The Russian Revolution

Subscribe this blog by clicking "Join this Site" Button.

Go to Download Page for Russian Revolution

http://www.thoughtcrackers.blogspot.in/p/download.html

Workers in England and Germany began forming associations to fight for better living and working conditions. They set up funds to help members in times of distress and demanded a reduction of working hours and the right to vote. In Germany, these associations worked closely with the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and helped it win parliamentary seats. By 1905, socialists and trade unionists formed a Labour Party in Britain and a Socialist Party in France. However, till 1914, socialists never succeeded in forming a government in Europe. Represented by strong figures in parliamentary politics, their ideas did shape legislation, but governments continued to be run by conservatives, liberals and radicals.

The Russian Revolution:

In one of the least industrialised of European states this situation was reversed. Socialists took over the government in Russia through the October Revolution of 1917. The fall of monarchy in February 1917 and the events of October are normally called the Russian Revolution.

How did this come about? What were the social and political conditions in Russia when the revolution occurred?

The Russian Empire in 1914:

In 1914, Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia and its empire. Besides the territory around Moscow, the Russian empire included current-day Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, parts of Poland, Ukraine and Belarus. It stretched to the Pacific and comprised today’s Central Asian states, as well as Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. The majority religion was Russian Orthodox Christianity - which had grown out of the Greek Orthodox Church - but the empire also included Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Buddhists.

Russian Dynasty Before Revolution:

Nicholas II (18 May [O.S. 6 May] 1868 – 17 July 1918) was the last Emperor of Russia, Grand Duke of Finland, and titular King of Poland. His official short title was Tsar Nicholas II, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias. Like other Russian Emperors he is commonly known by the monarchical title Tsar (though Russia formally ended the Tsardom in 1721). He is known as Saint Nicholas the Passion-Bearer by the Russian Orthodox Church and has been referred to as Saint Nicholas the Martyr.

Nicholas was the eldest son of Emperor Alexander III and Empress Maria Feodorovna of Russia (formerly Princess Dagmar of Denmark). He had five younger siblings: Alexander (1869–1870), George (1871–1899), Xenia (1875–1960), Michael (1878–1918) and Olga (1882–1960). Nicholas often referred to his father nostalgically in letters after Alexander's death in 1894. He was also very close to his mother, as revealed in their published letters to each other.

His paternal grandparents were Emperor Alexander II and Empress Maria Alexandrovna of Russia (born Princess Marie of Hesse-Darmstadt). His maternal grandparents were King Christian IX and Queen Louise of Denmark. Nicholas was of primarily German, as well as Russian and Danish descent.

Nicholas was related to several monarchs in Europe. His mother's siblings included Kings Frederik VIII of Denmark and George I of Greece as well as the United Kingdom's Queen Alexandra (consort of King Edward VII). Nicholas, his wife, Alexandra, and Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany were all first cousins of King George V of the United Kingdom. Nicholas was also a first cousin of both King Haakon VII and Queen Maud of Norway, as well as King Constantine I of Greece. While not first cousins, Nicholas and Kaiser Wilhelm II were second cousins, once removed, as each descended from King Frederick William III of Prussia, as well as third cousins, as they were both great-great-grandsons of Tsar Paul I of Russia. Nicholas and his wife, Alexandra, were also second cousins, as both descended from Louis II, Grand Duke of Hesse and his wife, Wilhelmine of Baden.

Nicholas II ruled from 1 November 1894 until his forced abdication on 15 March 1917. His reign saw Imperial Russia go from being one of the foremost great powers of the world to economic and military collapse. Political enemies nicknamed him Nicholas the Bloody because of the Khodynka Tragedy, anti-Semitic pogroms, Bloody Sunday, his violent suppression of the 1905 Revolution, his execution of political opponents and his perceived responsibility for the Russo-Japanese War.

 Nicholas II; his wife, Alexandra Feodorovna; his son, Alexei Nikolaevich; his four daughters, Olga Nikolaevna, Tatiana Nikolaevna, Maria Nikolaevna and Anastasia Nikolaevna; the family's medical doctor, Evgeny Botkin; the Emperor's footman, Alexei Trupp; the Empress' maidservant, Anna Demidova; and the family's cook, Ivan Kharitonov, were executed in the same room by the Bolsheviks on the night of 16/17 July 1918.

This led to the canonisation of Nicholas II, his wife the Empress Alexandra and their children as passion bearers, a title commemorating believers who face death in a Christ-like manner, on 15 August 2000 by the Russian Orthodox Church within Russia and, in 1981, as martyrs by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, located in New York City.

Empress Alexandra , Wife of Nicholas II

Alexandra Feodorovna (6 June 1872 – 17 July 1918), was Empress consort of Russia as the spouse of Nicholas II, the last Emperor of the Russian Empire. Born as Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, she was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. Upon being received into the Russian Orthodox Church, she was given the name Alexandra Feodorovna and in 2000 she was canonized as Saint Alexandra the Passion Bearer. Alexandra was also a maternal great-aunt of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and first cousin twice-removed to his wife Queen Elizabeth II.

Alexandra is best remembered as the last Tsaritsa of Russia, as one of the most famous royal carriers of the haemophilia disease, and for her support of autocratic control over the country. Her friendship with the Russian mystic and holy man, Grigori Rasputin, was also an important factor in her life.

Grigori Yefimovich Rasputin  21 January [O.S. 9 January] 1869 – 30 December [O.S. 17 December] 1916) was a Russian peasant, mystical faith healer and a trusted friend to the family of Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia. He became an influential figure in Saint Petersburg, especially after August 1915 when Nicholas took command of the army at the front.

There is much uncertainty over Rasputin's life and the degree of influence he exerted over the shy and irresolute Tsar and Alexandra Feodorovna, his nervous and depressed wife. Accounts are often based on dubious memoirs, hearsay and legend.Before 1915, however, Rasputin's sway was sporadic rather than permanent.While his influence and position may have been exaggerated—he had become synonymous with power, debauchery and lust—historians agree that his presence played a significant role in the increasing unpopularity of the Imperial couple.

Rasputin is connected with the downfall of the Russian monarchy; his disappearance would strengthen the throne. Rasputin was murdered by Felix Yusupov (the only niece of the Tsar) as he was seen by both the left and right to be the root cause of Russia's despair during World War I.

Reference: 
NCERT Text book India and the Contempoarary World-I class-9
History.com
http://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item107422.html
http://www.reformation.org/russian-branch-of-british-secret-service.html
http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-202/lecture-19#transcript

The Coming of Socialism to Europe

Subscribe this blog by clicking "Joint this Site" Button.

Go to Download Page for Revolution

http://www.thoughtcrackers.blogspot.in/p/download.html

Socialists were against private property, and saw it as the root of all social ills of the time.

Individuals owned the property that gave employment but the propertied were concerned only with personal gain and not with the welfare of those who made the property productive. So if society as a whole rather than individuals controlled property, more attention would be paid to collective social interests. Socialists wanted this change and campaigned for it.

How could a society without property operate? What would be the basis of socialist society?

Socialists had different visions of the future. Some believed in the idea of cooperatives. 

Robert Owen , a leading English manufacturer, sought to build a cooperative community called New Harmony in Indiana (USA). Other socialists felt that cooperatives could not be built on a wide scale only through individual initiative: they demanded that governments encourage cooperatives. 

In France, for instance, Louis Blanc  wanted the government to encourage cooperatives and replace capitalist enterprises. These cooperatives were to be associations of people who produced goods together and divided the profits according to the work done by members.

Karl Marx  and Friedrich Engels added other ideas to this body of arguments. Marx argued that industrial society was ‘capitalist’. Capitalists owned the capital invested in factories, and the profit of capitalists was produced by workers. The conditions of workers could not improve as long as this profit was accumulated by private capitalists. Workers had to overthrow capitalism and the rule of private property. Marx believed that to free themselves from capitalist exploitation, workers had to construct a radically socialist society where all property was socially controlled. This would be a communist society. He was convinced that workers would triumph in their conflict with capitalists. A communist society was the natural society of the future.

Support for Socialism:

By the 1870s, socialist ideas spread through Europe. To coordinate their efforts, socialists formed an international body . namely, the Second International. By the 1870s, socialist ideas spread through Europe. To coordinate their efforts, socialists formed an international body namely, the Second International.
..............Read More

Socialism in Europe and the Russian Revolution

Subscribe this blog by clicking "Joint this Site" Button.

Go to Download Page for Revolution

http://www.thoughtcrackers.blogspot.in/p/download.html

The Age of Social Change:

The French Revolution opened up the possibility of creating a dramatic change in the way in which society was structured. In many parts of the world including Europe and Asia, new ideas about individual rights and who controlled social power began to be discussed. In India, Raja Rammohan Roy and Derozio talked of the significance of the French Revolution, and many others debated the ideas of post-revolutionary Europe. The developments in the colonies, in turn, reshaped these ideas of societal change.

Not everyone in Europe, however, wanted a complete transformation of society. Responses varied from those who accepted that some change was necessary but wished for a gradual shift, to those who wanted to restructure society radically. Some were 'conservatives', others were 'liberals' or 'radicals' What did these terms really mean in the context of the time? What separated these strands of politics and what linked them together? We must remember that these terms do not mean the same thing in all contexts or at all times.

Liberals, Radicals and Conservatives:

One of the groups which looked to change society were the liberals. Liberals wanted a nation which tolerated all religions. We should remember that at this time European states usually discriminated in favour of one religion or another (Britain favoured the Church of England, Austria and Spain favoured the Catholic Church). Liberals also opposed the uncontrolled power of dynastic rulers. They wanted to safeguard the rights of individuals against governments. They argued for a representative, elected parliamentary government, subject to laws interpreted by a well-trained judiciary that was independent of rulers and officials. However, they were not ‘democrats’. They did not believe in universal adult franchise, that is, the right of every citizen to vote. They felt men of property mainly should have the vote. They also did not want the vote for women.

In contrast, radicals wanted a nation in which government was based on the majority of a country’s population. Many supported women’s suffragette (A movement to give women the right to vote) movements. Unlike liberals, they opposed the privileges of great landowners and wealthy factory owners. They were not against the existence of private property but disliked concentration of property in the hands of a few.

Conservatives were opposed to radicals and liberals. After the French Revolution, however, even conservatives had opened their minds to the need for change. Earlier, in the eighteenth century, conservatives had been generally opposed to the idea of change. By the nineteenth century, they accepted that some change was inevitable but believed that the past had to be respected and change had to be brought about through a slow process.

Industrial Society and Social Change:

Industrialisation brought men, women and children to factories. Work hours were often long and wages were poor. Unemployment was common, particularly during times of low demand for industrial goods. Housing and sanitation were problems since towns were growing rapidly. Liberals and radicals searched for solutions to these issues.

Almost all industries were the property of individuals. Liberals and radicals themselves were often property owners and employers. Having made their wealth through trade or industrial ventures, they felt that such effort should be encouraged, that its benefits would be achieved if the workforce in the economy was healthy and citizens were educated. Opposed to the privileges the old aristocracy had by birth, they firmly believed in the value of individual effort, labour and enterprise. If freedom of individuals was ensured, if the poor could labour, and those with capital could operate without restraint, they believed that societies would develop. Many working men and women who wanted changes in the world rallied around liberal and radical groups and parties in the early nineteenth century.

Some nationalists, liberals and radicals wanted revolutions to put an end to the kind of governments established in Europe in 1815. In France, Italy, Germany and Russia, they became revolutionaries and worked to overthrow existing monarchs. Nationalists talked of revolutions that would create ‘nations’ where all citizens would have equal rights. 

After 1815, Giuseppe Mazzini, an Italian nationalist, conspired with others to achieve this in Italy. Nationalists elsewhere . including India  read his writings.


















Condition of Poor in London in 19th century by Henry Mayhew:

The French EXTRAS

The French Revolution: War in the Vendée "The ODD ONE"

Subscribe this blog by clicking "Join this Site" Button.

Go to Download Page for French Revolution

http://www.thoughtcrackers.blogspot.in/p/download.html

War in the Vendée:

The War in the Vendée (1793 to 1796; French: Guerre de Vendée) was an uprising in the Vendée region of France during the French Revolution. The Vendée is a coastal region, located immediately south of theLoire River in western France. Initially, the war was similar to the 14th-century Jacquerie peasant uprising, but quickly acquired themes considered by the government in Paris to be counterrevolutionary, andRoyalist. The uprising headed by the self-styled Catholic and Royal Army was comparable to the Chouannerie, which took place in the area north of the Loire.

The departments included in the uprising, called the Vendée Militaire, included the area between the Loire and the Layon rivers: Vendée (Marais, Bocage Vendéen, Collines Vendéennes), part of Maine-et-Loirewest of the Layon, and the portion of Deux Sèvres west of the River Thouet. Having secured their pays, the deficiencies of the Vendean army became more apparent. Lacking a unified strategy (or army) and fighting a defensive campaign, from April onwards the army lost cohesion and its special advantages. Successes continued for some time: Thouars was taken in early May and Saumur in June; there were victories at Châtillon and Vihiers. After this string of victories, the Vendeans turned to a protracted siege ofNantes, for which they were unprepared and which stalled their momentum, giving the government in Paris sufficient time to send more troops and experienced generals.

Tens of thousands of civilians, Republican prisoners, and sympathizers with the revolution were massacred by both armies, leading to modern descriptions of the uprising and its consequences as agenocide. Ultimately, the uprising was suppressed using draconian measures. The historian François Furet concludes that the repression in the Vendee "not only revealed massacre and destruction on an unprecedented scale but also a zeal so violent that it has bestowed as its legacy much of the region's identity ... The war aptly epitomizes the depth of the conflict ... between religious tradition and the revolutionary foundation of democracy."

Genocide controversy:

The popular historiography of the War in the Vendée is deeply rooted in conflicts between different schools of French historiography, and as a result, writings on the uprising are generally highly partisan, coming down strongly in support of the revolutionary government or the Vendéen royalists. This conflict originated in the 19th century between two groups of historians, the Bleus, named for their support of the republicans, who based their findings on archives from the uprising and the Blancs, named for their support of the monarchy and the Catholic Church, who based their findings on local oral histories. The Bleus generally argued that the Vendée was not a popular uprising, but was the result of noble and clerical manipulation of the peasantry. One of the leaders of this school of thought, Charles-Louis Chassin, published eleven volumes of letters, archives, and other materials supporting this position. The Blancs, generally members of the former nobility and clergy themselves, argued (frequently using the same documents as Chassin, but also drawing from contemporary mémoirs and oral histories) that the peasants were acting out of a genuine love for the nobility and a desire to protect the Catholic Church.

This focus was popularized in the English-speaking world in 1986, with French historian Reynald Secher's A French Genocide: The Vendée. Secher argued that the actions of the French republican government during the War in the Vendée was the first modern genocide. Secher's claims caused a minor uproar in France amongst scholars of modern French history, as mainstream authorities on the period – both French and foreign – published articles rejecting Secher's claims. Claude Langlois (of the Institute of History of the French Revolution) derides Secher's claims as "quasi-mythological". Timothy Tackett of the University of California summarizes the case as such: "In reality ... the Vendée was a tragic civil war with endless horrors committed by both sides – initiated, in fact, by the rebels themselves. The Vendeans were no more blameless than were the republicans. The use of the word genocide is wholly inaccurate and inappropriate." Hugh Gough (Professor of history at University College Dublin) called Secher's book an attempt at historical revisionismunlikely to have any lasting impact. Peter McPhee roundly criticizes Secher, including the assertion of commonality between the functions of the Republican government and Communist totalitarianism. Historian Pierre Chaunu expressed support for Secher's views, describing the events as the first "ideological genocide"

Critics of Secher's thesis have alleged that his methodology is flawed. McPhee asserted that these errors are as follows: (1) The war was not fought against Vendeans but Royalist Vendeans, the government relied on the support of Republican Vendeans; (2) the Convention ended the campaign after the Royalist Army was clearly defeated – if the aim was genocide, then they would have continued and easily exterminated the population; (3) Fails to inform the reader of atrocities committed by Royalist against Republicans in the Vendée; (4) Repeats stories now known to be folkloric myths as fact; (5) Does not refer to the wide range of estimates of deaths suffered by both sides, and that casualties were not "one-sided"; and more.

The French Revolution : The French Republican Calendar

Subscribe this blog by clicking "Joint this Site" Button.

Go to Download Page for French Revolution

http://www.thoughtcrackers.blogspot.in/p/download.html

The French Republican Calendar (French: calendrier républicain français) or French Revolutionary Calendar (calendrier révolutionnaire français) was a calendar created and implemented during the French Revolution (During Reign of Terror), and used by the French government for about 12 years from late 1793 to 1805, and for 18 days by the Paris Commune in 1871. The revolutionary system was designed in part to remove all religious and royalist influences from the calendar, and was part of a larger attempt at decimalisation in France (which also included decimal time of day, decimalisation of currency, and metrication).

The new calendar was created by a commission under the direction of the politician Charles-Gilbert Romme seconded by Claude Joseph Ferry and Charles-François Dupuis. 

They associated with their work the chemist Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau, the mathematician and astronomer Joseph-Louis Lagrange, the astronomer Joseph Jérôme Lefrançois de Lalande, the mathematician Gaspard Monge, the astronomer and naval geographer Alexandre Guy Pingré, and the poet, actor and playwright Fabre d'Églantine, who invented the names of the months, with the help of André Thouin, gardener at the Jardin des Plantes of the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris. As the rapporteur of the commission, Charles-Gilbert Romme presented the new calendar to the Jacobin-controlled National Convention on 23 September 1793, which adopted it on 24 October 1793 and also extended it proleptically to its epoch of 22 September 1792. It is because of his position as rapporteur of the commission that the creation of the republican calendar is attributed to Romme.

The Republican calendar year began the day the autumnal equinox occurred in Paris, and had twelve months of 30 days each, which were given new names based on nature, principally having to do with the prevailing weather in and around Paris.

• Autumn:
• Vendémiaire in French (from Latin vindemia, "grape harvest"), starting 22, 23, or 24 September
• Brumaire (from French brume, "fog"), starting 22, 23, or 24 October
• Frimaire (From French frimas, "frost"), starting 21, 22, or 23 November
• Winter:
• Nivôse (from Latin nivosus, "snowy"), starting 21, 22, or 23 December
• Pluviôse (from Latin pluvius, "rainy"), starting 20, 21, or 22 January
• Ventôse (from Latin ventosus, "windy"), starting 19, 20, or 21 February
• Spring:
• Germinal (from Latin germen, "germination"), starting 20 or 21 March
• Floréal (from Latin flos, "flower"), starting 20 or 21 April
• Prairial (from French prairie, "pasture"), starting 20 or 21 May
• Summer:
• Messidor (from Latin messis, "harvest"), starting 19 or 20 June
• Thermidor (or Fervidor) (from Greek thermon, "summer heat"), starting 19 or 20 July
• Fructidor (from Latin fructus, "fruit"), starting 18 or 19 August

On many printed calendars of Year II (1793–94), the month of Thermidor was named Fervidor. Most of the month names were new words coined from French, Latin, or Greek. The endings of the names are grouped by season. "Dor" means "giving" in Greek.

In Britain, a contemporary wit mocked the Republican Calendar by calling the months: Wheezy, Sneezy and Freezy; Slippy, Drippy and Nippy; Showery, Flowery and Bowery; Hoppy, Croppy and Poppy.

Ten days of the week:

The month is divided into three décades or 'weeks' of ten days each, named simply:

• primidi (first day)
• duodi (second day)
• tridi (third day)
• quartidi (fourth day)
• quintidi (fifth day)
• sextidi (sixth day)
• septidi (seventh day)
• octidi (eighth day)
• nonidi (ninth day)
• décadi (tenth day)

Décades were abandoned in Floréal an X (April 1802).

Leap years in the calendar are a point of great dispute, due to the contradicting statements in the establishing decree stating:

The Murder of History : A Critique of History Textbooks used in Pakistan By K K Aziz

Khursheed Kamal Aziz (11 December 1927, Ballamabad, British India – 15 July 2009, Lahore, Pakistan) better known as K. K. Aziz, was a Pakistani historian, admired for his books written in the English Language. However, he also wrote Urdu prose and was a staunch believer in the importance of the Persian language to enhance one's knowledge about the world.

Aziz was born to Abdul Aziz, a barrister and a historian in his own right. He received his early education from the M.B. High School in Batala and then went to Forman Christian College and finally Government College Lahore for graduation. Later he completed his studies at Victoria University in Manchester, UK.

Aziz taught at various reputed institutions such as the universities of Cambridge, London, Heidelberg, Khartoum and the Punjab University in Pakistan. He also delivered occasional lectures at universities in Pakistan: Karachi, Peshawar, Islamabad; Bangladesh: Dacca; United Kingdom: Hull, New Castle upon Tyne and Oxford; Switzerland: Geneva and Bergen.

He worked as an advisor to Z. A. Bhutto and was the chairman of the National Commission on Historical and Cultural Research. His career came to an abrupt halt when Z. A. Bhutto was deposed and he was ultimately made to leave the country. He returned his "Sitara e Imtiaz" in protest of this treatment.

Few Examples from the books is given below.

SIR MUHAMMAD IQBAL

He took his doctorate in philosophy in England (NWFP, classes 5 and 7). He received his higher education at Cambridge and London Universities (private, Lahore, English, class 3). He took a degree in Barristery in England (NWFP, claa5;Sind,class5; NWFP, class 7).He took his degree in law in England (private, Lahore, B.A.).

In the Order in which wrong information is imparted:

(1) He took his doctorate in philosophy from the university of Munich in Germany.

(2) The Universityof  Cambridge gave him a certificate of Research, which is not a degree. He never studied at university of London.

(3) To be called to the bar at inn of court is not to earn a degree. A barrister is neither a graduate nor the holder of any other degree.

(4) He did not take any degree in law in any country . He was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1908, and that was that.

THERE ARE NO MUSLIMS IN INDIA

Bharat is the country of Non-Muslims (private, Lahore, English, class 3).

I don’t have exact figures available to me as I write this, But I am sure the no. of muslims in India is larger than the total population of Pakistan; which makes India bigger “Muslim Country” than Pakistan. I don’t understand logic or necessity of making this statement, except to convince class 3 students that India is an enemy state.

MUHAMMAD ALI JINNAH

He earned a degree in law in England (West Punjab, Class2; NWFP, class 7; private, Lahore, English, B.A.). He earned a superior and high degree in law in English (NWFP, class 4; Sind class4). He received his higher education in England (private, Karachi, class 2). In August 1947 a grateful nation made him the Governor General of Pakistan (private, Lahore, English, class7).

Corrections:

(1) He did not take any degree in law, in England or elsewhere.

(2) The “superior and high degree in law” is a figment of the textbook’s imagination.

(3) He did not receive his “higher education” in England. He was merely called to bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1896. Why can n’t Pakistani professors understand that to become a barrister is not to earn a degree?

(4)  The grateful nation did not make him the Governor general either through nomination or by election. He selected himself for the office, and he was appointed by the British King.

Our Ancestors arrived from Arabian Peninsula

This claim has been made by the Ghairat Brigade since long. They have tried to downplay the linkages that we have with our subcontinental ancestors and tried via popular media and textbooks to somehow prove that our ancestors were not people living in the Subcontinent for thousands of years rather they came from the Arabian Peninsula.

A look at the genealogies of two of our founding fathers i.e Jinnah and Iqbal tells us that Mr. Jinnah belonged to a Sindhi family that had migrated to Gujarat.(Akbar S Ahmad, Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity; Routledge, 1997; Chapter 1,page 1 ) while Iqbal belonged to a Kashmiri Sheikh family. Also, there was a considerable population consisting of Jatts and Gujjars before Islam came to our part of the world. Most of us are descendents of those early converts. The people most likely to have come down from Arabia are the Syeds who claim to be direct descendents from the Prophet (PBUH). Interestingly, in a research conduted by University College London, Y chromosomes of self-identified Syeds from the Indian subcontinent show evidence of elevated Arab ancestry but not of a recent common patrilineal origin For more on the castes of our country.

Jinnah was born Mahomedali Jinnahbhai,[a] most likely in 1876,[b] to Jinnahbhai Poonja and his wife Mithibai, in a rented apartment on the second floor of Wazir Mansion, Karachi. Jinnah's birthplace is in Sindh, a region today part of Pakistan, but then within the Bombay Presidency of British India. Jinnah was a Gujarati Khoja Muslim of Lohana ancestry. His forefathers were Hindus whom converted to Islam. His father was a prosperous merchant who had been born to a family of weavers in the village of Paneli in the princely state of Gondal (Kathiawar, Gujarat); his mother was also of that village. They had moved to Karachi in 1875, having married before their departure. Karachi was then enjoying an economic boom: the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 meant it was 200 nautical miles closer to Europe for shipping than Bombay. Jinnah's family was of the Ismaili Khoja branch of Shi'a Islam. 

The French Revolution : The Abolition of Slavery - Haitian Revolution

Subscribe this blog by clicking "Join this Site" Button.

Go to Download Page for French Revolution

http://www.thoughtcrackers.blogspot.in/p/download.html

Since the revolutionaries explicitly proclaimed liberty as their highest ideal, slavery was bound to come into question during the French Revolution. Even before 1789 critics had attacked the slave trade and slavery in the colonies. France had several colonies in the Caribbean in which slavery supported a plantation economy that produced sugar, coffee, and cotton. The most important of these colonies was Saint Domingue (later Haiti), which had 500,000 slaves, 32,000 whites, and 28,000 free blacks (which included both blacks and mulattos). Some free blacks owned slaves; in fact, the free blacks owned one-third of the plantation property and one-quarter of the slaves in Saint Domingue, though they could not hold public office or practice many professions (medicine, for example).

The slave system in the colonies was regulated by a series of royal edicts, the most important of which was promulgated by Louis XIV in 1685. Taken together, the edicts constituted the Code noir, or slave code. This code prescribed a harsh regime of penalties for slaves who resisted their captivity, especially if they tried to harm their masters in any way. Saint Domingue provided extraordinary sources of wealth to the French. To protect their investments, French slaveholders had to learn at least a minimal amount about their slaves. One of the most astute commentators, Médéric-Louis-Elie Moreau de Saint-Méry, wrote a massive two-volume work on life in Saint Domingue in the 1780s. He described many of the features of slave life that worried slaveholders, including voodoo imported from Africa, the presence of many people of mixed race (mulattos), the threat of slaves becoming Maroons (runaways), and the intense fear among slaveholders that their slaves would try to poison them. After the French Revolution broke out, planters looked back on pre-1789 conditions, trying to understand how slavery might have been better organized. Their observations provide yet another contemporary perspective on the plantation and slave system.

The Caribbean colonies were quick to respond to the outbreak of the Revolution in 1789. The white planters of Saint Domingue sent delegates to France to demand representation at the new National Assembly, as did the mulattos. Several prominent deputies in the National Assembly belonged to the Society of the Friends of Blacks, which put forth proposals for the abolition of the slave trade and the amelioration of the lot of slaves in the colonies. When these proposals fell on deaf ears, some deputies sympathetic to blacks turned to arguing that full civil and political rights should be granted to free blacks in the colonies. Before long, radical journalists in Paris began to take up the cause of black slaves, pushing for the abolition of slavery, or at least for a more positive view of the Africans. The pioneering feminist and playwright, Olympe de Gouges, also wrote a pamphlet challenging the colonial pro-slavery lobby to improve the lot of the blacks.

As the agitation in favor of granting rights to free blacks and abolishing the slave trade gathered steam, the colonies became filled with uncertainty and expectations began rising, especially among the free blacks and mulattos. In response, the white planters mounted their own counterattack and even contemplated demanding independence from France. Less is known about the views of the slaves because hardly any of them could read or write, but the royal governor of Saint Domingue expressed concern about the effects of the Revolution on the colony's slaves. In October 1789 he reported that the slaves considered the new revolutionary cockade (a decoration made up of red, white, and blue ribbons worn by supporters of the Revolution) a "signal of the manumission of the whites . . . the blacks all share an idea that struck them spontaneously: that the white slaves kill their masters and now free they govern themselves and regain possession of the land." In other words, the black slaves hoped to follow in the footsteps of their white predecessors, freeing themselves, killing their masters, and taking over the land.

Most deputies feared the effects of the loss of commerce that would result from either the abolition of slavery or the elimination of the slave trade. Fabulous wealth depended on slavery, as did shipbuilding, sugar-refining, and a host of subsidiary industries. Slaveowners and shippers did not intend to give up their prospects without a fight. The U.S. refusal to give up slavery or the slave trade provided added ammunition to support their position.

References:

https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/chap8a.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution (Best on this issue)
The white planters who derived their wealth from the sale of slave-produced sugar knew they were outnumbered by slaves by a factor of more than ten; they lived in fear of slave rebellion. White masters extensively used the threat of physical violence to maintain control and limit this possibility for slave rebellion. When slaves left the plantations or disobeyed their masters, they were subject to whipping, or to more extreme torture such as castration or burning, the punishment being both a personal lesson and a warning for other slaves. Louis XIV, the French King, passed the Code Noir in 1685 in an attempt to regulate such violence and the treatment of slaves in general in the colony, but masters openly and consistently broke the code, and local legislation reversed parts of it throughout the 18th century.