After facing a tirade from Indian readers I must now confront an even more powerful onslaught from within Pakistan. The point which has generated most commotion is that I did not mention that the Pakistan demand goes far beyond 1940. For an informed public, as I believe The Friday Times readers are, to be reminded of the long pedigree of the idea of Pakistan is an insult. Some imaginative writers date the origins of the Pakistan idea to the arrival of Muhammad bin Qasim; on the way Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, Aurangzeb Alamgir, Shah Waliullah and then in the 20th century the Kheiri brothers and so on. Many other protagonists of such an idea figure in histories of the Pakistan idea. In the chapter entitled ‘Genesis of the Punjab Partition 1900-1914’ (ibid, pages 52-53) of my Punjab book, Iqbal and Rahmat Ali are quoted verbatim because they were the most important before the March 1940 resolution. By saying that the idea of Pakistan originated in the office of the viceroy, I was dramatizing an important transformation: from merely an idea of aspirants to a political project sanctioned by the main power in India: the British. I should have made that point clear.
[quote]Zafrulla presented the Muslim League case with great competence and conviction[/quote]
However, the main body of criticisms and attacks on the Internet – emails, Facebook and Twitter – has been launched by the hero-worshippers and admirers of Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, Pakistan’s first foreign minister. To informed Pakistani readers it should not be surprising that Sir Zafrulla is demonized by some and lionized by others. In my book, The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed (Oxford 2012, pages, 271-2), Zafrulla emerges as an outstanding counsel who pleaded the Muslim League’s case before the Punjab Boundary Commission pertaining to claims to territory in a partitioned Punjab. I have also presented the views of two leading Muslim Leaguers, Syed Ahmed Saeed Kirmani (Sunni) and Syed Afzal Haider (Shia) who attended the proceedings of the Boundary Commission. They give full marks to Zafrulla for presenting the Muslim League case with great competence and conviction. I even quote the counsel for the Congress Party, Mr Setelvad, who paid glowing tributes to Zafrulla for his excellent brief. I did this not as a favour to Zafrulla, but as a scholar I have to be faithful to the findings of my research.
The problem of Zafrulla’s followers is that they are fostering a myth about him that does not stand the scrutiny of objective research. Let me begin with the most superlative eulogy to Zafrulla by Mr Hussain Nadim who wrote under the title, ‘Do we really need Jinnah’s Pakistan’ in the Daily Times dated 22 December 2012:
“[T]here needs to be a realisation that Jinnah was the ‘lawyer’ for the case of Pakistan. He argued for it, and won. However, Jinnah was never the visionary or a revolutionary strategic thinker to guide the course of the nation. If anybody at all in Muslim League was a strategic thinker, it was Sir Zafarullah Khan, who was also the author of the Lahore Resolution, which for the first time chalked out the idea of Pakistan. Khan, however, belonged to the then Islamic sect of Ahmadis and thus his role over the years was kept secret, until recently when documents and letters written by Lord Linlithgow revealed the centrality of his role. Hence, there should be a little less stress on ‘Jinnah’s Pakistan’, because honestly, there is none; and scratching out Jinnah’s vision forcefully has only served to confuse the people and obfuscate the roadway to progress”.
[quote]Pakistan originated in the office of the Viceroy[/quote]
In an overall homage to Sir Zafrulla on his death anniversary by Moahmmad Ahmad: ‘A forgotten hero: Mohammad Zafrullah Khan’ in the Daily Times of 1 September 2013, he describes Mr Khan as ‘one of the greatest heroes of Pakistan’. He goes on to list his services to Islamic countries and takes up his historic speeches on Kashmir and Palestine. With regard to the Lahore Resolution he writes: ‘Mr Khan’s greatest contribution to the cause of Indian Muslims is his drafting of the Lahore Resolution, which is the rallying point of our nationalism as our founding document’.
However, one commentator wrote the following in the comments on my last article:
(The comment has been edited for clarity –TFT)
“Professor Ishtiaq Ahmed needs to read the correspondence between the Viceroy of India, Lord Linlithgow, and Secretary of State for India, Lord Zetland, that took place in the year 1940. I read that correspondence, preserved in the Viceroy’s Journal about 8 years ago at the British Library in London (which now houses the All India Office Library). The first letter on the Lahore Resolution was written by the Viceroy to Lord Zetland on the 26th of March. He mentions very clearly that he did not want an All India Muslim League meeting in Lahore to go ahead in the wake of the Khaksar tragedy which had taken place just a few days before. Sir Sikander Hayat, Premier of Punjab at that time, tried to persuade the Viceroy to convince Jinnah to postpone the session but made it explicit that it should not be disclosed to Jinnah that the suggestion had come from Sikander, because if Jinnah learnt of the source of the suggestion he would not accept it. The Viceroy sent Sir Zafrullah Khan to persuade Jinnah to postpone the Lahore session in the wake of the law and order situation prevailing in the city. The viceroy in his letter of 26th May clearly states that ZK went and tried to persuade Jinnah who listened to him patiently but refused to postpone the meeting. So much for the influence of Viceroy or ZK on Jinnah that Dr.Ishtiaq mentions in his article”.
It is to be noted that Mr Mohammad Ahmad has not mentioned the source on which he is basing his claim that Zafrulla drafted the Lahore Resolution. However, while Mr Nadim depicts Zafrulla as the “strategic thinker” who masterminded the Pakistan demand while Jinnah was merely the lawyer who pleaded the case of Pakistan, the commentator’s intervention effectively negates any role of Zafrulla and Linlithgow in the framing of the Lahore resolution. If at all these two played any role, according to the commentator, it was an unsuccessful attempt to dissuade Mr Jinnah from going ahead with the Lahore session of the Muslim League. The commentator gives the credit exclusively to Jinnah for the drafting and passing of the Lahore Resolution. Both claim to have read the same recent primary source material. So, who should we believe? Either Nadim or the commentator is dead wrong, or, both are. One can even wonder if this new information which the two gentlemen claim to have read is credible in its own right.
With regard to the source material I have used, it is Wali Khan’s, Facts are Facts (New Delhi: Vikas, 1987, pages 29-30). Wali Khan too has claimed that he sat in the British Library and researched the material on partition and found out that Linlithgow sent Zafrulla to tell the Muslim League to demand separate Muslim states.
If now, as many of his followers and admirers claim that Zafrulla did play the key role in the formulation of the Lahore resolution the question is, did he do so as a free agent? He was a member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council and such a position should effectively preclude him saying something that would jeopardize British interests. If not Linlithgow then some other British agency must have given him a nod to go ahead.
Another possibility is that the spiritual leadership of his Ahmadiyya community approved of such an idea and not the British directly? Such a possibility poses serious problems if one relies on available primary source material on it. Consider the following report of the Punjab Governor Sir Henry Craik, which he sent to the Viceroy Linlithgow two days after the Lahore Resolution, was moved:
“I had an interesting talk this morning with Pir Akbar Ali, a Unionist member of our assembly, who belongs to the Ahmadiyya community…Pir Akbar Ali gave me two items of information, which may interest you. The Ahmadis, he said, have always considered the Khaksar Movement a dangerous one and not a single Ahmadi has joined it. The second item was that the Ahmadis as a body have not been allowed by the religious head of their movement to join the Muslim League. Akbar Ali himself has been allowed to join as a member of the Unionist Party for a term of six months only. The question whether his followers should be allowed to join the League is, I understand, shortly to be considered by the head of the community” (Carter, Punjab Politics, Strains of War, New Delhi 2005, page 101).
We can step back some years and consider another claim. It is that it was the efforts of the Ahmedis that Jinnah was brought back from Britain where he had settled and established a flourishing practice. There are counter claims that assert that Liaquat Ali Khan convinced Jinnah to return. Then we have those who say that it was Allama Iqbal who persuaded Jinnah to come back and lead the Muslims. Whose supplications actually convinced Mr Jinnah to return can be nothing more than mere speculation. With regard to the Ahmadi claim that they were in the forefront of the Pakistan movement the Munir Report does not uphold it. It states that the Ahmadis were wary and reluctant of the movement (presumably out of fear that they could be persecuted, which I think was a perfectly justified reason to hesitate) and after much prevarication it was only just before partition that the Ahmadi community reached the decision to support it (Munir Report, Lahore: Government Printing Press, 1954, page196).
I now present some additional criticisms of Zafrulla. Jinnah appointed him as the foreign minister of Pakistan. I am sure such a choice was based on his competence and brilliance, but the fact that he had powerful connections to Western leaders must also have played an important role. He was known as the Pet Indian. However, when Jinnah died on 11 September 1948, Zafrulla did not participate in his funeral prayers. The Munir Report testifies to that (page 199). Revisionist apologies have explained away Zafrulla’s decision by saying that since Shabbir Ahmed Usmani did not consider Ahmadis Muslims Zafrulla could not have offered prayers led by Usmani (Sunni-Deobandi).
From what I have heard, all sorts of Muslims took part in the public prayers arranged by the government and among them were Barelvis, Deobandis, Ahl-e-Hadith, Ahl-e-Quran and Shias, who ordinarily would prefer an alim of their own denomination to lead funeral prayers. They had no problem in standing behind Usmani because it was a very, very special occasion. Yet Zafrulla remained steadfast to the Ahmadiyya community’s practice of not taking part in such ceremonies because non-Ahmadis are not considered “Muslims” by the Ahmadis (Munir Report, page 199).
On the other hand, in the famous debate in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly on the Objectives resolution in March 1949, Zafrulla supported its Islamic features. I have read the whole text of the debate. Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani spoke after Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. Zafrulla’s speech followed in which he deferred to the authority of Usmani. This happened at least half a year after the death of Jinnah. So Zafrulla has no problems speaking in support of a man behind whom he did not stand during the funeral rites of Jinnah! This was all politics. At that time the Cold War was raging and the Pakistani elite, which included Zafrulla, wanted Pakistan to take a categorical anti-secular stand and thus make credible its co-option in the anti-Soviet alignment in international politics.
If it is true that Zafrulla had no meaningful role in the drafting of the Lahore Resolution then the myth of Zafrulla as the great hero of Pakistan effectively bursts. A proper study of the role of Sir Zafrulla is needed in which all sides who have an opinion should be given a fair chance to present their views and the relevant official documents are examined and analysed.
[quote]A scathing criticism of Sir Zafrulla’s role exists among Pakistani Leftists[/quote]
A scathing criticism of Sir Zafrulla’s role as Pakistan’s foreign minister exists among Pakistani Leftists. He is accused of having served imperialist interests rather than that of progressive Muslims during the Cold War. This is what Mian Iftikhar-ud-din said in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly:
”I am pleased to announce that Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan is leaving us. The House will join me in congratulating Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan on a rumoured Eisenhower Prize and Churchill Medal to him for having successfully and finally committed his country, in private at least if not in public, to the permanent slavery not only of British Imperialism but also of the rising powerful imperialism of the U.S.A. He has no need now to control our foreign affairs as in future we shall have no foreign affairs. Our foreign affairs will be dictated and controlled by Britain and even so by America. Sir Zafrullah will now, I understand, be entrusted to these great powers with the task of enslaving other Islamic countries…
It is hoped that as a practised hand and one who has acquired great prestige by having represented the biggest Muslim State of the world in international affairs, he will perform this task to the satisfaction of his employers and no doubt to the full detriment of the future of the Islamic and Asiatic States and will succeed in enslaving as certainly and permanently as he has enslaved his own unhappy land” (Abdullah Malik (ed), Selected Speeches and Statements of Mian Iftikhar-ud-din, Lahore: Nigarishat, 1970, pages 103-104).
(to be continued)
mian iftikharuddin’s prophecies are coming true.
Brilliant, Sir. That you make us question the sanitized history we’ve been taught is commendable. I am a big fan of your writing. Please keep doing this great service for our next generation. Please also get these articles and your book translated into Urdu.
The extent to which Md.Zafarullah Khan could influence the boundary Commission through his presentation is hard to fathom; although his presentation was very impressive and the muslim case was much better presented technically. It presented a beautiful and a very comprehensive series of maps, excellently produced and covering all aspects of the problem. To be fair to all the parties M.League, Congress & the Akalis, the time was very short as the commission could hold meetings from 21st to 31st July, 1947 after partition plan was announced by Lord Mountbatten on 3rd June.
The boundary commission had high court judges as its members and it was set-up formally on 27th June. It is ironic that the fate of millions was decided in a highly tight time schedule and Mr.Khan, Mr.Setalvad and S.Harnam singh put their case before the commission , the members of which were never ready to reach any consensus.
It may be mentioned Mr.Khan’s impressive presentation was ably assisted by Dr O.H.K.Spate,Lecturer at School of Economics, London who was a representative of Ahmadya community ! Dr.Spate pleaded the case of Ahmadyas before the Punjab Boundary Commission.
The High Court Judges Justice Din Mohammad, Justice Muhammad Munir , Justice Mehar Chand Mahajan, Justice Teja singh submitted their reports from 3rd to 7th August. Despite all the quality of Md.Zaffarullah Khan’s presentation; all came to a standstill as the Commission head Sir Cyril Radcliffe would have none of it and he had a solution of 1946 ready up his sleeves. It was based on Lord wavell’s formula.
The last meeting of the Commission was held in the premises of the Services Club, Simla. Sir(later on Lord) Radcliffe presided.
Regarding the fixation of the boundary line, Cyril Radcliffe said, “Gentlemen you have disagreed and , therefore, the duty falls on me to give the award which I will do later on”. So much for the verbal and presentation skills of Md.Zafarullah Khan.
Millions of Muslims, Sikhs & Hindus died. As an Indian Sikh, I do not feel happy about it….. Verbal and oratory skills fade against the bloody memories…
Gurprit Ji,
Your last sentence says it all. In the end the big ideas translated into one Punjabi killing another. So sad. And one people of the Punjab were divided by a split into two.
This reads like something out of Shorish Kashmiri and Ahrar propaganda frankly.
There are some major historical errors as usual. I intend to write a complete rebuttal in due course which will bust most of the myths Ishtiaq Ahmed is intent on creating.
Hamdani Sb. The man is doing us Pakistanis a service by breaking down the bull we’ve been fed for so long. It is very difficult for us to accept.
I am impressed by author’s depth of knowledge and academic integretiy. However, pakistanis are used to believe in fiction rather than facts, Another sleepless night for yasser latif hamdani.
My friend, Ishtiaq Ahmed does not give me sleepless nights. This article proves that he is not balanced or unbiased.
Last I checked Pakistanis already believe this myths that Ishtiaq Ahmed is spinning – primarily that “Ahmadis are agents of the west”. So I am sorry but those who actually see this as some sort of “myth-busting” are deluding themselves.
So at least Pakistan-hating “liberals” should atleast consider what it is that they are supporting. At least be honest and embrace Majlis-e-Ahrar, the worst Islamo-fascist party in South Asia, which had been saying all of this all along.
The battle in Pakistan – as with the battle within Islam- is between the professional Muslim classes v. the clergy. It is the clergy that had opposed Pakistan. It is the clergy that is up in arms against minorities in Pakistan. It is the clergy that forwards the views that Ishtiaq Ahmed is presenting as “mythbusters”.
Dr. Ishtiaq was supposed to “bust
some popular myths” according to the description of his piece.
Incidentally, he ended up propagating a popular myth himself(that Zafrulla authored the 1940 resolution and that he had received instructions from the Viceroy). In his first piece of this series, He wrote,
“The Muslim League’s demand for the partition of India was initiated
by Viceroy Linlithgow in March 1940 when he instructed Sir Muhammad
Zafrulla to convey to the League leadership that the government wanted
them to demand separate states.”
While the erstwhile Professor has not mentioned any source to back up this outrageous claim, I would really appreciate if he did mention the source for this assertion(and I have no intention of lionizing Zafrulla Khan)
According to my rudimentary research, this myth was first started by
Mr. Wali Khan in his book/pamphlet titled “Facts are Facts” (published
in 1986). In that book, Wali Khan mentioned a letter that was sent
from Lord Linlithgo to Lord Zetland, written on March 12th, 1940. In
Wali Khan’s book, the following passage from the letter is cited,
“Upon my instruction, Zafarullah wrote a memorandum on the subject,
Two Dominion States. I have already sent it to your attention. I have
also asked him for further clarification, which, he says, is
forthcoming. He is anxious, however, that no one should find out that
he has prepared this plan. He has, however, given me the right to do
with it what I like, including sending a copy to you.”
The actual letter contained the following words,
“I sent you by the last bag a copy of Zafrullah’s note on Dominion
States, which I remarked purported to be a statement of the position
from the extremer point of view. I introduced that qualification
because I had not at that time had an opportunity of discussing its
precise nature with him and, certain of the propositions contained in
it, were they to appear formally under the name of a Member of my
council, might, I think have justified a description in those terms. I
asked him yesterday to put me a little more in the picture and he told
me that this is a first draft only; secondly that, provided he is
protected on that point and the paper is not used publicly, I may do
what I like with it including sending a copy to you”.
It is a fact that Wali Khan distorted the contents of that letter to
suit his own agenda, because the real letter is still present at
India Office Library and Records and its reference number is MSS EUR,F/125/9. In fact, the letter has even been cited by respected
historian, Dr. Ayesha Jalal in her book ‘The Sole Spokesman’.
Shall await for any response,
Abdul
Well said sir. Brilliant rejoinder.
The irony is that Ishtiaq Ahmed has contradicted himself twice over.
Great discoveries about what happened behind the curtrains.The Muslims
Of IndoPak were betrayed by Jinnah and his gang.Over a Million Muslims
Got killed About Quarter a Million women were kidnapped and forced to
Become Non Muslims.This is a true copy how Goras managed to KICK OUT
Muslims from Spain on the same ditto plan partition was executed.
Please read carefully this comment from a Hindu Extremist
Maggu
Jinnah was a great supporter of the Hindu cause and his daughter is rightly claiming recourse to Hindu law for disposal of his properties in India. He created Pakistan as a favor to hindus to act as a buffer zone between Afghanistan and Iran and India. He was a visionary who could foresee these threats to India and sell the vision to Hindus.
.
He knew that the people who lived in that geographical area were suckers who would kill each other and those bozos who came from India. He gave Hindu india two great outcomes: cleansing and buffer zone.
.
his photo should be on our currency notes.
So you can decide Jinnah managed to surrender 36 Muslim States Double the Land Size of Pakistan and put 1/3 Muslims under control of Hindu Extremists
Who are suffering since 67 years with Riots and Genocide against them and so called Muslim Arab countries never asked India about its atrocities . This is the time to fairly analyse the partition which caused catastrophic destruction of Muslim Language,Culture and Traditions in India and now is the time to make Peace with India and care and respect the Most Populated Muslim Country(More Than Arab Population ) called INDIA.and salute the vision of Mecca born Maulana Abul Kalam Azad who like a poltiical prophet predicted what will happen with Muslims of Pakistan over 3 millions martyrs 2 million in 1971 and 1 Million in 1947
thankyou for highlighting the plight of muslims who are indian as well , also once again Mualana Abul Kalam Azad , the only visionary among muslim leadership of pre partition Hindustan
I have been reading the articles of Mr Ishtiaq Hussain. I do not know the
gentleman. He describes himself a doctor but I do not know what type of doctor he is as there are now dozen a penny in Pakistan – from Liaquat Hussain Ammar, the notorious tv stuntman to Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. From his articles I get the
feeling that he has to go to Dr Muabarak Ahmed, our renowed historian and
refresh his knowledge. I would have suggested Dr K K Aziz or Dr Wahiduzaman or
Dr Ashid Hussain Batalvi but unfortunately they are not with us anymore.
I hope the FT will not hesitate to publish my suggestion.
I am looking forward to Mr. Hamdani’s rebuttal. How do I know where to look for it when it is published.
I intend to publish it right here in TFT sir.
I’ll be waiting for it as well. As a Pakistani-Canadian who hasn’t the slightest clue about Pakistani history cuz I was raised in Canada) I want to know about Pakistans history from someone who has an unbiased view on the Ahmadis.
I find it utterly disgusting that YLH will stoop as low as to call the esteemed author ‘anti-ahmedi’. Anybody who has read the author’s essays can vouch that the writer is anything but fair in his assessment of the historical events pertaining to the sub-continent. Besides, the author’s caliber speaks for himself from his academic achievements and peer reorganizations. Whereas YLH is just a lawyer with an opinion. They are dime a dozen in Lahore.
I hope the TFT editor doesn’t waste their valuable space by giving YLH opportunity for rebuttal. If one wants to read YLH’s opinions they can visit pakisanteahouse website.
Gurprit ji
Your pain is understandable in view of what happened on the ground.
If you know, can you please elaborate what was the stance of Mr Spate?
Nasar
Hamdani sahib
Can you please share with us the reply which you promised long ago ?
Nasar
Religious bigotry and clergy-dominant oppressive discipline, acting as anti-humanist forces in all faiths, need to be rejected completely without any distinction. As a training officer after qualifying CSS in 1984, I experienced a horrifying example of it when a father belonging to the faith of Sir Zafrulla refused to join funeral of his son on the plea that he was a renegade and thus “jahanami”. Our dear colleague met a fatal road accident while in academy and we took his body to his village. His father not only refused to offer his funeral prayers, but also noted with anger “he deserved this death as he renounced our faith”. One need not to comment further how cruel a man can be when he surrenders before a blind faith.
The statement by Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed that “the problem of Zafrulla’s followers is that they are fostering a myth about him that does not stand the scrutiny of objective research” should be examined and commented upon objectively without any religious biases. History should not be distorted or tainted by leanings towards any faith or ideology. Dr. Ishtiaq has given what is due to Sir Zafarullah Khan. He and many others in Muslim League deserve kudos for following the agenda of their masters as ardent loyalists–evidence to this effect is available in the authentic work of Professor Gowher Rizvi, ‘Linlithgow and India: Study of British Policy and the Political Impasse in India, 1936-43’ wherein speech of Sir Zafaullah Khan in Assembly is quoted reiterating unconditional allegiance to “King” during the grave sitaution faced by Raj during the war days when Congress refused to cooperate. This book is available at http://www.amazon.com/Linlithgow-India-British-Political-Historical/dp/0901050490.
I suggest that followers of Sr. Zafarullah Khan should not invent lies about him or Quaid as far as history is concerned. In religion, according to ulema of all faiths and brands, it is permissible to intermix falsehood with truth to “prevail our nonbelievers or enemies”. They should be careful while dealing with history that is based on evidence. If they do not stop telling lies, Dr. Ishtiaq and many other will also not restrain to tell truth!
From an Indian point of view, this is indeed comic, if not ironic, that Pakistanis are still unsure why they wanted partition and who played what role in it. Is it any wonder that the state has completely failed its citizens in every respect when the very nature of the state, even after 60 years is not a done deal. What I did learn from this article, which was news to me, although not very surprising, that Ahmedis consider others to be Non-Muslims. All other details about what role Zafarulla or Jinnah played in Pakistan movement may be of academic interest, but are moot and frankly uninteresting. The net result is this, when Muslims dont have some else to fight, they fight among themselves by declaring each other non-muslims. No wonder the state of Pakistan has still no other point of legitimacy than being “not India”. Even after 60 years roughly 50% of the population is illiterate and more so in the women folk, is of no consequence to the state. In such an uneducated society, does it really matter who drafted the Lahore Resolution, when most of the citizen wont even be able to read if it stared at their faces? Isnt that truly tragic? One thing I am glad for, however, that Sir. Zafarulla lived on well into his life to see what he has created. I wonder what Indian Ahmedis think of Pakistan, and of India today, whom they hated so much before Independence that their most educated were involved in splitting it. I also wonder if some of them still resent living amongst the Hindus whom they so despised then and would work to create another Pakistan should an opportunity arise.
As an Ahmadi Muslims I would like to clarify the false notion that Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmed cited. I repeat Ahmadis DO NOT THINK That non-Ahmadis are not MUSLIM. We don’t make edicts about other people’s faiths and label anyone as Muslims or not. If the Holy Prophet (saw) has said that anyone who recites the Kalima is a Muslims then who are we to say that someone is not. In fact, it is the non-Ahmdis that declare us as non-Muslims when we have claimed to be a Muslim.
Please educate yourself and hear what the Ahmadi Scholars have to say about this myth instead of reading fabricated lies from third party.
Listen from 29:05 minute to have your question answered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZCENX5edHSk#t=2010
I have been following closely the writings of Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed in both the Friday Times as well as Daily times.I find his writings very objective and the conclusions arrived at,a result of rigorous research.
Some of my countrymen have taken issue with The author about his comments about caste discrimination as also social bias against Muslims in pre partition India.This is completely true and cannot be denied by any objective person.The
Present status of Muslims is also not very good but a new generation of Muslims are looking forward to becoming part of the India story.
Researched article, and the rejoinders confirm that Pakistan was a caesarian birth, splashing blood then and now. Many claim to be its parents . the English, the Ahmadis and the Muslims of Muslim league. the cont enter and the commentators, both have conveniently generous to the British who wanted to divide the country before hurriedly leaving which lead to avoidable massacres. The tall handsome lord Mountpattern had all the skills to lead the eastern theater, but not the planning, and guidance needed to supervise and execute the separation of assets. Hard to believe and accept. The emotional human element was ignored by all brilliant leaders who now battle for parenthood. tragedies are created by Men and not fate. let by gone be by gone. At the most research like this can bestow a Doctorate. No peace and progress. well all said and done, Ahmadis have engineered creation of pakistan. If human bombers, mass scale murderers, attackers of innocent civilians, army personnel and its establishment, preventers of polio vaccine, shooters of school going girls can be negotiated with, why not accept Ahmadis as human beings.
you cannot now go to London to refer this with some LORDS who will behave like that famous monkey which divided the bread between two warring cats.
Barelvis, deo bandis, ahl-e-Hadith, Ahl-e-ouson, shias, sunnis, ahmadis, settlers from UP are all children of GOD.
No need to erect statue for ZK. But allow the Ahmadis to walk freely.
take it or leave it. it is the British who planted partition and gave birth to pakistan . not jinnah . he merely projected his intrests to lead a new nation as nehru, patel gang was blocking him
To,Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed,S.M.,Ronuq Shah and every one,who have put their 2 cent in creating Pakistan,,this my rejoinder.It does not matter who were the creator of Pakistan,list is long–Viceroy Linlitgrow,British Govt,Mr Jinnah,Iqbal,Zafarulla Khan,Nehru and Gandhi,without meaning to– The Hindus got rid of troublsome radical Muslims and doing their best to make life of the remaining Muslim’s life in India a real hell.They deserved far more yet to come.Not that India and Hindus are sinless,they are in real mess in that other so called Banana Republic.They deserve more of the same.Look ,the Ahmedadias thought they were the ONLY TRUE MUSLIMS,so much they hated every other Muslims and they reserved their best for the Hindus,so much so Hindus like me have no love lost what subsequently Buttos Pakistan did to them,so much so,they do not even allow them,rest in the grave also.They descreate their dead.Could not have happened to better set of guys!Only good that has come out of this mess is,Hindus are left alone to cause as much damage as possible to India and Hindus,without any help from Muslims,is in that funny?Poetic justice,whether all people of sub-continent are cut from the same cloth, if that was not enough we import ex- maid from Italy,after all Muslims are ex-Hindus the worst Sudaras,,worst among them,who had no option but to convert.From frying pan to direct Fire.I really enjoy these mahem both in Pakistan,Afghanistan,India and in that other mess Iran.The situation from Egypt,Syria,KAS,and other followers of desert cult is nothing to be jealous about.ENJOY.Read Kuran,and as some one said it permits mixing falsehood with half truth.as long as it confuses and defeat unbelievers and Kafhirs,Does IT?I have my doubts.I could make the burden lighter for those Ahmedias,but why Try?.H.Mani
Please read the Two versions of Extreme HYPOCRISY by Jinnah
Jinnah responded and delivered a speech that
“..let me clear that Muslim believes in one God, one
Prophet, Holy Quran and Islamic principles are the
Constitution which we inherited from our Holy Prophet
(PBUH) thirteen centuries before, so there will be nothing
but only Quranic principles will be our Constitution. In
order to achieve our goal you should vote in favour of
Muslim League candidates. Regarding legislation I will
say that when you elect your representatives to the
Parliament they make laws in the conformity of the Quran
and Sunnah…If concreted efforts are made by all the
achievement of Pakistan is not difficult…” (Jinnah, 1945,
November 24 as cited in Aziz, 1978, p.145).
Second Face of Jinnah
**********************************
Raja of Mahmudabad’s evidence is significant. The Raja started off by saying that since the Lahore resolution had been passed earlier that year, if and when Pakistan was formed, it was undoubtedly to be an Islamic State with the Sunna and Shariah as its bedrock. The Quaid’s face went red and he turned to ask Raja whether he had taken leave of his senses. Mr. Jinnah added: `Did you realize that there are over seventy sects and differences of opinion regarding the Islamic faith, and if what the Raja was suggesting was to be followed, the consequences would be a struggle of religious opinion from the very inception of the State leading to its very dissolution. Mr. Jinnah banged his hands on the table and said: We shall not be an Islamic State but a Liberal Democratic Muslim State.[3]
This is not the first time that the allegation about Ch. Sir Zafrulla Khan not reading the funeral (Janaza) prayers of Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Qaid-e-Azam) has come up. Somehow this supposedly asserts that Ch. Zafrullah Khan did not hold Qaid-e-Azam in high esteem, which couldn’t be further from the truth. It should be noted that there were other people like, Mulana Mahududi or Tufal Muhmmad who did not read the funeral prayers of Qaid-e-Azam as well.
In fact, it should be noted that funeral prayers is Farze-Kafya (Obligation that one person can fulfill for the entire Muslims Ummah) not everyone has to read it, it is not obligatory.
Also there are scores of declarations in which the divines of various sects have declared the followers of other Muslims sects disbelievers and have forbidden joining in prayer services led by them. So why raise this objection against the Ahmadis alone?
Please watch the video to learn from the Ahmadi Muslims on what is the truth behind this. Listen from 33:30 minute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PSq1v3iAOgk#t=2358
The article makes an absorbing readings into person and personality and his outstanding achievements ofSir Zafrullah Khan, who had also served as the President of All India Muslim League in early Thirties and was always deputed by the Quaid-e-Azam to plead the ML cases with the British rulers and the 70 percent majority of Hindu adversaries of 25% Muslim minority of the Indian Subcontinent. As representative of Pakistan in the UNO he was able to thwart many negative schemes of the imperialists powers to distribute among themselves the Arab and North African Muslim countries. And he served as the first Foreign Minister from 1947 to 1954 in an outstanding manner and the Quaid-e-Azam used to call him his ‘political son’ as a gesture of his love and respect for him. Sir Zafrullah was elected as the President of UN General Assembly in 1962 and elected twice as Judge of ICJ, Hague.
The author has just reproduced factually incorrect propaganda against Ahmadis with out any investigation or verification
I am following this series of articles on Partition by Dr. I.A. with interest. It is hard for me even as a non-Ahmadi to accept that ZK was responsible for the Lahore Resolution and for “selling out” Pakistan to the West. There was a very long list of people who were inspired by the British who strongly supported the Pakistan movement. Exactly how many members of the Muslim League spent time in jail opposing the British during the 1040’s? How do their numbers compare to Congress members?
Pakistan was “won” by a brilliant lawyer helped by people like ZK (whose Ahmadi background has little to do with the matter at hand). Just like the Sikhs whose leaders decided to migrate east, the Ahmadi leadership decided to migrate west as the 1947 Partition became a reality.
I will look forward to Yasser Hamdani’s rebuttle to this article in the near future.
My take on Partition today is that it is a “done deal” and that all three countries which were born out of it need to have a US-Canada type of relationship. For that India needs to take some steps and resolve Kashmir.
The one great winner out of the 1947 partition was the Gora. It is time Bangladesh-India-Pakistan all learn to live in peace and develop themselves.
Sorry to read comments of some people who complain about focusing
On the role of First Foreign Minister of Pakistan in the creation of Pakistan.
The truth of the matter is that we will have to find all the facts,factors and
Players in the Greatest Blunder of humanity Indo Pak partition of a country where Muslims ruled for over 1000 years and have Graves and Khanqahs of martyrs.
Muslims were forced to be Kicked Out like Spain by the conspirators.since 67 years there has been no initiative taken to find the facts behind the Drama of 47
People in IndoPak in general and Kashmiris in particular are under the threat
Of riots,Civil War,Looting ,Bombing and killing of Innocents on a daily basis.
Jinnah and his Gang failed to keep the promise of PEACE and what people of
IndoPak got is continuous sufferings,destruction and damage to environment
Including Great Land of Punjab has lost two of its Rivers which were DRIED out
By Greedy leadership.The land,trees,animals.insects and Birds had to suffer
With Jinnah,Nehru,Sardar Patel and Gandhi Gang policies and actions taken
To please the Goras .These Traitors/Puppets should never be forgiven for Their Role in a British Plan and orders of Viceroy to Divide Muslims as well conspiracy
To destroy the Culture,Traditions,Language and Civilization of IndoPak.If some
One had a role in this conspiracy irrespective of caste or Religion should
Be exposed and Ms Tahira and Mr Hamdani should feel their responsibility and
Duty of a citizen and not try to defend some one from their sect. as the time
Has come to find the Truth and expose the lies which were invented by Jinnah
And his gang but due to DECLASSIFIED documents made available by British
Government it is very easy to find the Culprits and Real Facts,
Chapter II
Ulema and Pakistan Movement
http://ghazali.net/book1/chapter_2.htm
“Muslim religious organisations of the sub-continent — Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, Majlis-i- Ahrar- i-Islam and Jamat-i-Islami [1]– were politically very active during the struggle for Pakistan but all of them opposed tooth and nail the creation of a separate homeland for the Muslims. The opposition of Jamiat and Ahrar was on the plea that Pakistan was essentially a territorial concept and thus alien to the philosophy of Islamic brotherhood, which was universal in character. Nationalism was an un-Islamic concept for them but at the same time they supported the CongressParty’s idea of Indian nationalism which the Muslim political leadership considered as accepting perpetual domination of Hindu majority. Jamat-i-Islami reacted to the idea of Pakistan in a complex manner. It rejected both the nationalist Ulema’s concept of nationalism as well as the Muslim League’s demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims.
The most noteworthy feature of the struggle for Pakistan is that its leadership came almost entirely from the Western-educated Muslim professionals. The Ulema remained, by and large, hostile to the idea of a Muslim national state. But during the mass contact campaign, which began around 1943, the Muslim League abandoned its quaint constitutionalist and legalist image in favor of Muslim populism which drew heavily on Islamic values. Wild promises were made of restoring the glory of Islam in the future Muslim state. As a consequence, many religious divines and some respected Ulema were won over.[2]
The Muslim political leadership believed that the Ulema were not capable of giving a correct lead in politics to the Muslims because of their exclusively traditional education and complete ignorance of the complexities of modern life. It, therefore, pleaded that the Ulema should confine their sphere of activity to religion since they did not understand the nature of politics of the twentieth century.
It was really unfortunate that the Ulema, in general and the Darul Ulum Deoband in particular, understood Islam primarily in a legal form. Their medieval conception of the Shariah remained unchanged, orthodox and traditional in toto and they accepted it as finished goods manufactured centuries ago by men like (Imam) Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf. Their scholasticism, couched in the old categories of thought, barred them from creative thinking and properly understanding the problems, social or philosophical, confronting the Muslim society in a post-feudal era. They were intellectually ill-equipped to comprehend the crisis Islam had to face in the twentieth century. [3]
The struggle for Pakistan — to establish a distinct identity of Muslims — was virtually a secular campaign led by men of politics rather than religion and Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his lieutenants such as Liaquat Ali Khan who won Pakistan despite opposition by most of the Ulema.
Jinnah was continuously harassed by the Ulema, particularly by those with Congress orientation. They stood for status quo as far as Islam and Muslims were concerned, and regarded new ideas such as the two nation theory, the concept of Muslim nationhood and the territorial specification of Islam through the establishment of Pakistan as innovations which they were not prepared to accept under any circumstance. It was in this background that Jinnah pointed out to the students of the Muslim University Union: “What the League has done is to set you free from the reactionary elements of Muslims and to create the opinion that those who play their selfish game are traitors. It has certainly freed you from that undesirable element of Molvis and Maulanas. I am not speaking of Molvis as a whole class. There are some of them who are as patriotic and sincere as any other, but there is a section of them which is undesirable. Having freed ourselves from the clutches of the British Government, the Congress, the reactionaries and so-called Molvis, may I appeal to the youth to emancipate our women. This is essential. I do not mean that we are to ape the evils of the West. What I mean is that they must share our life not only social but also political.” [4]
The history of the Ulema in the sub-continent has been one of their perpetual conflict with intelligentsia. The Ulema opposed Sir Syed Ahmad Khan when he tried to rally the Muslims in 1857. Nearly a hundred of them, including Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, the leading light of Deoband, ruled that it was unlawful to join the Patriotic Association founded by him. However, the Muslim community proved wiser than the religious elite and decided to follow the political lead given by Sir Syed Ahmad.
The conflict between conservative Ulema and political Muslim leadership came to a head during the struggle for Pakistan when a number of Ulema openly opposed the Quaid-i-Azam and denounced the concept of Pakistan. It is an irony of history that Jinnah in his own days, like Sir Syed Ahmad before him, faced the opposition of the Ulema.
The Ahrar Ulema — Ataullah Shah Bukhari, Habibur Rahman Ludhianawi and Mazhar Ali Azhar — seldom mentioned the Quaid-i-Azam by his correct name which was always distorted. Mazhar Ali Azhar used the insulting sobriquet Kafir-i-Azam (the great unbeliever) for Quaid-i-Azam. One of the resolutions passed by the Working Committee of the Majlis-i-Ahrar which met in Delhi on 3rd March 1940, disapproved of Pakistan plan, and in some subsequent speeches of the Ahrar leaders Pakistan was dubbed as “palidistan”. The authorship of the following couplet is attributed to Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, a leading personality of the Ahrar:
Ik Kafira Ke Waste Islam ko Chhora
Yeh Quaid-i-Azam hai Ke hai Kafir-i-Azam.[6]
(He abandoned Islam for the sake of a non-believer woman [7], he is a great leader or a great non-believer)
During the struggle for Pakistan, the Ahrar were flinging foul abuse on all the leading personalities of the Muslim League and accusing them of leading un-Islamic lives. Islam was with them a weapon which they could drop and pick up at pleasure to discomfit a political adversary. Religion was a private affair in their dealings with the Congress and nationalism their ideology. But when they were pitted against the Muslim League, their sole consideration was Islam. They said that the Muslim League was not only indifferent to Islam but an enemy of it.
After independence, the Ahrar leaders came to Pakistan. But before coming, the All India Majlis-i-Ahrar passed a resolution dissolving their organization and advising the Muslims to accept Maulana Azad as their leader and join the Congress Party.[8]
The Jamat-i-Islami was also opposed to the idea of Pakistan which it described as Na Pakistan (not pure). In none of the writings of the Jama’at is to be found the remotest reference in support of the demand for Pakistan. The pre-independence views of Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamat-i-Islami were quite definite:
“Among Indian Muslims today we find two kinds of nationalists: the Nationalists Muslims, namely those who in spite of their being Muslims believe in Indian Nationalism and worship it; and the Muslims Nationalist: namely those who are little concerned with Islam and its principles and aims, but are concerned with the individuality and the political and economic interests of that nation which has come to exist by the name of Muslim, and they are so concerned only because of their accidence of birth in that nation. From the Islamic viewpoint both these types of nationalists were equally misled, for Islam enjoins faith in truth only; it does not permit any kind of nation-worshipping at all.[9]
Maulana Maududi was of the view that the form of government in the new Muslim state, if it ever came into existence, could only be secular. In a speech shortly before partition he said: “Why should we foolishly waste our time in expediting the so-called Muslim-nation state and fritter away our energies in setting it up, when we know that it will not only be useless for our purposes, but will rather prove an obstacle in our path.” [10]
Paradoxically, Maulana Maududi’s writings played an important role in convincing the Muslim intelligentsia that the concept of united nationalism was suicidal for the Muslims but his reaction to the Pakistan movement was complex and contradictory. When asked to cooperate with the Muslim League he replied: “Please do not think that I do not want to participate in this work because of any differences, my difficulty is that I do not see how I can participate because partial remedies do not appeal to my mind and I have never been interested in patch work.”[11]
He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he was convinced that the Muslims would be drawn away from Islam if they agreed to merge themselves in the Indian milieu. He was interested more in Islam than in Muslims: because Muslims were Muslims not because they belonged to a communal or a national entity but because they believed in Islam. The first priority, therefore, in his mind was that Muslim loyalty to Islam should be strengthened. This could be done only by a body of Muslims who did sincerely believe in Islam and did not pay only lip service to it. Hence he founded the Jamat-i-Islami (in August 1941).[12] However, Maulana Maududi’s stand failed to take cognizance of the circumstances in which the Muslims were placed [13] at that critical moment.
The Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the most prestigious organization of the Ulema, saw nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan. Its president, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, who was also Mohtamim or principal of Darul Ulum Deoband opposed the idea of two-nation theory, pleading that all Indians, Muslims or Hindus were one nation. He argued that faith was universal and could not be contained within national boundaries but that nationality was a matter of geography, and Muslims were obliged to be loyal to the nation of their birth along with their non-Muslim fellow citizens. Maulana Madani said: “all should endeavor jointly for such a democratic government in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Parsis are included. Such a freedom is in accordance with Islam.” [14] He was of the view that in the present times, nations are formed on the basis of homeland and not on ethnicity and religion.[15] He issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims from joining the Muslim League.
Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani accepted the doctrine of Indian nationalism with all enthusiasm and started preaching it in mosques. This brought a sharp rebuke from Dr. Mohammad Iqbal. His poem on Hussain Ahmad [16] in 1938 started a heated controversy between the so-called nationalist Ulema and the adherents of pan-Islamism (Umma).
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a member of Indian National Congress regrets that he did not accept Congress president ship in 1946, which led Nehru to assume that office and give the statements that could be exploited by the Muslim League for creation of Pakistan and withdrawal of its acceptance of the Cabinet Plan that envisaged an Indian Union of all the provinces and states of the sub-continent with safeguards for minorities. [17] He had persuaded the pro-Congress Ulema that their interests would be better safeguarded under a united India, and that they should repose full confidence in Indian nationalism. However, they should make efforts to secure for themselves the control of Muslim personal law, by getting a guarantee from the Indian National Congress, that the Muslim personal law would be administered by qadis (judges) who were appointed from amongst the Ulema.[18]
In a bid to weaken the Muslim League’s claim to represent all Muslims of the subcontinent, the Congress strengthened its links with the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the Ahrars and such minor and insignificant non-League Muslim groups as the Momins and the Shia Conference.[19]
Along with its refusal to share power with the Muslim League, the Congress pursued an anti-Muslim League policy in another direction with the help of Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind . It was not enough to keep the Muslim League out of power. Its power among the people should be weakened and finally broken. Therefore, it decided to bypass Muslim political leadership and launch a clever movement of contacting the Muslim masses directly to wean them away from the leadership that sought to protect them from the fate of becoming totally dependent on the sweet will of the Hindu majority for their rights, even for their continued existence. This strategy — called Muslim Mass Contact Movement — was organized in 1937 with great finesse by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. [20]
Congress leaders …. employed Molvis to convert the Muslim masses to the Congress creed. The Molvis, having no voice in the molding of the Congress policy and program, naturally could not promise to solve the real difficulties of the masses, a promise which would have drawn the masses towards the Congress. The Molvis and others employed for the work tried to create a division among the Muslim masses by carrying on a most unworthy propaganda against the leaders of the Muslim League. [21] However, this Muslim mass contact movement failed.
It is pertinent to note here that a small section of the Deoband School was against joining the Congress. Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943) was the chief spokesman of this group. Later Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Othmani (1887-1949), a well-known disciple of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and a scholar of good repute, who had been for years in the forefront of the Jamiat leadership quit it with a few other Deoband Ulema, and became the first president of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam established in 1946 to counteract the activities of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind. However, the bulk of the Deoband Ulema kept on following the lead of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and the Jamiat in opposing the demand for Pakistan.
Contrary to the plea of the nationalist Ulema, the Muslim intelligentsia was worried that the end of British domination should not become for the Muslims the beginning of Hindu domination. They perceived through the past experience that the Hindus could not be expected to live with them on equal terms within the same political framework. Therefore they did not seek to change masters. A homeland is an identity and surely the Muslims of the sub-continent could not have served the cause of universal brotherhood by losing their identity, which is what would have inevitably happened if they had been compelled to accept the political domination of the Hindus. The Ulema thought in terms of a glorious past and linked it unrealistically to a nebulous future of Muslim brotherhood. This more than anything else damaged the growth of Muslim nationalism and retarded the progress of Muslims in the sub-continent.[22]
The nationalist Ulema failed to realize this simple truth and eventually found themselves completely isolated from the mainstream of the Muslim struggle for emancipation. Their opposition to Pakistan on grounds of territorial nationalism was the result of their failure to grasp contemporary realities. [23] They did not realize that majorities can be much more devastating, specifically when it is an ethnic, linguistic or religious majority which cannot be converted into a minority through any election.[24]
The Ulema, as a class, concentrated on jurisprudence and traditional sciences. They developed a penchant for argument and hair splitting. This resulted in their progressive alienation from the people, who while paying them the respect due to religious scholars, rejected their lead in national affairs. While their influence on the religious minded masses remained considerable, their impact on public affairs shrank simply because the Ulema concentrated on the traditional studies and lost touch with the realities of contemporary life.[25]”
67 years gone. still harping on matters not useful to promote peace progress and happiness. malalas cannot go to school. what is the use of this partition. what is the use of Jinnah, ZK, Nehru or patel. honour killings continue. the gap between rich and poor enlarging. taxes are not paid fully. swiss bank accounts swelling. middle class have now become poor class. No politician had inherited the virtues of Gandhi or jinnah. handful of terrorists can blast the nation at will. what is the use of this freedom
tell the new born about who did what in the past. It will say hell with it. give me good milk , good education, good living and good life.
Re Ramaya Balachandran
We must go to the source 1947 where all that Tragedy started unless you
Dont find the facts and truth about Wolf in Sheep Skin nothing is possible
It is very painful and depressing to learn about the Evil Character of IndoPak leadership at the
Time of Partition.The fact of the matter is Goras Deported (Kala Pani) Hanged and persucured
Real Freedom Fighters like Bhagat Singh,Ashfaqullah, Shah Nawaz Khan,Netaji subash Chandra
And many Muslims,Hindus & Sikhs who were nationalist over and above the communal stance.
I am very much happy to learn that present Pakistan has so much liberty to express the views and
Historic facts which you could never had dreamed in Zia Nahaq times.
The followings are the steps may I suggest for a peace process between the neighbors .
1.We should understand that INDIA and Pakistan can only live with peace after We agree to stop
Foreign intervention from Goras,Western Powers and China (Who has captured big chunk of Aksi Chin
Part of Kashmir )
2.Muslims,Hindus and Sikhs have lived with harmony since Thousand Years and there is no other
Country with this unique situation so a platform of understanding should be established where
Urdu-Hindi-Punjabi should be tought in schools of both countries to understand each other.
3.A group of liberal writers,poets and journalist should be formed to foster the better relationship
Between the people of both countries and investigate as well eradicate the false myths and propaganda
In the media and press of hostilities.
4.The relations between different sects of Muslims should be improved by curbing and controlling the
Mullahs who have invented their own Fake Islam without proper understanding of the religion and
Extremist Mullahs should be exposed who are creating disturbances and supporting terror of Taaleban.
5.Broken west wing of Pakistan has survived after loss of half of country in 1971 and present Pakistan
Can be developed and prosper without KASHMIR.Half of Kashmir is already with present Pakistan my
Simple question is what you achieved in that part of Kashmir that you dreaming the answer is nothing
Same corruption,Red Tape,Illiteracy,Mullahs fascist control and Police corruption ( 70% Crimes in
Pakistan are planned and committed by Paky Police to collect money to pay the Senior Officers and
Establishment ) So forget about Indian Kahmir it is being ruled by Muslims already,You dont care about
Bangladesh ( Half of the original Pakistan )any more so leave the Kashmir issue and try to save Broken West Pakistan. Indians must also understand that Negative
Diplomacy can be so dangerous that it may lead to Nuclear War ask Japanese
Even after almost 70 years their children are born handicap and that can be very
Much avoided with peoper understanding and accepting the truth about Jinnah,Gandhi.Nehru and Sardar Patel
With regards,
Ronuq Shah
Hamdani Sb waiting your rebuttal anxiously.
It is a mind boggling debate after 67 years of partition.
People of the subcontinent have unique habit of dwelling
on the past and neglecting the future. The fact of the matter
is many countries have been partitioned in the last 67 years
besides India. Czechoslovakia was partitioned into Czech
Republic and Slovakia without a single drop of blood shed
by any one. Quebec province of Canada held referendum
on separation which narrowly failed. Canada had acceded to
the demand of separate nation of French speaking people
( Quebec) if majority of people in that province approve it.
United Kingdom will allow referendum on separation of Scotland
if majority so decides. Yugoslavia was split into Serbia,
Macedonia, Bosnia, Croatia. They shed blood but no one
is harping on the issue. Sudan has been partitioned.
Belgium may split between Flemish and French speaking
population.
Over a long period of history people have defined themselves as nation on the basis of language, ethnicity, religion,etc. In India
itself states have split on the basis of language, ethnicity.
There was lot of blood shed when Bombay province
was partitioned into state of Gujerat and Maharashtra.
There were brutal killings by both groups. Punjab was split again
between Punjabi speaking Sikh majority state and Hindi
speaking Haryana. Andhra Pardesh has been split on the basis
of ethnicity.Muslims in other countries are campaigning for their
own separate homeland as in Russia, Thailand, Philippines
and perhaps China. Ethnic Kurds are demanding their own
state. Why so much fuss about Pakistan? It has done neither any
good nor any harm. The only thing that matters is the
future. The campaigners for Pakistan assumed that common
culture, language, religion and history would bind people
together who will rise above narrow self interest to work
cooperatively for common good and advance their civilization.
Narrow mindedness has triumphed. Instead of making progress
despite the talent and resources, both India and Pakistan
usually end up at the lower rung of index of human development.
Jinnah, Zafarullah Khan, Iqbal, Liaqut Khan,etc were intelligent
people and did their best to promote the interest of the community
as they conceived under the circumstances.They also hoped
that future generation will live in the independent country
in peace, harmony and prosperity while accepting
and tolerating some of their differences.
In one of my previous comments, I had said among other things, “….Mr. Ahmed, talks about writing this from his “vantage point” as a political scientist. “Vantage Point”, what the heck is that? Sounds like a very medieval term, at least in terms of the trajectory of modern scholarship. Now, I’m neither a scholar nor an intellectual and am afraid I cannot go into an in-depth critique of Mr. Ahmed’s scholarship. However, I feel compelled to express my feelings. His writings are a curious mixture of anecdotes, rejoinders, and off-tangent examples that sometimes smack of a total lack of gravity or reality. Perhaps fit for a blog but I just hope he doesn’t claim to be a political scientist.”
In retrospect, I think I was hasty to judge. It is unfair in every which way, particularly for the reason that I had NOT read Mr. Ahmed’s books. I think I got more than a bit emotional and needlessly defensive when I read Mr. Ahmed’s comments and listing of examples about persisting problems of discrimination and unfairness in Indian polity and society in general. I also believe that being judgmental is wrong. I respect his views and scholarship.
This apology does not mean that I have no disagreements with some of Mr. Ahmed’s ideas or perspectives. For example, I don’t believe India or Hinduism must emulate the West’s (increasing) practice of an eclectic form of Christianity. As an agnostic, I believe that people anywhere – the West or India – will get more tolerant when they move away from religiosity. [I accept that spirituality and humanism are important and can even provide some sustaining moral fabric to a society]. In any case, as Mr. Ahmed will know better, we could hardly credit the progress or otherwise of the West entirely to religion. There might be a million little “butterfly effects”.
Actually, now after so many years of independence – I do think – Thank God Pak was created. Otherwise we would have the lawless border with Afghanistan and all the lawless tribal belt in India. The Taliban would have given rise to a total militant Hindu organization, and there would be tit for tat bomb attacks in India and total chaos… All the South Asian countries .. Pak, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka…haven;t learnt anything from independence. People are suffering even more.
If Aaam admi party shows the way, that will be better. We had so many hopes on Imran Khan, he turned out to be just a petty politician (the cartoon above shows the truth)..Just my two cents…nothing personal against anyone. Thanks !
Ahmadies have always been labeled as jewish agents or western agents. After talks between America and Iran, Saudi Arabia has openly collaborated with Israel on Iran issue.Unfortunately Pakistani MULLAH has no problem with this relationship. Is this “MUNAFAQAT” or what? Who is an agent ? Ahmadies or Saudis? I am surprised that nobody commented on Dr.Abdul Salam. You cannot get anywhere by distorting the history. I am sad to say that history will distort you
“Please come back home immediately, I need to go to Lahore” shouted my father on phone.
I have just arrived at office, at 9, on this beautiful March morning in 1984. Reaching home, my father said “Dadajan Samdani wants to see me” and off we went to meet “Dadajan Samdani”, 95 years old, quite sick, bedridden in his large house, behind NCA Hostel, in Lahore.
A listless afternoon spent roaming around the old house, clandestinely listening to the weeping, shouting & pleading sounds in Dadajan’s bedroom, some naps and many hours later, my distressed & emotionally shaken father came out & we started for the long journey home.
Dadajan Samdani retired from a senior position in Irrigation Department. He did his Civil engineering from US (MIT ??) in 1919. He was one of the few indian XENs at the time of partition, serving at Multan, with his wife & family of two sons & two daughters enjoying summer vacations in Shimla. While coming back to Lahore the whole convoy was massacred.
What followed was a 40 year of bereavement, pain, emerging hopes & their shattering, constant imagining of the trauma to adult daughters, praying and a perpetual quest to find “what happened?”
“So what did Dadajan Samdani wanted to discuss?” I asked my father over the din of my battered Suzuki.
“He wanted me to accompany him to India to search for his daughters: Deemay, mera dil kahta hai wo zinda hoan gi” said my father in a very low voice, which somehow overcame the clattering of the engine.
Dadajan Samdani died a year later.
Dear Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, Please go and tell Dadajan Samdani: “I am sorry, partition was a mistake.”
This research is just cut and paste. Not reliable at all.
Interesting article