Khan Abdul Wali Khan: His Fathers Shadow?

Well, Mullahs have never been that powerful in Pakistan. This is the first time, they got elected in NWFP based on their AntiAmerican propaganda, which is already dissolved.

I am talking about whole previous years of elections. Wali was never popular to begin with. Now, to call it a retirement is to hide behind illusion.

Samething, if, Imran Khan doesn`t get any seat and says at the end , oh, I got retired from politics. That doesn`t make sense. Yes, if, he would have been really popular and got retirement at his peak, that is what retirement from politics is.

If, Wali found an excuse to blame mullahs and ISI for his failed politics, then something is wrong with Wali, not with Paki politics.

Mullahs and ISI don`t go door to door to tell Paki people not to vote for Wali.

Re: # 85

Tahmad sahib: Good post. Anil Kapuria

HP (#61)

In 61, HP has given a balanced explanation of events leading to partition of India and Pakistan. This should be used as the epilog of this issue and end this debate at Chowk. We all should move on. There certainly are more issues between India and Pakistan in the modern day, as contentious to provide a healthy debatee.

Can someone come up with a balanced epilog of Hindu-Muslim issue as well?

Anil Kapuria

re: tahmed32 # 85

How well you have captured the developments in India of late! Gandhi is dead, killed, murdered in India by Indians themselves. He has few takers among his own people. All that is left is his reputation as a good man, a good but naive old man who had no idea about how the world `really` works. The very long and powerful tradition you mentioned is being increasingly rejected. A new militarism is in the air.

One hopes that this is a temporary phase, and people realize that while the pursuit of strength is a worthy objective, the pursuit of militarism is suicidal. :(

If, I worked that hard through out my generations to build up a party along with my other resources, in different provinces , it wouldn`t be a surprise to see a crowd on my funeral.

It is absolutely not a sign of Popularity.

Look at Imran Khan, he has his own party through out Pakistan. But, I will never call him popular as a political leader, unless he will have majority of seats in provincial and national assemblies. Imran Khan is a Popular as a cricketer, as a social worker.
Same is with Wali, Wali was, is and never will be popular among masses of Pakistan.

No, Wali and his fahter were traitors in the history of Pakistan and they will always be seen as traitors. They never did anything good for NWFP and Pakistan. Rather, always scheming for the destruction of Pakistan. Though never got succeeded in their ugly plans. Anyone can comment on their being traitor or not. But, that won`t change the factual history about this very family of traitors.

HP, Manto, Fuzair

Fuzair #79, that was unfair to HP! :) HP never fails to make us think, consistently offering new information and new perspectives.

HP`s # 61 touches upon many of the beliefs Indians hold (which for the most part reflect traditional Congressi views). To carry the argument further, how would you respond to a few traditional Indian positions, such as -

Gaffar Khan versus Jinnah: In India, Gaffar Khan is held in great reverence. Jinnah is not. Jinnah is also not considered superior in his charismatic appeal to the masses. The difference, as portrayed in India, is that unlike Jinnah, Gaffar Khan, to the end, remained steadast to the concept of territorial nationalism.

Muslim League`s goals: Muslim League is not seen as representative of or speaking on behalf of all Muslims of the subcontinent. The Congress view acknowledged fissures across all dimensions of Indian society - even among Indian Muslims themselves. However, the Congress sought to give Indians control of their own destiny before addressing those problems. The Muslim League is viewed as a body primarily of those Muslims who for various reasons were themselves not democratically well-disposed toward the majority, and felt threatened by the prospect of living with the majority under a democratic dispensation. In this view, some Muslims (who did not think very highly of the majority) sought to protect rights that can only be enjoyed by a privileged minority, not rights that are available to any minority under an ordinary democratic dispensation.

Muslim League as Agents of the British: That is not the predominant view. It is the one sponsored by leftists and communists. The traditional Congress (and Indian) view is that historical accidents aligned the interests of those Britishers who were unenthused about the retreat of their empire from India, and those Muslims who were unwilling to take their chances in a demoacratic India. British-Muslim cooperation was hence a matter of the two parties following their interests (except in as much as the British were the rulers, which blurred the distinction between sponsorship and cooperation).

About the fact of the (alleged) British-Muslim League cooperation: In Indian historical narrative, the shenanigans of the British, if any, don`t play a dominant role. India`s division, at the end, is attributed to the decisions of creating and championing the myth of the Two Nation Theory.

About the Britishers, the prevailing Indian view is that some Britishers, a la Churchill, encumbered with a self-image as India`s rulers, were unhappy with India`s imminent independence, and sought to delay it. Their cause became one with Muslim League`s for two reasons. One, because the latter weakened India`s nationalism and two, because Muslim League, in effect, insisted that India`s problems be solved BEFORE India be granted independence. (Muslim League`s demand was not very different from Baba Saheb Ambedkar`s demand, although Baba Saheb chose not to break the country).

Was there any British-Muslim League cooperation? My personal view is that, given the partial but close alignment of their interests, it would have been naive of the parties not to take advantage of the situation. But that is only speculation. Answering the question of whether they actually did cooperate at any level should be left to the study of objective historical records.

I know the exact psyche of NWFP people. You are not from that province, to understand their minds, it is vital to have a background connected to them. Similarly, so, many traditions are in Indian Hindus, that I am unaware of, of course you have better grip on those ones.

Let me give you a perfect example of their psyche, my mother was not a big leader, she was a reputable social worker, when she died, bazars of Abbottabad city were closed, i saw almost everyone from that city, along with people from suburban towns came to mourn. I was shocked to see such a big crowd.
Now, why I gave you this example? To make you understand the background and the traditions of NWFP people.

Wali Khan and his father were famous, but, they were never leaders of NWFP. To call them leaders is just an insult to Pakistan.
If, they would have been leaders, why they never got elected?
There is a vast difference between being famous or notorious and being popular as a leader. Their party never gained any popularity among masses of NWFP.

Now, if, you`re refering to this much crowd on his funeral, this is a tradition of people of NWFP to mourn to anyone who is lil famous.
It has got nothing to do with being leaders. Thanks

dost mittar #182 ``It seems that chowk is the only place where Gandhi is still being discussed. ``

That is interesting. Gandhi was not just a flash in the pan, but rather part of a major stream in indian history represented by jainism, buddhism, even the hindu bhakti movement to some extent, sikhism (prior to the militarization of sikhs and turning away from the original peaceful teachings of guru nank no doubt largely due to mughal oppression) and chandragupta maurya (who turned jain after ``retirement`` as emperor) and asoka (who saw the results of violence in kalinga). So, by rendering Gandhi a ``non-person``, this entire, noble theme that runs centuries deep in India has been rendered non-existent as a result of hindu revivalists who killed Gandhi literally and figuratively. India`s salvation of course is in jumping onto the bandwagon of the west - leaving both the good (the philosophy of non-violence) and the bad (hindu revivalists trying to ape the muslim invaders they hate).

Re: #80 by ranjit


ranjit,

That was a very good post. But you efforts are going to be futile.

This Manto`s point of view is that Hindus are very bad people, that is why the good Muslims had to create their own state. People like Dost Mitter and Kaalchakra would say, oh no no no no, everybody is equally bad.

If you think you will be able to convince anyone by logic or reason, forget about it.

For example, when you mention that Nirad Chowdhury is wrong, Dost-Mitter indirectly tells you that you may not have the proper perspective on this man.

The reason we are where we are today, is because of the centuries of Muslim rule and then a few centuries of British rule. The Muslims destroyed the FIRST international university in the world - Nalanda. Killed all the Buddhist monks thinking that they are hindus, and burnt down priceless books and scrolls. Which they have done in numerous other places as well. Their sole contribution to Indian culture was the qawwali branch of music (which i don`t like much anyway). The Sitar came from Persia, but the Veena was there in India for centuries before that. Rather, the arabs LEARNT the decimal numbering system and the concept of zero from India ( all other numbering systems - base 2 for binary, base 16 for hexadecimal, base 8 for octal are just variations on the base 10 Decimal numbering system), and passed it on to Europeans. But to know that, you have to talk to real mathemeticians, and not idiots on Chowk.

When the British left India, we did not even have the capacity to manufacture a single nail in our country of 300+ million people. The country was crisscrossed by railroads that they utilized to transport Indian raw materials to the ports, to England, to be manufactured and sold back to the world, including us. Heck, we were not even allowed to make our own salt in our own country - remember Gandhi`s dandi march? We had a population of roughly 340 million (I think) in 1947, more than the cURRENT population of the United States, at half its size. The British had different standards for their own citizens in England, and for Indians. While the population was growing, they neglected to educate the Indians, but educated their own.

During the British rule, there were at least three famines when MILLIONS died. After the British left, we became self sufficient in agriculture, and an exporter of foodgrains with a huge surplus, in a couple of decades. The population problem, though, was very harmful for us because of the huge number of uneducated people. It was like a deadweight dragging us down at every step. And money to be spent on social services like mass education, was scant. As a young nation we needed all the money we had to quickly industrialize to quickly meet the challenges faced by our good neighbors - Pakistan and China. Pakistan has been like a mangy dog biting at our heels and bleeding us slowly - bleeding us here at home as well as at every possible international forum ever since independence. We had to spend a LOT of money trying to keep these creatures at bay.

When people (influenced by that consummate fraud, Nirad C. Chowdhuri) tell you that you cannot really criticize the British for where India is at, ask them, why is it then that it`s okay to criticize Bush for the progress made/not made in his country after a mere 4 years at the Helm, or the UPA government for 5 years of reign? These parasites have been at the helm in India for CENTURIES! And they are NOT RESPONSIBLE?

As for Manto`s point that Hindus are very bad people, therefore Muslims could not stay with them - look worldwide. The same scenario has happened or is happening everywhere else. Muslims cannot live with xxxx community because they are bad, but Muslims are good. China, India, Myanmar, Indonesia, Israel, Russia - and now soon coming to a country near you.

Greetings YLH/HP/Ahmedzai/Zeena, and thanks for providing your perspective on the issue of exactly what Wali Khan stood for. I asked what role Wali Khan had in the overthrow of Ayub Khan (among other questions) since I clearly recall how the protests were triggered - which was the rise in sugar prices which were attributed to Khan of Hoti, one of Ayub`s cronies. There were of course broader reasons for the general discontent, mostly having to do with people getting fed up of Ayub Khan`s refusal to allow proper elections. While there were general protests, it was in Lahore where things became most serious as the army refused to keep shooting at fellow Pakistanis after 8-10 deaths had taken place, and army pressure forced Ayub Khan to step down. If there was any political leadership to this popular uprising, it was Bhutto, although even he was hardly in a leadership position. But I dont recall anything about Wali Khan from back then.

There is no doubt a very strong patriotic tradition in the frontier, exemplified by Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar and Naseerullah Babar and countless others who have contributed so much to Pakistan. But I dont think Wali Khan was ever very clear on where he stood - but Ahmedzai would know better being from that province and so I assume Wali Khan was in fact for provincial autonomy while remaining a patriotic Pakistani.

The way I look at it is, that for politicians the thing to look for is (per Sherlock Holmes famous mystery adventure) ``the dog that did not bark`` . That is, what are the things the politician is silent on. And that is where I dont recall Wali Khan (or most other politicians) not having much to say on what I consider to be the truly important issues: poverty alleviation, democratic institutions in particular. The issue that interested him was the one which I think is totally irrelevant to the welfare of the average Pakistani, namely provincial autonomy. If he had talked about local self-governments at the district level, that would have been a contribution to democracy.

As for HP saying: ``Now if you expect him to stand at the border and guard it too then obviously you are expecting too much. `` Reminds me of Wali Khan`s brother when he was VC Peshawar University, and would himself stand with a stick to make sure that boys and girls walked on opposite sides of the road!! :-) If he could do that, he could also do that (figuratively speaking) to save thousands of other boys from going down the ultimately self-destructive path to Afghanistan to serve as footsoldiers for the Arab mafia that had collected there under the taliban!!

Manto;

``Pakistan Demand as I showed you in #49 was actually the product of this region... Sikandar Hayat-``

Dear Yasser:

I am not quite sure what your point here is. If it is that it was a regional and not a communal demand, I would have a great difficulty believing it. He may not have been a member of the Mulim League at that time (neither, I think, was Fazul-ul-Huq, the comover from Bengal) but it was made from the ML platform and was made on communal grounds. I do not think that his Unionist colleagues, Sir Chhotu Ram or Baldev Singh, supported his demand.

``It is a self defeating rule and if followed to the hilt there can`t be any conviction on this basis... ``

If you research the background to why and when this rule was promulgated, you would know that this was precisely the purpose of the rule. :)

& Ranjit:
``He was unwilling to look at the historical context that had made India an extremely poor, filthy place by the 1930s``.

I think that you probably haven`t yet read Nirad Chaudhry`s ``The Continent of Circe``, probably his best book. He was an anglophile alright, but that would be a simplification as he was well read in Indian classical literature, like the vedas and original ramayana. He made himself a butt of jokes by walking in Delhi summer in the sun with a suit and a hat like a ``propah`` English gentleman. Yet, at home he always lived and dressed in dhoti like a Bangla bhadrapurush, even when living in England.

On Gandhi, I remember that for two years after Gandhi died, one heard almost daily Mohammad Raffi singing ``Suno suno ai duniya valo Bapu ki ye amar kahani``. After a few years, you heard it only at Gandhi`s birth and death anniversaries -which,btw, falls on Monday. And now, most youngesters probably have never heard that mandatory ode to Gandhi. It seems that chowk is the only place where Gandhi is still being discussed.

Re:manto#75 (continued)

[...My point is simple that 1947 is a reality. I was born not in India but in Pakistan. ``Reunification`` merely means that a Muslim majority state born out of the same womb as the Hindu Majority area is not able to survive and modernise...]

Dear manto, this is a very valid point and I completely agree with you. As you know quite well, I am not a fan of any reunification either. And I suspect most Indians today agree with you as well.

Where we have a divergence is that Pakistanis tend to assert that their nationalism came about because hindus and muslims could not live together i.e. they are two permanently antagonistic communities who could never coexist in the same space. Indians will never agree to that because it is untrue. Hindus and muslims coexisted for a 1000 years all over the subcontinent with fairly reasonable relations, no different than the relations between a person from UP and a person from Tamil Nadu. If the person from UP and Tamil Nadu can now live as citizens of the same country and feel a bond, why couldnt hindus and muslims do the same?

Thus from an Indian perspective, creating Pakistan was an elective surgery that the muslim community chose in 1947. It was a matter of choice, not of compulsion. Hindus always offered equal citizenship to muslims and we have implemented it in India`s constitution. Where we had a disagreement was on how to provide the muslim community a constitutionally separate sovereign status at the community level in spite of the demographic differences. How do you give equal number of seats or jobs to muslims unless you reserve 50% of everything all over India at a communal level? Nevertheless, there could have been a lot more negotiations on this matter to come up with a satisfactory solution but it didnt happen that way. However, no matter what happened, it doesnt negate my basic assertion that hindus and muslims can and do coexist quite well.

Re:manto#75

[...Nirad Chaudhry`s ``Thy Hand Great Anarch`` I read 5 years ago- it was excellent. My views on Gandhi roughly correspond to his don`t you think?...]

Manto, Nirad Chaudhry`s ``Thy Hand Great Anarch`` is indeed very interesting. Nirad Chaudhury was a fascinating character. He was a scholar on a vast variety of subjects especially on Indian history, sociology, anthroplogy, Arabian history, Islam, Hinduism, military matters etc. But he was also an anglophile to boot. He loved western civilization and considered it to be the beacon of light for the whole world.

He had a shockingly negative view about hindus in spite of being one himself. As per his beliefs, all hindus were weak, morally corrupt, intellectually backward, sectrian in outlook and militarisitc towards other faiths. His views on Gandhi were thus an extrapolation of his basic negative views towards all hindus. He felt that Gandhi was the ultimate embodiment of all hindus and their negative characteristics.

While I admire his scholarship and his writings, I always felt that he was looking at India from the eyes of a jaundiced westerner. The deep scorn for India`s culture and civilization revealed an extreme inferiority complex where you feel so ashamed of your own people that you turn against them. He was unwilling to look at the historical context that had made India an extremely poor, filthy place by the 1930s. He overlooked the 2 centuries of colonial exploitation that had pulled India down to those depths. If hindus didnt show strength and intellectual vigor, it was due to a thousand years of imperial rule. None of these factors mattered to him.

The bottom line is that he was wrong. Today Western civilization, at least in Europe is in severe decline. It does not have either the moral or the intellectual energy that it once had. And India, despite all the so called negatives of hindu character, is not only surviving but succeeding beyond every expectation.

Nirad was wrong about Gandhi as well. Gandhi did not represent hindus at all - he just represented himself. Gandhi was an eccentric individual with a lot of positives and a whole lot of negatives. Gandhi may have adopted hindu religiosity as a moniker for his political style, but hindus never considered Gandhi as their supreme ideal. On the contrary, hindus have taken the good things that he taught like tolerance, non-violence, fight against injustice etc and adopted them in our public discourse. We consider him as a hero for fighting against the british. But other than that, we have no interest in his weird personal habits, dietary practices, absurd focus on sexual abstinence and such other nonsense.

#61 by HP

Ye gods! Pigs are flying! A well-reasoned, careful post by HP! I am truly impressed (no sarcasm here; just admiration)! Why can`t the rest of your contributions to Chowk be this impressive? I do have a question, though.

What was the alliance between the Unionists and the Congress? The Unionists were certainly non-communal, like the Congress, but they were also more royal than the King. I would not have believed that they would ever have any truck with the Congress. Was there an electoral alliance in 1946?

salim-

:) Manto being against all discrimination on the basis of gender or religion is opposed to the law of 4 male adult Muslim witnesses or any other such Islamic law of evidence.

What really hits me is the part about these witnesses being pious... what pious man would go peep in and watch the actual act is beyond me. It is a self defeating rule and if followed to the hilt there can`t be any conviction on this basis...

PS to my #75

Ranjit to Ahmadzai....

``Sirjee, please tell me what I have said that is wrong? I have pointed out that the people in the Pakistan area, prior to 1946, were not terribly enthused about having a separate partitioned country. No doubt they wanted a lot of autonomy to run their own affairs, but they didnt sign up for the muslim league agenda till 1946, just one year before partition. This is a historical fact, as mentioned by Ayesha Jalal and other authors.``

You are obviously not looking at the subtle difference between what Ayesha Jalal said and what you are saying.

Ayesha Jalal says very clearly that Muslim League had no real support before 1940 in the areas that constitute Pakistan. Muslim League does not equal to Pakistan.. Muslim League chose to champion the Pakistan demand to win over the people in the Muslim Majority areas... Pakistan Demand as I showed you in #49 was actually the product of this region... Sikandar Hayat- you can check in Sole Spokesman- was the original mover of the Lahore Resolution, despite his antipathy to the Muslim League. GM Syed was part of the Pakistan movement from 1939-1946...and left because he despised Khuhro ... Similarly I hope you would try and investigate the real results of the plebiscite you speak of. They are not as narrow as you think...

-YLH