In recent interview, Ishtiaq Ahmad has claimed that Jinnah "supported" sovereign Dravidastan (also

known as Dravidian Movement). I want you to pay attention to the word "support" first before I go
in detail... Done? Now, on the subject matter: My friends informed me about this claim and I told
them that it was not a big deal. Even if Jinnah wanted it, it shouldn't concern us, as we should be
focused on liberalisation of Pakistan and not on issues of current Hindustan region. They told me
that it was not about Jinnah's motives but showing people how these dishonest "academics" lie, so
we can expose their lack of credibility for the sake of Secular Pakistan (which is also good for
neighboring Hindustan). Fair enough.

Just like Communist Party of India (which contained non Muslims as well), United Muslim Party (that
later merged into Muslim League) and Scheduled Castes Federation (which represented Dalit
Hindus), Tamil Nadu's Justice Party (which represented non-Brahmin Hindus against Caste Hindu
domination) also formed a temporary bloc with Muslim League because it challenged Congress'
Brahmin leadership and its right wing group based on Caste System and r#cial suprem#cy.

E.V. Ramasamy of Justice Party was an Indian social activist and politician who started the Self-
Respect Movement and Dravidar Kazhagam. He was known as the 'Father of the Dravidian
Movement.' He rebelled against Brahminical dominance and gender and caste inequality in Tamil
Nadu. He wanted Jinnah to directly support Dravidastan. On 17 August 1944, in his letter, Jinnah
politely refused to join the movement. The letter reads:

"I am in receipt of your letter of August 9, thank you for it. I have always had much sympathy for the
peoples of Madras, 90 per cent of whom are non-Brahmins, and if they desire to establish their
Dravidastan, it is entirely for your people to decide on this matter. I can say no more, and certainly I
cannot speak on your behalf. I have made the position clear to you and your colleagues when I was
in Madras more than once, but hitherto I have noticed that in your motives, you have been
undecisive. If the people of your province really want Dravidastan, then it is for them to assert
themselves. I hope you will understand my position that I can only speak for Muslim India but you
have assurance that wherever and whenever I have a say in the matter, you will find me supporting
any just and fair demand of any section of the peoples of India, particularly the non-Brahmins of
India."

Now there is another speech or interview from 1941. I can't confirm its authenticity but let's discuss
it anyway. I don't want to hide behind my favorite quotes and ignore the others (unlike them). In his
statements from 1941 (if they are authentic), Jinnah addresses Dravidastan Movement's leaders: "I
have every sympathy for you and I shall do all I can, to support you to establish Dravidastan. The
seven per cent of Muslims will stretch their hand of friendship to you and live with you on lines of
equality, justice and fair play." In same speech Jinnah also talks of two constitutions in India (for
Pakistan region and Hindustan region) instead of one, which we now know, was a call for a
confederation during interim/transfer of power period, as confederation is combination of multiple
sovereign states under one centre but they have their own constitutions. The centre is vague and it
usually takes care of common interests of the states beneath it.

Multiple states in the past were part of one confederation or another in the beginning which then
became semi independent provinces of one federation after several years, once differences between
communities vanished (in some cases, opposite happened). In February of 1946, during early
inquiries of Cabinet Mission Plan, Jinnah told Wyatt that by 'Pakistan,' he meant accepting "principle
of Pakistan." Then he explained principle of Pakistan as his maximum demand: two sovereign states,
Hindustan and Pakistan (not anything else) forming a shared centre while maintaining their
sovereignty (to start negotiations on equal footing since Pakistan region's population was in
minority). Meanwhile, as a maximum demand, Congress called for a unitary government with a
strong centre.

The plan reached a middle ground and offered one federation, ruled by one constitution, instead of
two, but the state would be divided into two autonomous zones. Jinnah accepted this federation
(but congress didn't which led to separate states of Dominion of Pakistan and Hindustan with no
centre on top or pacts to keep them in touch in any shape or form). So first of all, if the statements
from 1941 are considered authentic then it means, they were political statements because
Dravidastan demand played no part during Jinnah's negotiations.

So can we really call it "support?" Second, the letter I've mentioned above is from 1944, in which he
distanced himself from the movement of separate and sovereign state of Dravidastan. In it, he
stated that he couldn't "support" it, which means, between 1941 and 1944, Jinnah wasn't supporting
it to begin with, and even Dravidian leaders themselves were "undecisive" on this matter. Not to
mention, there is zero record of Jinnah's financial backing of any genuine movement. Seems like
someone's grasping for straws?

Last but not least, Ishtiaq Ahmad, without even realizing it, ended up contradicting his whole
narrative on Congress with this statement on Dravidastan. The reason why I could debunk his 700+
pages long book so easily in my 1.5 hours long video was its poor writing. The book mostly didn't
need debunking to begin with. Most of the "arguments" are debunked by Ishtiaq sahb himself as he
runs around in circles while trying to justify decisions of Congress and during this process, ends up
contradicting himself, even in same paragraphs multiple times (I highlighted that in the video too).

So, here he did the very same thing yet again. By highlighting Dravidastan Movement, he has
undermined Congress claim of being 'a Secular and Nationalist Party.' If there were non-Brahmin
movements of Hindus against Brahmin Congress then it means, Muslims weren't the only ones who
had issues with the brutal rule of Congress between 1937 and 1939 (hence, Pakistan movement
can't be characterized simply as a 'religious movement,' for the dominance of I$lam, which weakens
his as well as molvi's arguments further).

Congress continued to claim that it was a nationalist party but you can't force nationalism and
patriotism on people by force, until their demands are met. Same mistake was made by Pakistan on
Bengal issue and Balochistan issue where we told everyone to become 'Pakistani First' since we
didn't teach real history and ended up repeating mistakes of Congress which was ruled by Brahmins
(less than 5% of entire population but very influential). And we all know, how that turned out for us.

Similarly, Congress wanted everyone to accept their program. Any other alternative was labelled as
"a communal demand" and Bartania Sazish. This also included portraying Jinnah as a communal
monster, a failed attempt which the likes of Ishtiaq Ahmed love to repeat but they will not succeed
(jhoot ki tangen naheen hotin and all). As I always say, "devil's in the details." So, it'd be great to stop
superficial analysis of complicated issues.