.

    Whether he was a practicing Muslim or not does not really matter as far as Pakistan movement is concerned. Pakistan for him was the last option to protect social and economic interest of at least some Muslim population of India….I also believe that this option was froced upon him by Sardar PAtel and other RSS types who had infilterated Congress.

    Still, Pakistan and India don’t have to be enemies like Jamat Islami and RSS and VHP types believe.

    Jinnah’s house in India had been a source of contention between Pakistani and Indian governments for decades. Recently, I read somewhere that Nusli Wadia (a Bombay based Businessman who is Jinnah’s grandson) has staked his claim too to the house in Bandra.Recommend

  • Abdul-Mughis Rana
    Feb 25, 2011 - 10:34PM

    Pakistan is here! No point troubling over a done thing let’s look ahead now both Pak and India! Both must live as well behaved neighbours Insha ALLAH sensibility will prevail soon!Recommend

  • Talha
    Feb 26, 2011 - 4:19AM

    This G.Din seems to have his own manufactured version of history.

    Mullah Azad was a typical run of the mill Islamists trying to come across as the natural leader of Muslims, something he failed to achieve.

    His stature continued to diminish because he could not and was not able to carve a following for himself.

    Jinnah on the other hand was chosen by the best of all Muslims leaders of India.

    Some question for this Din guy.

    Who discovered this facet of his character ?

    Who tried to assassinate him after the partition?

    When did the Muslim League call him Kafir-e-Azam?

    There are so many nonsense comments in your post that its unfunny.

    Are you even serious?Recommend

  • jahangir khan
    Feb 26, 2011 - 11:13AM

    @Rehan:
    because pakistanies have been blinded by the version of history coined by pakistani historiansRecommend

  • master
    Feb 26, 2011 - 4:27PM

    In united india muslims were 2nd biggest population, they rule in india almost 700 years, after partition muslims power distribute in two countries. Recommend

  • Talha
    Feb 26, 2011 - 6:18PM

    Seems like Mr Din has his own skewed version of history.

    May I ask a few questions because your peculiar comments are quite infuriating.

    Firstly, when did Jinnah summersaulted on his positions?

    He was clear on his position and for this reason chosen as the natural leader of the Muslims of India when all others failed including Azad.

    When and which contemporaries recognized him?

    He was clearly held in a high position by his ‘contemporaries’, so much so that no one would dare listen to any comments against him.

    When did these repeated assassination attempts occur?

    The only attempt was pre partition by a religious group called Khaksars, a group aligned with the congress.

    Muslim Leaguers held him in the highest respect, he was chosen as the sole leader who could secure the right of Muslims and he did.

    The only people who called him Kafir were Deobandis, Ahraris and other congress supported groups.

    Btw, his wife passed away decades before Pakistan was created so I do not know what you are talking about.

    Your entire post is full of misinformation and oddly enough it has been published.Recommend

  • G.Din
    Feb 26, 2011 - 6:52PM

    @Balma:
    “In those days, one could practice law in England or in India(Pakistan) without going to a college.”
    I don’t mean to contradict you but it is a little hard to accept that a man with an education of 10th grade, no matter how much of a genius he may be, would find it possible to argue intricacies of law before people who are experts at nitpicking every argument to death. Besides, it is inconceivable for a highly stratified society like Britain’s of that time to allow any one, especially from subject colonies, not with a license to practice any profession to do so, let alone law.
    “I don’t believe Muslim League guys ever called him Kafir-e-Azam. These were Jamat-e-Islami and Ahrar types who called him kafir.”
    What I wanted to bring out was that he was not terribly popular with the Muslims whose case for a separate homeland he was arguing and rightly so because he opposed pro-Muslim positions even those Gandhi supported. He was essentially a loner who passionately believed that he was a brilliant man (which he was) and that should be all any one should demand of him. This is contrary to reality otherwise Einstein would have qualified to be the President of US.
    “Whether he was a practicing Muslim or not does not really matter as far as Pakistan movement is concerned.”
    Independence movements are not commissioned/contracted out to specialists/experts. They have to be people’s movements. That means their leaders must identify themselves with the masses they purport to represent. That is why, even though Gandhi was also a British qualified barrister and a successful one too , the first thing he did when he arrived in India was to get rid of his British persona and wrapped himself in a loincloth because that was how an average Indian, even the poorest of the poor, wrapped himself in. He traveled in third-class coaches. I am not faulting Jinnah for his lifestyle because I do believe that Jinnah never saw himself in the role of a leader of Muslims. He had been co-opted, as an advocate, to represent Muslims; he was not obliged to identify himself with them. It is only later when he could sense that the dream of Pakistan was likely to materialize, that he had a convenient, temporary change of heart. I advisedly use the word “convenient, temporary” because as soon as Pakistan was a reality, he took out his old fiddle and crooned the old song of “Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Issayee; aapas mein hein bhai-bhai”. This militated against the basis of Pakistan movement which was “la-ilah-e-illalah”. Muslims could not have been expected to put up with such chicanery, and they did not.
    “I also believe that this option was froced upon him by Sardar PAtel and other RSS types who had infilterated Congress.”
    That is your personal belief and I respect that. That does not mean that I agree with those.
    As regards Jinnah’s house in Mumbai, it is classified as an evacuee property and as such is owned by the Government of India. Since Jinnah, in his will, left all his worldly possessions to his sister, Fatima, no other of his relatives, his wife or daughter or their progeny could lay any claim over the property. Nusli’s claim has also been denied.
    One of the tragic fall-outs of Jinnah’s will was that amongst the inheritance that he had bequeathed to Fatima, he included “the leadership of Pakistan” as one. This effectively was a death warrant for her and she was asphyxiated to death soon after his death.
    Muslim rule in India, even in post-independence era, has resembled more in its characteristics Aurangzeb’s rule rather than Akbar’s.!Recommend

  • G.Din
    Feb 27, 2011 - 3:50AM

    @Talha:
    I am sorry if my comments infuriated you. I honestly did not intend those to have that effect.
    In India, we don’t think much of Jinnah. He was your leader. It is for Pakistanis to critically evaluate his contribution. I commented only because I felt our leader Abul Kalaam Azad was being disparagingly referred to as you have yourself done, too. I could respond to your points raised but this blog was started for Abul Kalaam Azaad, not Jinnah.
    I am sorry if I gave the impression about his wife Ruttie not traveling to Pakistan. It was Dina , his daughter, I was thinking about.
    For the rest, I stand by my comments. One of the references you might want to consult is “Political Conspiracies in Pakistan” by Jumna Das Akhtar. The author was a well-known journalist who traveled to Pakistan and interviewed Jinnah. The book has been out of print for a long time but you might be able to borrow a copy from your library. But, I am sure, you are not going to be convinced by him either. It is hard for any person to discover that the hero he adores has feet of clay. Recommend

  • Balma
    Feb 28, 2011 - 9:20PM

    I have been told that the first high commissioner of India to Pakistan in his book had published a letter from Jinnah to indian High commision in Karachi where Jinnah requested Indian government to protect his hosue in Bandra so he could retire there in old age!!???

    Anyone knows name of the first high commissioner of India and the name of his book where such letter was published (if true)Recommend

  • mohammad khan
    Feb 28, 2011 - 11:24PM

    @G.Din:
    this description is much more befitting on Nehru than Jinnah.Recommend

  • mohammad khan
    Mar 1, 2011 - 12:55AM

    @mohammad khan:
    this description is much more befitting on Nehru than Jinnah.To prove my point Nehru’s deceit and moral bankruptcy is quite evident from his affair with married woman lady Mountbatten. Recommend

  • Balma
    Mar 1, 2011 - 2:44AM

    Is his daughter Najma Hepatullah or something like that still a member of parliament in Dehli?
    How times change: Famous congress leader and congress president in 30′s Dr Ansari’s two grandson’s are ‘chaTTay huey ghunDay’ now… of course one is the member of parliament in Dehli and the other an assembly member in Lucknow — Both have murder cases against them. Per Wall Street Jounal article from a couple of years ago.Recommend

  • G.Din
    Mar 1, 2011 - 6:36PM

    @Balma:
    I am not aware of any such request to Govt. of India. I am not sure though that it would have been allowable under law since Jinnah (having become a Pakistani he had renounced Indian citizenship) would be a foreigner not allowed to own property in India.
    But such a request was really not necessary since his daughter, a citizen of India, was still living in India and he could have transferred the ownership of the house to her. It is also possible that Dina was much estranged from him and wanted nothing to do with her father – or his house.
    All in all, Jinnah’s life was for the most part tragic.

    @mohammad khan
    Nehru exuded charm and charisma. He mesmerized Gandhi and the whole Indian nation for all his adult life. To be frank, he was no visionary. But to fall in love with a married woman in a loveless marriage does not cause moral dilemma to either Hindus or Christians. However, it is a little bit too much for a Muslim to comment on such supposed moral depravity. Some would say that moral depravity as understood by Hindus and Christians, is institutionalized and codified in religious law in Islam.Recommend

  • SyedHanif Rasool
    Mar 1, 2011 - 6:37PM

    Azad,the true Mir e Karwan.How unfotunate our fore-fathers were who did not pay heed to his wordsRecommend

  • Balma
    Mar 1, 2011 - 7:54PM

    Nehru was so Muslimized, that fanatic and militant Hindus (I hate the term Hindu Nationalists for RSS types – the correct term is Hindu Fanatics) claim that Nehru was actually a son of Mulsim vakeel from Lucknow and not of Moti Lal Nehru:-)

    BTW, Mr. Din, I am curious where you found that it is ok for muslim men to fool around with another man’s wife? May be I will make a move if it is justified by some maulvi? ;-)Recommend

  • G.Din
    Mar 4, 2011 - 2:41AM

    @Balma:
    I never implied that “it is ok for muslim men to fool around with another man’s wife”. What I did not mention out of politeness is that “moral depravity as understood by Hindus and Christians, ” such as complete dehumanization of the Muslim female by the Muslim male “is institutionalized and codified in religious law in Islam.” You force her to remain ignorant and uneducated, cover herself in burqa, hijab and all other abominations, whip her even if her ankles show, publicly flog her, cut her body parts such as her nose or ears (read this issue of ET where a woman’s nose was cut because of her sister’s job), you stone her till death, do not allow her simple little pleasures of life and ask her to produce witnesses to the crime of rape. In short, she is not allowed to breathe free. She cannot go outdoors without a male escort and is not allowed to drive her own vehicle, no matter how rich she may be. This is the fate of one half of your population. She is not considered human at all. She lives a life of animals, owned first by her father/brother, then by her husband/sons.
    Brutalization of a human being is outrageous to all non-Muslims and diminishes not only Muslims but the whole human race. I do believe that the world shall not know peace until the Muslim female has been liberated from the deathly stranglehold of the bullying, despotic Muslim male!Recommend

  • G.Din
    Mar 4, 2011 - 2:56AM

    @Balma:
    “Nehru was so Muslimized, that fanatic and militant Hindus (I hate the term Hindu Nationalists for RSS types – the correct term is Hindu Fanatics) claim that Nehru was actually a son of Mulsim vakeel from Lucknow and not of Moti Lal Nehru:-)”
    To think that he was so Muslimized that his daughter cut down Islamic Republic of Pakistan to half its size and gleefully remarked something about the payback for 600 years of Muslim rule! HmmmmRecommend

More in Magazine