Khan Abdul Wali Khan: His Fathers Shadow?

Ladies and gentlemen,

Please read HP`s post 61 which explains a lot to a lot of those who wish to understand South Asian politics:



#61 by HP on January 27, 2006 9:38am PT

#39 by Mantolives
Please read this post carefully.

There were fundamental differences in Jinnah and Ghaffar Khan’s politics. As I have stated before Ghaffar Khan’s politics was based on NWFP and the Pushtoon Nationalism. The kind of idealism that he espoused was in direct conflict with Jinnah’s more charismatic leadership style. Jinnah was never really big on nationalism and his immediate goal after the late 30s was to leverage the communal situation in India to carve out a situation which would give Muslims in India the ability to safeguard their political and economic interests while still living with an overwhelmingly antagonistic majority.

There were many ways to accomplish this goal and Pakistan was just one option, certainly not the only one or even the most attractive one. Looking at Jinnah’s past history and his constitutional and strictly legal view of the politics, it is surprising that he even espoused a far fetched scheme like Pakistan. I am not using far fetched in a pejorative way but more as the incredulity of the scheme.

It was reasonable for many Indian leaders to accept that at some point in time in future, some provinces at both flanks of India might look for some kind of self governance or the provincial autonomy or even a greater autonomy but putting all of them together under a new entity and creating whole another country appeared too impractical for many Indian leaders including Gandhi and Nehru and even Azad.

Nehru, Gandhi or many other leaders in the Indian National congress were not naïve. Besides being ideologically strong, they were also well versed in what we today call realpolitik.

They knew exactly what Ghaffar Khan, GM Syed or Shaikh Abdullah and even some Punjabi and Bengali leaders had in mind and prolly felt that after Independence, India may have to find a way to work with these Nationalist leaders who, while contributing to the Indian Nationalism, still held their sub nations’ interests supreme.

The feeling in India in the 30s and 40s was to remove the British government and then deal with the internal Indian conflicts later.

When Jinnah emerged with an entirely different demand and begun to sway a large community in India, the suspicion in the Indian leadership(Congress and others) grew that Jinnah was actually helping the British by dividing a delicately cultivated united front against the British.

I might mention here to you that Ghaffar Khan never merged his political set up with the Indian National Congress and maintained a separate entity throughout the freedom movement. He and his followers were known as Congressi in the NWFP but politically, he was not bound by anything that National Congress did at the center. Similarly, in Punjab the Congress was happy to work with the Unionists in a broader alliance.
Sheikh Abdullah in Kashmir was fully supported by Congress despite his well known position of Kashmir autonomy and that is what he made India sign in the accession treaty.

The National leaders in Delhi had a fair idea as to what would happen after the partition but when they got hit by Pakistan demand, most of them had no idea how to respond to that and immediately concluded that it is a British sponsored divisionary tactics.

Thus, we often see references to Jinnah being a British agent and a divider. The lesser minds or the horde mentality of the Indian masses picked this up and faithfully followed through on this fallacious theory. Looking at Jinnah’s intellect and his strong legal and constitutional mind, it is simply unbelievable that he would have sold out to the British just to divide the Indian freedom movement.

So when you see references by Wali Khan in his book about the British involvement somewhere, they truly reflect a plausible argument that was fed to the public by the Indian National Congress. My feeling is that Ghaffar Khan might have a better understanding of Jinnah’s mind then Wali Khan ever did. Wali Khan’s book was mostly a regurgitation of the Congress propaganda as Wali Khan himself like many others, had totally bought it.


More later...

Dear Ranjit,

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? If you are a fan of Ayesha Jalal`s contribution, also read H M Seervai`s ``Partition of India: Legend and Reality`` - he builds on Ayesha Jalal`s point of view.

Look- I would have been okay with United India too (`would` being key here)... it was a great opportunity to bring the heterogenous elements of the subcontinent under one constitutional scheme. You would be surprised to know that when a group of Muslim students in Britain approached Jinnah for ``Pakistan idea``... Jinnah said ``had it not been for your ages, I would have considered you stooges of British Imperialism. In any event do you want to undo the only good the British have done- bringing together the heterogenous elements of the subcontinent?`` However that scheme of a free united India should have been acceptable to all parties and this what the Congress leaders (with the exception of Azad) didn`t realise.

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... and I am unwilling to accept that. Pakistan must succeed for us - and for the rest of the subcontinent.

I don`t believe in making traitors out of people... I have disagreements with Wali Khan`s politics and his pandering to the Martial law regime but I respect him for having been instrumental in the making of Pakistan`s constitution of 1973 and supporting Fatima Jinnah against a fellow Pukhtoon ..Ayub Khan.

-YLH

#65 Ahmedzai
No, wali khan and his father were proven traitors, always propagating about having Pakhtoonistan. No one can deny that. He himself admitted that openly on thousands of occasions. They were the bigest supporters of Russia`s invade on Afghanistan, they always guided and helped Russia and made it easier for them to invade and destroy Afghanistan.

And, they both were never considered leaders in NWFP. Their popularity level was zero in NWFP. How come they are called leaders ? On, what basis? they were good for nothing for Pakistan.

Re:salim_chauhan #62

Salim bhai, so you are saying that Islam is all about having long pleasurable hours of free safe sex with 4 women while enjoying vacations in Las Vegas, feasting on all you can eat buffets at night and replacing any of those 4 women at any time by saying 3 words!! :-)

Whoa!! If you put it that way, all desis (and non-desis) will line up to sign-on!! :-)

Re:ahmadzai#66

[...Ranjit:

After having a response from Manto on what you were suggesting to Zeena about GM Syed and others, I would advise not to write anything on something you don’t have an iota of knowledge about. This is just a suggestion since I respect you....]

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. Also the plebiscite in NWFP showed a narrow margin of victory for Pakistan.

Therefore, Ghaffar Khan`s attitude towards Pakistan was not an absurd anomaly or the signs of a treasonous hindu lover, as being portrayed by some people here. In fact, quite a large section of the populace was not on board with the Pakistan concept, as late as 1946. So, he was just on the losing side of a political argument, but he was certainly no statistical outlier. There is a tendency for Pakistanis to behave as if everyone in their land always wanted Pakistan for the past 1000 years and anyone who thinks otherwise is a traitorous hindu lover. That is just plain wrong.

Re:manto

Yasser, I did not know about your views on Ayesha Jalal or your historical contributions to this forum, since I joined here recently. I have based my judgement on the basis of your recent interacts where u have been vitriolic about Gandhi and have attacked Salim as a sophist for suggesting reunification. So I naturally assumed that anyone who doubted the intentions of Jinnah and impuned that he may have been okay with a united India, would be an enemy #1 in your eyes.

I have a deep interest in this subject. I have not only read Ayesha Jalal, but also the works of many othe authors like Nirad C. Chaudhuri. I have also read the biography of Sikandar Hayat Khan of the Unionist party. So while I may not have a Ph.D. in this area, like you do :-), I think I can hold my own.

Khan brothers were quite a brothers! They left a mark in the history of India`s struggle for independence.

Re: # 68

HP correct facts but a bit dated..Hindko speakers are now a minority in Peshawar having been displaced by Pashtun migration and the effects of the Afghan war has led to dari actually being one of the most spoken languages in Peshawar. Since 1988 in fact pashtuns have steadily dominated Peshawar politics and hindko speakers have increasingly integrated with pashtuns out of economic neccessity.

The Hazara belt has virtually no ANP presence now, one is as you said..other factors is the increasing integration of the region into Punjabs economy and the adoption of hindko as the lingua franca by the pashtun minority residing in that region. The leftist moveent in the hazara belt in the 1970`s and 80`s tapped into local dislike of the often pashtun landlords. The beneficiaries of that initially was the PPP..now though the region is politically dominated by independants and the Muslim League (almost always pro federal government groups..despite Nawaz Sharifs considerably popularity there his partys influence is fast declining..with the JUI and JI also wielding considerable influence in the Northern part of the region. Although Pashtuns do represent around 75% of the population seat distribution favours the hazara belt ..which again till the MMAsvictory ensured pashtuns did not wield decisive influence over NWFP politics (the ANP/NAP/NDP) never penetrated FATA effectively because of the FCR which to date bans political activities in the region (except those by the federal government). DI Khan is another issue..the ANP never had firm roots in that region, till the early 1990`s only the PPP posed an effective challenge to the JUI. Now its broken down into independant groups of nouveau rich who usually associate with the PML.

There has always been a question about how much influence Ghaffar Khan or Wali Khan had in NWFP.
In the pre-partition India, it was assumed that Ghaffar Khan was the sole voice of the NWFP province. Though, Ghaffar Khan himself relied on JUI of Mufti Mehmood a lot for Election day victories.

It is true that Ghaffar Khan had considerable influence over the Pashtoon living in NWFP but the problem is that Pashtoon are not the overwhelming majority in the province. Pashtoon only have majority when tribal area population is counted. The Tribal area is 95% pashtoon.

The eastern parts of the NWFP or the areas next to Punjab fall under the Hazara division. In general they are considered pashtoon, but in reality they are only a subset of pashtoon and speak a different language that is called Hazara. Gen. Ayub Khan was from Hazara division. Ghaffar Khan lost the pre-partition referendum in Hazara division.

Then we have Dera Ismail Khan which is pashtoon dominated area but was always under the Islamic party JUI’s influence. Peshawar city itself is not Pashtoon majority. I believe 70% of Peshawar city population is Hindko speaking and they definitely don’t consider themselves Pathan or pahtoon.

Though before the partition, Ghaffar Khan had some influence in Hazara division but over the years, first the Muslim league thru Ayub Khan and now other parties such as Tehrik Istaqlal, have more influence. Now Ghaffar Khan or Wali Khan’s influence in that area has waned to almost negligible. Ghaffar Khan’s nemesis, Khan Qayoom Khan always had strong support in Peshawar city and later PPP enjoyed overwhelming support in Peshawar’s Hindko speaking population.

These changes in support also reflect the reason that Wali Khan was not always able to take strong stand against the government on many issues.

Ahmedzai, correct me if I am wrong on this.
Thanks.

to the comment about the ANP not being representative of NWFP..yes by strict interpretation that is true..the hazara belt of NWFP tends to vote Muslim League in reaction to Pashtun Nationalism. However the reality is till the 2002 elections NWFP never had a single party in total domination of the province unlike Punjab. Even so the NDP, NAP and ANP were usually the largest or the second largest party in provincial elections. The PPP-JUI combo became the dominant group post 1988 though.

ahmadzai & hp:

Very true...the FP editorial summed up some of the obstacles Wali Khan faced..

And when on March 23, 1973, the Federal Security Force thugs
pounced on an opposition public rally at the Liaquat Bagh in the Punjab garrison
town of Rawalpindi and mowed down some one dozen people and wounded many more
with their automatic gunfire, the NWFP turned into a ticking tinderbox. The
public emotions were running very high in the province, as almost all the dead
and most of the wounded were from the NWFP, mostly belonging to the Khan’s NAP,
the existing NAP’s predecessor. Had the enraged cadres of the NAP had their way
and paraded the dead bodies on the streets in Peshawar and other cities of the
province, the tinderbox would have exploded into an unpredictable horrendous
conflagration to the great grief of our national unity and solidarity. But the
Khan firmly put his foot down, sternly held back his infuriated party cadres,
escorted the dead bodies to Peshawar and had them buried quietly and solemnly by
their bereaved families in their ancestral places.

The Khan was the most, and calculatedly at that,
misunderstood and misrepresented person, too. When he counselled the Pakistan
government not to get involved in America’s adventure against the Soviet
invaders in Afghanistan as, he argued, it was bound to boomerang on Pakistan in
the long run, his detractors branded him a Soviet agent. When he urged Islamabad
to keep out of the squabbles of the warring factions of Afghanistan after the
Soviet retreat for fear of its negative fallout on Pakistan’s own polity, they
questioned his intents. And when he pleaded for rapprochement with India
contending it was in Pakistan’s own best interests, they instantly labelled him
an Indian agent.

And he was a true democrat, staunchly committed to
democratic principles and undiluted civil rule. When late ZA Bhutto, then the
country’s president, gave choice between civilian rule and martial law, the Khan
opted for an interim constitution, saying that even though it was badly flawed
it was better than the baton’s rule. And he agreed to the constitution of 1973,
even though he found it inadequate and not conforming fully to the principles of
federalism which held as the perquisite for ensuring national solidarity and
inter-provincial harmony.

#59 by tahmed32

“where was Wali Khan in the 1960`s when there was a popular uprising (centered in the evil Panjab, Lahore to be exact) that led to the ouster of Ayub Khan? Where was he when thousands of pathan youth were being lured into Afghanistan (or Kashmir) with bs about ``Islamic glory``?? Why didnt he use whatever influence he had to save these youth from becoming cannon fodder and contributing to the mess of terrorism that now hangs around Pakistan`s neck today like an albatross?? Where was he when the military generals were busy playing their half-brained ``strategic depth`` games while millions of afghans were turned homeless and had to flee to Pakistan??”

Hello Mr. tahmed,

I don’t know exactly how many demonstrations Wali Khan led in Peshawar and Mardan in the 60s, but he was an important player during demonstrations against Gen. Ayub Khan. He was also in the round table conference that was convened by Ayub Khan to find a solution.

ZA Bhutto sabotaged that conference that was supported by all political leaders including Mujib from the outside to help Gen. Yahya Khan take over the country. I think Bhutto’s role in Yayha takeover has been deliberately minimized in the media.

A word about the Taliban. Taliban and most of the Jihadis are from the tribal areaor areas under JUI influence and not from the settled pashtoon areas of the NWFP. They had minimum recruitments from the areas under wali Khan and Ghaffar Khan’s influence.

Ghaffar Khan was allowed to come back from Afghanistan in the early 80s but was immediately placed under house arrest. He was allowed to go India in 1986(?) but immediately after he came back, he was placed under house arrest right away. He died under house arrest in 1988.

Despite his many weaknesses, Wali Khan never supported Jihad in Afghanistan. He did not speak out as much as he should have but when people in NWFP were being killed by the Jihadi for the slightest of disagreement with the Islamist, he had every right to save his and his family life.
Jihadi at that time had not only full support from army but were also supported by all major political parties and that includes the PPP too.

It should be to his credit that he not only kept his party but all his faithful away from that madness.
Now if you expect him to stand at the border and guard it too then obviously you are expecting too much.

Thanks

Ahmedzai I have connections....

This is a very good and timely article on the Great Leader.

HP: How did you manage to get this published so fast?

Ranjit:

After having a response from Manto on what you were suggesting to Zeena about GM Syed and others, I would advise not to write anything on something you don’t have an iota of knowledge about. This is just a suggestion since I respect you.

Some points for Zeena and Tahmed:

1. Wali Khan never wanted to have Pushtoonistan or anything close to it. That was Government’s (especially Bhutto in the 1970s) propaganda to defame his party and followers. He was a proponent of provincial autonomy though.

2. He and his followers raised voice against Afghan Jihad against Soviets. He was a far sighted man in this respect. He constantly warned that weakening Soviet Union would go against Pakistan as this would result in a lone superpower. Also, he warned that after Soviets left Afghanistan, there would be total chaos in that country. History proved him right on both of these counts.

3. He was against Afghan Jihad and did his best to stop Pakhtun youth from participating in it. However, his voice just drowned in the sea of religious zeal.

This is a very good and timely article on the Great Leader.

HP: How did you manage to get this published so fast?

Ranjit:

After having a response from Manto on what you were suggesting to Zeena about GM Syed and others, I would advise not to write anything on something you don’t have an iota of knowledge about. This is just a suggestion since I respect you.

Some points for Zeena and Tahmed:

1. Wali Khan never wanted to have Pushtoonistan or anything close to it. That was Government’s (especially Bhutto in the 1970s) propaganda to defame his party and followers. He was a proponent of provincial autonomy though.

2. He and his followers raised voice against Afghan Jihad against Soviets. He was a far sighted man in this respect. He constantly warned that weakening Soviet Union would go against Pakistan as this would result in a lone superpower. Also, he warned that after Soviets left Afghanistan, there would be total chaos in that country. History proved him right on both of these counts.

3. He was against Afghan Jihad and did his best to stop Pakhtun youth from participating in it. However, his voice just drowned in the sea of religious zeal.

Re: # 58

You brought up an interesting point regarding the bias and prejudice of languages. For example, in Pakistan all those people who are engaged in ethnic politics of language speak fluently the languages that they are prejudiced against. It is a universal trend. For example, in Quebec every French chauvinist speaks fluent English. Every sindhi or Baluchi nationalist in Pakistan speaks fluent urdu. So you see, the root of chauvenism that is based on language in fact eminates from the very basal self of us. It is a hatered directed at someone who can`t help what he is born with. So when you promote a prejudice against someone because of his language then in fact you are saying that ``French are cruel oppressors because they speak French``. Does that mean that if French stop speaking French then they would become hamane? This prejudice does not address the grievance in a politically productive way.

As far as Islam being a political ideology is concerned the proof is everywhere if you want to see. The craeation of Pakistan is an example where an ideology of religion united a braod spectrum of people under one banner - may he be a bengali, a punjabi, or an urdu speaking - to work toward a political objective of obtaining a separate homeland. Iran is a constitutional, democratic, Islamic republic. The constitution of Pakistan whenever is free of fauji occupation, defines Pakistan as an Islamic republic where no law will be enacted that contradicts the value system of Islam. As a matter of fact a vast body of codified values in terms of laws exists and have been in practice for the last 13th centuries. These laws were taken away from us during the colonial occupation of our lands by western powers and later by their proxy agents. The recent democratic election of Hamas is another example where this party has won on an Islamic political platform.

Compare this to other religions. For example, Christianity failed to address the political requirements of human beings, five centturies ago. There were no conscenced codified laws except edicts from one man i.e. Pope. Both Christians and Jews cannot run their political business unless they expel God from their daily social and political business. Interestingly the Jewish state that came into being in the name of religion finds their religious values not good enough to be codified into law. So they stick to the rituals. A look at political Hindusim will tell you that other than anti-Muslim bias and anti-Pakistan prejudice it has nothing to offer. There are no codified values. I don`t think that even the staunchest hindu would promote Manu simirti as a codified document of values on his political platform. So other than anti-Muslim hatered, political hinduism is nothing but rituals. One doesn`t need laws to perform rituals. The only religion that I see at poltical par with Islam is the Confuciansim. It also has a large body of codified and traditional laws that still exist and also practiced even under a communist China.

Harimau #38, {``Would you care to explain the social, economic and political ideology associated with:``}

Harry Bahi,
While I do not claim to be as informed as Urstruly Sahib, I will try to explain:

a) chopping off one`s foreskin - This is required for more enjoyment by the fairer sex. Also, it has been proven to be a safeguard against sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. It is only required of those who can afford it. Finally, most women think that it just looks better. :)

b) fasting during the month of Ramzan - So that we can feel the hunger suffered by the poor during the other 11 months. But the real reason is to save our hunger for the evening when we can eat all the delicious food not normally cooked during the rest of the year. Also, fasting is accompanied by abstinence and that allows us to get much work done at the office.

c) the trek to Mecca known as Haj - Any self-respecting organization must have an annual convention, usually in the desert (e.g. Las Vegas). In the 7th century the Sin City had not yet been discovered by the Coas Nostra, and Mecca was just as good - desert city with lots to do. Also, we get to gamble on who can hit the devil with a stone more often.

d) stoning the devil. - Please see c) above. This is our version of gambling during Haj.

Of course, I would also like an explanation of the social, economic and political ideology behind:

a) the triple-talaq divorce and the business of limiting alimony to three months - In Islam everything is done in threes - except God and Prayer. Saying ``Talaaq`` three times allows you to think it over and really mean it. The first time is a wish, the second time a threat, and the third time is the hook. Both men and women can exercise this verbal violence to undo the qabool/qabool mistake. Again, two witnesses are needed to the verbal exchange. An alimony of three months is needed to address any residual effects of the marriage.

b) multiple wives - Man by nature is a promiscuous shagger. In the west, monogamy is the law, but polygamy is practiced quite freely in the guises of having mistresses, multiple girl friends, wife swapping parties, and personal ads. Islam just wants to limit this free-for-all and protect the offspring of this bounty. Are you getting jealous yet?

c) the requirement to have 4 adult Muslim males testify to the act of penetration in rape cases - In most serious matters, such as marraige, divorce, etc, only two witnesses are needed. In the case of adultery and rape, which are serious allegations, it`s important that at least 4 adult Muslim males testify to the validity of the charge. Males are preferred over women for the obvious reason that men are more objective and truthful - as you can probably understand after interacting on Chowk for this long. The reason the witnesses must be Muslim is also obvious - as Manto would say they have better eyesight and memory. Would you rather have a foursome of Sadna, Saminasha, Scout, and nb decide someone`s fate in a case of adultery or rape?

d) stoning to death of adulterers and adulteresses. - Because they are perceived to be devils. Also, this kind of behavior can cause wars - didn`t you see the movie Troy? When too many adulterers go out and hoard the contraceptives, it causes unnecessary friction and leads to altercations called Trojan Wars. Also, this stoning stuff is copied from the Chosen People, and they are always right.

Thank you. I am all ears. - So are most rabbits and donkeys. You are welcome, my good friend.

#39 by Mantolives
Please read this post carefully.

There were fundamental differences in Jinnah and Ghaffar Khan’s politics. As I have stated before Ghaffar Khan’s politics was based on NWFP and the Pushtoon Nationalism. The kind of idealism that he espoused was in direct conflict with Jinnah’s more charismatic leadership style. Jinnah was never really big on nationalism and his immediate goal after the late 30s was to leverage the communal situation in India to carve out a situation which would give Muslims in India the ability to safeguard their political and economic interests while still living with an overwhelmingly antagonistic majority.

There were many ways to accomplish this goal and Pakistan was just one option, certainly not the only one or even the most attractive one. Looking at Jinnah’s past history and his constitutional and strictly legal view of the politics, it is surprising that he even espoused a far fetched scheme like Pakistan. I am not using far fetched in a pejorative way but more as the incredulity of the scheme.

It was reasonable for many Indian leaders to accept that at some point in time in future, some provinces at both flanks of India might look for some kind of self governance or the provincial autonomy or even a greater autonomy but putting all of them together under a new entity and creating whole another country appeared too impractical for many Indian leaders including Gandhi and Nehru and even Azad.

Nehru, Gandhi or many other leaders in the Indian National congress were not naïve. Besides being ideologically strong, they were also well versed in what we today call realpolitik.

They knew exactly what Ghaffar Khan, GM Syed or Shaikh Abdullah and even some Punjabi and Bengali leaders had in mind and prolly felt that after Independence, India may have to find a way to work with these Nationalist leaders who, while contributing to the Indian Nationalism, still held their sub nations’ interests supreme.

The feeling in India in the 30s and 40s was to remove the British government and then deal with the internal Indian conflicts later.

When Jinnah emerged with an entirely different demand and begun to sway a large community in India, the suspicion in the Indian leadership(Congress and others) grew that Jinnah was actually helping the British by dividing a delicately cultivated united front against the British.

I might mention here to you that Ghaffar Khan never merged his political set up with the Indian National Congress and maintained a separate entity throughout the freedom movement. He and his followers were known as Congressi in the NWFP but politically, he was not bound by anything that National Congress did at the center. Similarly, in Punjab the Congress was happy to work with the Unionists in a broader alliance.
Sheikh Abdullah in Kashmir was fully supported by Congress despite his well known position of Kashmir autonomy and that is what he made India sign in the accession treaty.

The National leaders in Delhi had a fair idea as to what would happen after the partition but when they got hit by Pakistan demand, most of them had no idea how to respond to that and immediately concluded that it is a British sponsored divisionary tactics.

Thus, we often see references to Jinnah being a British agent and a divider. The lesser minds or the horde mentality of the Indian masses picked this up and faithfully followed through on this fallacious theory. Looking at Jinnah’s intellect and his strong legal and constitutional mind, it is simply unbelievable that he would have sold out to the British just to divide the Indian freedom movement.

So when you see references by Wali Khan in his book about the British involvement somewhere, they truly reflect a plausible argument that was fed to the public by the Indian National Congress. My feeling is that Ghaffar Khan might have a better understanding of Jinnah’s mind then Wali Khan ever did. Wali Khan’s book was mostly a regurgitation of the Congress propaganda as Wali Khan himself like many others, had totally bought it.


More later...