Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:
1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.
2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests.
In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still, and pursue the same object. The last appellation of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.
Thomas Jefferson
A note to Henry Lee, Aug 10, 1824
Jinnah was the Aristocrat and Gandhi was the Democrat.
It was when Gandhi opened the doors of the Indian National Congress to everyone that Jinnah left the party.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is nonsense. Read "Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity" by Ian Bryant Wells on the life of Jinnah. It pooh poohs this notion that Jinnah was opposed to mass politics. Jinnah was opposed to spiritual tyranny that Gandhi represented... Jefferson was a committed activist against spiritual tyranny.
Jinnah was a self made barrister... it was Gandhi who was born with a silver spoon.
Jinnah's views on liberty, human rights, against emergency laws etc were all like Thomas Jefferson.
Jinnah was the crucial balance between the nationalists and the provincialists ... the Hindus and Muslims... much like Jefferson was the balance between federalists and anti-federalists.
Jinnah's 14 points contain all of the points that Jefferson suggested as amendments to Hamiltonian constitution... and that Madison finally pushed through.
Learn to read history in a proper manner...
I have Jinnah's collected speeches; I don't have to rely on Wells. The only way Jinnah becomes what you say is if he spoke in code, and did not mean what he said.
As to Gandhi with a silver spoon - haha, he had to take loans to complete his studies. Jinnah was born in a family much richer than Gandhi.
Your ignorance knows no limits Arun Gupta. Gandhi was born to Diwan of a Princely State. Jinnah's father was a merchant who went bankrupt. Your claim that Jinnah was born in a family much richer than Gandhi shows how far you will go distort the historical record. Shame on you Mr. Gupta.
Only a liar or a crook will deny that Jinnah's commitment to Human rights, fundamenal rights etc was much greater than Gandhi and this is based on Jinnah's speeches.
Jinnah's father went bankrupt well after Jinnah's education was completed, and does not change the fact that Jinnah's family was more prosperous than Gandhi's.
Jinnah on occasion made a pretty speech, but actions speak louder than words.
Post a Comment