Remembering a great Pakistani: Sir Zafrullah Khan

PS: I am beginning to think that Harish Hyd feels at liberty to abuse me and my family only because I don`t abuse his family or him ... Apparently in face of those Pakistanis- like Zeemax and Behram who respond in kind and insinuate all sorts of things about his family .. Harish Mian becomes quite the mouse... Still ... I personally see it as a great confession that Harish Hyd is admitting that he is only resorting to abuse because he doesn`t have any arguments and is a loser. Finally a kernel of honesty ... though very grudging and too little too late.

Dear Harish mian,

``Yaar Yasser, abuse is the last resort of a loser``

Thanks for admitting it. I take that as a confession... That you`ve been abusing me and my family ... calling me all sorts of names under the sun and then lying about me ... clearly you are a loser no doubt and now you`ve admitted it. Good for you.

And what does autonomous mean? And you ask why a semi-independent republic? Have you read your own posts- do you not see why we deserved better than be under the domination of people like you? And what is ``merely`` about it. It was a demand by a people who voted for the demand...

``Why not one India?``

Why one centralised Hindu-dominated India- just because it was unified by the British? Why not a loose confederation of states? And no nothing was right with the country as it existed before 1947... as it was arbitrarily united by a foreign power and nothing else.

Could you please point out how Canada could be divided along religious lines or even where I claimed that they did... Last I checked they had predominantly one religion- protestant christianity... there the imagined identity was based on linguistic reasons... but your objection was not to the basis of division ... it was to Muslim Majority areas being less populous (and Non-muslims were included in these less populous populations)... so you`ve just tied yourself in another knot... congratulations. Either that or you are trying to be clever by half and hence shooting yourself in the foot.

Also once again your lack of logic is showing... the minority demanded a homeland and the homeland was to have parity with the rest of India.... Thus according to the Cabinet Mission Plan ... which Muslim League accepted... Muslims would get at most 33% seats at the centre.... because the Pakistan Unit would consist of 30% Non-Muslim population and they too would have parity as Pakistanis in the all India centre... But had you know some history, you would know that even the legislature was only an ``if`` and not a certain thing.
There is no useless distraction... my points that you ignored effectively destroyed any argument that you had tried to put up. Now go on jumping up and down... but you have shown me how useless you really are.

#409 by Yasser

Yaar looks like you were brought without any sense of shame or honesty. Your posts and mine are there for everyone to see. So no amount of whitewashing will undo what you`ve been saying. You are a true Gandhian in every sinister sense of the word. Despite whatever you`ve said, I have not responded in kind but you don`t even have the decency to admit this. But decency is not something that Gandhians could claim as their strong point.

Yaar Yasser, abuse is the last resort of a loser. That you have to resort to this every now and then shows your frustration at being exposed.

So then you admit that ML was asking for a semi-Independent republic! But I suppose they don`t teach political science and history in accent reduction either.

Abay, like a true Jinnahite (also means a liar), you excel at twisting others` words! While Jinnah asks for ``sovereign, independent, autonomous`` units comprising of Muslim majority provinces, you claim he was merely asking for semi-independent republic. So assuming that you are true, then what is the point? Why even the semi-independent republic? Couldn`t it have just been one republic of India? And why ask for parity? What was wrong if in united India, the representation was decided on the basis of proportion of population? That`s how it is in India today and what`s wrong with that?

They sure don`t teach political science and history in accent reduction classes, but the true tragedy is that despite claiming to have been educated in international schools and Rutgers, you still argue like a Madarssa-educated idiot.

A confederation is actually exactly this: a union based on parity between two federations. I suggest you read what the word confederation means... As it did not in any way affect the inidividual affairs of different groups.... I don`t see why this would be a problem. Infact reading through the terms of agreement, one gets the idea that only Pakistan Unit, which contributed a disproportinately large number of men to the Indian Army, would stand to lose as the army would not be at its disposal. Historically over the last century I can think of 30-50 confederations. Please note how you`ve now tried to get out because this actually has effectively halted your claim that ML never asked for a semi-independent republic. What did you expect the semi independent republic to be... another federating province?

I ASK AGAIN: WHAT WAS THE NEED FOR THIS SH!T? WASN`T THE COUNTRY AS IT EXISTED BEFORE 1947 DOING FINE? THEN WHY THE SUDDEN ITCH FOR PAKISTAN?

As for your question as to where such a system existed... Canada and the Canadian system is a rather well respected system historically.

Umm..so is Canada divided on the basis of religion? Do the French in Quebec follow a religion different from that of their compatriots in the rest of Canada?

4. By talking about your ability to sign your name in bold, I am merely pointing out the high point of your wit. Take it like a man ... not a baby.

The only one I see complaining here is you Yasser, therefore this advice is best self-administered. Or is it that there is something lacking in you which causes you to obssess and go green with envy over an old man`s sleeping habits?

5. So far you`ve not been able to produce any single point which has rebutted any of my claims.

Because the entire premise is faulty to begin with. The very idea of Pakistan is a travesty of democracy, where a minority demanded parity with a majority, in the process dividing India into Hindu and Muslim, the legacy of which continues to this day.

I see that you left most of my points out... where you were exposed for what you are... why don`t you accept that now your knots are too much for you to get out of.

But that dear Yasser is because I don`t believe in matching BS for BS. If you think that my avoiding useless distraction constitutes victory for you, go ahead, pop the Champagne.

bjkumar,

Just because you say something doesn`t make it true. Jinnah was hailed by your own leaders as the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity for 35 years....

You ought to look at that racist, casteist, misogynist Hindu fanatic Mahatma Gandhi and his Khilafat movement which made religion and Islamic and Hindu identities a non-negotiable element in Indian politics...Gandhi was the poison that went to the roots of the tree... so much so that 3/4ths of it had to be cut and thrown away.

Dear Harish Mian,

1. Yaar looks like you were brought without any sense of shame or honesty. Your posts and mine are there for everyone to see. So no amount of whitewashing will undo what you`ve been saying. You are a true Gandhian in every sinister sense of the word. Despite whatever you`ve said, I have not responded in kind but you don`t even have the decency to admit this. But decency is not something that Gandhians could claim as their strong point.

2. You write:``Pray tell us, why should there be parity? If anything, it should be proportionate. If the Muslim provinces were both less populous and smaller in area than the rest of India, how and why should they demand parity? Where on Earth does such a system exist?``

So then you admit that ML was asking for a semi-Independent republic! But I suppose they don`t teach political science and history in accent reduction either. A confederation is actually exactly this: a union based on parity between two federations. I suggest you read what the word confederation means... As it did not in any way affect the inidividual affairs of different groups.... I don`t see why this would be a problem. Infact reading through the terms of agreement, one gets the idea that only Pakistan Unit, which contributed a disproportinately large number of men to the Indian Army, would stand to lose as the army would not be at its disposal. Historically over the last century I can think of 30-50 confederations. Please note how you`ve now tried to get out because this actually has effectively halted your claim that ML never asked for a semi-independent republic. What did you expect the semi independent republic to be... another federating province?


3. As for your Balochistan example... pray tell how in a confederation, would Balochistan have three times the number of MNAs as all of the other provinces? Have you lost your mind, or did you not have one to begin with. Even under a confederation, it would have equal numbers of MNAs not three times. This statement of yours, shows us just how badly out of touch with reality and indeed logic you really are. Now Pakistan is not a confederation but a federation... but even so in the upper house Balochistan (7 Million) has as many senators as Punjab (70 million) ... however the distinguishing feature between a federation and confederation is the existence of lower chamber on the basis of population. As for your question as to where such a system existed... Canada and the Canadian system is a rather well respected system historically.

4. By talking about your ability to sign your name in bold, I am merely pointing out the high point of your wit. Take it like a man ... not a baby.

5. So far you`ve not been able to produce any single point which has rebutted any of my claims. So you are now declaring victory much like Saddam Hussain post gulf war 1. You saw what happened to him don`t you?

I see that you left most of my points out... where you were exposed for what you are... why don`t you accept that now your knots are too much for you to get out of.

-YLH

(I said this earlier on another board. The thing with Yasser is, one needs to repeat a lot because it is not easy to get through.)

Yaar Manto, stop recycling old selective stuff from Gandhi’s early life. You have been called out a number of times on your lawyerly attributes of skewing the presentation to make your case and not giving a whit about the truth.

Also, let us focus on Jinnah – the chief mastermind of Muslim exclusivity – which is at the root of many of the problems that the world faces today in the form of international terrorism. It is also at the root of virtually every problem the subcontinent faces today.

Jinnah was the poison that went into the roots of the tree and destroyed it.

And people like you live with the consequences – whether or not you have the courage to face it!

#406 by Yasser

That explains the abuse that you have mastered. Perhaps it is indicative of your ancestral profession eh?

Yaar Yasser, one this count I must confess: I`m nowhere near your standards when it comes to abuse. I simply can`t stand the words that you use, let alone use them. Meanwhile, you quietly seem to have reconciled to the fact that your family line may not exactly be something to be proud of.

A society that produces a human being as abusive and without any self respect as you can never be a truly democratic society no matter what dirt you throw in the world`s eyes. You continue to be self conscious about things you have no control over.. you should be self conscious about the ugliness that is inside.

Well, this society is much better than the one you grew up in: when someone obsesses over a dead man`s sleeping habits, you can bet that society has hit rock bottom. Perhaps your own troubled sleeping habits cause you to go green with envy at a man who was thrice as old as you. Get a life idiot!

You ask where ML suggested a semi-independent republic- ofcourse the world semi independent doesn`t come up but in politics and law certain things are inferred:

Sure...some more sophistry?

6. There should be parity of representation between the two groups of Provinces in the Union Executive and the Legislature, if any.

Pray tell us, why should there be parity? If anything, it should be proportionate. If the Muslim provinces were both less populous and smaller in area than the rest of India, how and why should they demand parity? Where on Earth does such a system exist?

By that token, Balochistan should have more MNAs than all 3 provinces in Pakistan put together.

10. The Constitution of the Union shall have a provision whereby any Province can, by a majority vote of its Legislative Assembly, call for reconsideration of the terms of the Constitution, and will have the liberty to secede from the Union at any time after an initial period of ten years.

So the fate of the Indian Union was to be left in the hands of these provinces who could secede anytime they wished after the 10 years passed. And dishonest crooks like you wanted to Congress to give in to this kind of blackmail?

Pakistan as proved earlier did not equal the August 1947 partition. Violence of Partition lies squarely on the shoulders of the Congress party (which according to you refused to budge) for refusing to come to an arrangement on the basis of Pakistan... they chose instead to depend on the British to get rid of the Muslim League. By alleging that Congress merely stood firm... and then by forcing the unnatural partition of the federating units of Punjab and Bengal ... Congress is solely responsible for partition violence and it is at the door of Congress, that the blood of millions and the hostility that followed that lies.

Umm...so the Congress, which refused to give in to blatant blackmail by Jinnah and his cohorts was responsible for the partition? Nice try, but you`ll have to cook up better excuses.

4. Referring to any of your points would provide clarity only if there were any points that you had ... except perhaps putting the alphabets ass in bold ... which you consider the high point of your wit and which may well be. Therefore - your ``points`` remain disoriented as ever.

Aw..poor baby, why are you whining? Why can`t you think of that as a show of affection? I really mean it.

5. The matter of whether the Lahore resolution was understood by the UP Muslims or not then is laid to rest... as they knew very well what the Lahore resolution said. This puts an end to your entire drama on this board- essentially... though I will continue to make life a living hell for you.

Wow! Now that was rather brave of you. I like Paki bravado, if nothing else, you are at least good at this machismo, never mind the fact that you stand exposed with the innumerable lies and excuses you`ve been cooking up post after post.

Dear Harish Hyd,

``Because people unwittingly use words that are related to their professions.``

That explains the abuse that you have mastered. Perhaps it is indicative of your ancestral profession eh?

All I see is that you continue in vain to drive me off by abusing me. Perhaps you think that by doing this you can throw me off the topic, where you are in a deep hole. It is not your fault. A society that produces a human being as abusive and without any self respect as you can never be a truly democratic society no matter what dirt you throw in the world`s eyes. You continue to be self conscious about things you have no control over.. you should be self conscious about the ugliness that is inside.

You ask where ML suggested a semi-independent republic- ofcourse the world semi independent doesn`t come up but in politics and law certain things are inferred:

Terms of the offer made to the Congress by the Muslim League as a basis of agreements 12 May 1946.

1.The six Muslim Provinces(Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Baluchistan, Sind, Bengal and Assam) shall be grouped together as one group and will deal with all other subjects and matters except Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications necessary for Defence, which may be dealt with by the constitution-making bodies of the two groups of Provinces-Muslim Provinces(hereinafter named Pakistan Group) and Hindu Provinces-sitting together.

2. There shall be a separate constitution-making body for the six Muslim Provinces named above, which will frame Constitutions for the group and the Provinces in the group and will determine the list of subjects that shall be Provincial and Central(of the Pakistan Federation) with residuary sovereign powers vesting in the Provinces.

3. The method of election of the representatives to the constitution-making body will be such as would secure proper representation to the various communities in proportion to their population in each Province of the Pakistan Group.

4. After the constitutions of the Pakistan Federal Government and the Provinces are finally framed by the constitution-making body it will be open to any Province of the Group to decide to opt out of its group, provided the wishes of the people of that Province are ascertained by a referendum to opt out or not.

5. It must be open to discussion in the joint constitution-making body as to whether the Union will have a Legislature or not. The method of providing the Union with finance should also be left for decision of the joint meeting of the two constitution-making bodies, but in no event shall it be by means of taxation.

6. There should be parity of representation between the two groups of Provinces in the Union Executive and the Legislature, if any.

7. No major point in the Union Constitution which affects the communal issue shall be deemed to be passed in the joint constitution-making body, unless the majority of the members of the constitution-making body of the Hindu provinces and the majority of the members of the constitution-making group of the Pakistan Group, present and voting, are separately in its favour.

8. No decision, legislative, executive or administrative, shall be taken by the Union in regard to any matter of controversial nature, except by a majority of three-fourths.

9. In Group and Provincial Constitutions fundamental rights and safeguards concerning religion, culture and other matters affecting the different communities will be provided for.

10. The Constitution of the Union shall have a provision whereby any Province can, by a majority vote of its Legislative Assembly, call for reconsideration of the terms of the Constitution, and will have the liberty to secede from the Union at any time after an initial period of ten years.

These are the principles of our offer for a peaceful and amicable settlement and this offer stands in its entirety and all matters mentioned herein are interdependent.

`Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution 1921-1947` by A. Appadorai 1957 Vol. II.


...

Now to your other points:

1. You write:That would entirely be India’s problem, not Pakistan’s, certainly not Jinnah’s. If you think you can get away with distorting my words, you’re much more deluded than I thought.

Once again you are confused ... what are you arguing about? That Jinnah was right in telling M C Chagla off since Lahore Resolution only incorporated Muslim majority areas in Pakistan? So - what is your argument (Except perhaps evading how you were caught red handed lying about the tailor issue)? Also looks like you are using words like ``locus standi`` without really knowing their meaning. Locus Standi is determined by representative status. Therefore the issue of locus standi was essentially between those who voted and those they voted for. Ofcourse you won`t understand this- accent reduction classes don`t teach logic do they?

2. What ransom was Jinnah holding India to in 1950- when Nehru signed the treaty- wasn`t Jinnah was already dead? Seriously you ought to get a life or get an education or both... because you`ve completely tied yourself in many many many knots ...

3. Pakistan as proved earlier did not equal the August 1947 partition. Violence of Partition lies squarely on the shoulders of the Congress party (which according to you refused to budge) for refusing to come to an arrangement on the basis of Pakistan... they chose instead to depend on the British to get rid of the Muslim League. By alleging that Congress merely stood firm... and then by forcing the unnatural partition of the federating units of Punjab and Bengal ... Congress is solely responsible for partition violence and it is at the door of Congress, that the blood of millions and the hostility that followed that lies.

4. Referring to any of your points would provide clarity only if there were any points that you had ... except perhaps putting the alphabets ass in bold ... which you consider the high point of your wit and which may well be. Therefore - your ``points`` remain disoriented as ever.

5. The matter of whether the Lahore resolution was understood by the UP Muslims or not then is laid to rest... as they knew very well what the Lahore resolution said. This puts an end to your entire drama on this board- essentially... though I will continue to make life a living hell for you.

#403 by Mantolives

Continuously regurgitating and defaecating your uneducated point of view and stinking up the place is doing no one any good.

Bhai Yasser, were you a sewerage worker any time in your life? Because people unwittingly use words that are related to their professions.

#382 by Yasser

As in the past I expected you to run away from this board as well... in the past you`ve always been no show after you suddenly had to ``travel`` over the weekend.

Like I said in my last post, I will be here to answer anymore BS that you try to peddle here, and I’m back. Unlike you, who when confronted with tough questions (like on the Adam Khan board most recently, and indeed many others before that) asked for his email address so you could carry out a private discussion without being publicly humiliated, I’m here to bust every falsity you`re trying to peddle here. That my dear is called chickening out. Not very different from what the Paki Army did in Waziristan: offering money in exchange for stopping the daily humiliation of Paki soldiers being picked off like pigeons.

About the Nizam... that you sprung to his defence suddenly and given the general tenor of abuses, it seems that something is amiss. In any event, I didn`t bring up the foreign invaders, but from what I understand... Nizam was limited to his wives.

Aww…what a way to bow out!! Just in the previous post, you were casting aspersions on my family line, weren’t you? Now that your utter stupidity has been exposed in full public view, you’re acting coy? Typical Yasser Latif Harami.

About the ML ... the question was the fate of Muslims outside the semi independent republic of Pakistan within the confederation of India, which ML through its resolution was entrusting to the authority in that part of India that was not going to be part of Pakistan.

This is an extract from the Lahore Resolution:

That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.

Now where does the extract above carry the word “semi-independent” unless you thought the word “sovereign, independent, and autonomous” all mean one and the same?

Yes after 1947 Jinnah had no locus standi vis a vis Muslims of India... which is what Jinnah told M C Chagla. So now you are accusing of being concerned about Muslims of India when your earlier accusation was that he was not concerned about Muslisms of India... how many knots do you plan to tie yourself in?

Dear Yasser, trying to be too clever by half, are we? I said Jinnah either should have taken the UP Muslims along to be resettled in the areas constituting Pakistan because as per your own admission, the ML won 90% of Muslim votes there. Alternately, if he said he didn’t care about their fate (which is what he said), what locus standi did he have to worry about how Muslims, Indian citizens, were to be protected? That would entirely be India’s problem, not Pakistan’s, certainly not Jinnah’s. If you think you can get away with distorting my words, you’re much more deluded than I thought.

Because... partition of British India was mutually agreed in August 1947 and was brought about in its present form on the insistence of the Congress.

Aww…trying to save your skin by blaming the Congress for Partition? Who demanded Pakistan? Certainly not the Congress.

.. In any event.. Nehru signed the treaty... so you ought to ask him this question but too bad he is dead.

Typical Jinnah tactic, washing your hands off by finding a convenient scapegoat! Nehru wouldn’t have signed the treaty if Jinnah hadn’t held the Congress and indeed the whole of India to ransom.

As for Jinnah ``abandoning`` them.. you yourself said Jinnah did not have locus standi after 1947... since he clearly asked for, and everyone in India knew, the Muslim majority areas and nothing else.

Refer to the points above.

Thanks for informing us that you don`t understand the difference between shall and should because you are not a masters in English language... funny I always thought it would be elementary for any 3rd grader .... but thankfuly for the Muslims of India... the Lahore Resolution was distributed in Urdu.

Of what use is a death warrant whether it is in English or Urdu? The point remains that the UP Muslims, the most ardent supporters of Pakistan, were stabbed in their back by the man they trusted would deliver them from the “evil Hindu domination”.

Dear bjkumar,

I would hope that you would be humble enough to recognise that like Echoboom, there are several topics that you might not have a full grasp of, or which might be over your head- politics and history being one of them. Continuously regurgitating and defaecating your uneducated point of view and stinking up the place is doing no one any good.



Pew research,

It would certainly benefit you to read some history.

Amongst the Muslim leaders, Jinnah stood for Joint Electorates and remained committed to an eventual system based on joint electorates even in hey day of the Pakistan Movement.

It would also benefit you to know that he had actually opposed the separate electorates when they were first instituted- read Ian Bryant Well`s ``Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity`` in which he quotes the exact letter in which he did .... This is why Sir Fazli Hussain and others hated him so much.... because he opposed separate electorates in the beginning and later only accepted them as an interim condition. Even the famous 14 points, which came much later in his career, where he incorporated the separate electorates, he said very clearly that the option of switching to joint electorates should be left open... infact this was the only part he added to the demand which actually emanated from the Muslim conference.


subhasjoshi,

Your perspective is a valid perspective and should be taken as such.

As for the typewriter comment - according to K B Sayeed who wrote ``Pakistan the formative phase`` .. which was a critical analysis of Pakistan`s formation... believes that this was a misquote of a 1940 speech... reinvented by Iskandar Mirza, who wanted to sideline the Muslim League in the mid-50s... and which was later quoted by G M Sayed in his deposition ... where he suggested that he himself heard Jinnah say it ... ofcourse the fact was that G M Sayed did not at any time after the creation of Pakistan meet Jinnah blows so many holes into it.


The Real Statement (1940 speech) is:

‘My entire equipment is confined to an attache case, a type writer and a personal assistant’.

(Speeches and statements of Mr. Jinnah Vol 1 Ashraf Lahore 1960)


In the ‘Formative Phase’ (Chap 6 ‘The Muslim League: Its Role and Organisation’ on Page 176 OUP Karachi 2nd Edition)

The footnote reads:

‘This statement is a speech made in 1940 in which Jinnah urged Muslims to strengthen the Muslim League organization and pointed out that it was only after Muslims were well organized that he would give them the Marching orders.’

#401
[…he secured Pakistan single-handedly with only his typewriter, or something]

Dear Mr. Joshi,

Mr. Hamdani does not subscribe to that view – therefore, it is perhaps premature to tie that typewriter to Mr. Jinnah, even via little spheres.

Mr. Hamdani may object strenuously to any such linkage!

For additional information, kindly refer to this interactor’s i-log of March 26, 2006.

Thank you.

Re: # 396 by Mantolives

Dear Mr. Hamdani

You quoted a long paragraph, and now you ask me to recognize that it didn`t belong to you, or any Muslim author. Of course I recognized this; I even said that this untouchable leader was perhaps our very own Dr. Ambedkar. So is it a disclaimer to distance yourself from the quote? Or do you suggest that since the author was an eminent personality, and an Indian to boot, therefore his words shall be accepted without questions?

I see that your argument revolves around Mr. Gandhi using religion to build his following. But then if Mr. Gandhi could bring together Hindus as well as Muslims (maybe Mullahs), then he can`t be blamed for Hinduizing politics. Yes, he was a deeply religious person (something bad in your view), but his worldly outlook didn`t exclude other religions. On the other hand, in Mr. Jinnah we see a person who was a liberal, unorthodox, staunchly stood for Hindu-Muslim unity, but when push came to shove, he identified himself as a Muslim leader.

Perhaps Mr. Jinnah`s grouse was that Mr. Gandhi relied on not him, but retrograde Muslims, but then who prevented him from taking all like-minded Hindus and Muslims together, the liberaloons and secularoons, as someone (you know who) calls them disparagingly, and form a secular, pan-Indian movement? We know of another person who broke away from Mr. Gandhi, but never identified himself with a particular community. Why Mr Jinnah couldn`t be a leader of both Hindus and Muslims?

You say that Pakistan movement was led by anglicized, secular people who came under Jinnah`s fold. Do you think being anglcized (or eating pork, smoking cigars), and being irreligious is enough to be a good leader? What about the masses? Were they liberal, anglicized to the same extent? Once Pt. Nehru described Indian communists as speaking ``in a language that people could not identify themselves with.`` Don`t you think that Mr. Jinnah and his Aligarh-educated modernist comrades were similarly disconnected from the masses whose leadership they wrested? And what happened to all those modernist leaders when Mr. Jinnah died?

I am not an admirer of Mr. Gandhi. He was far from perfect. But then he had his hand on the nerve of his people. He was able to speak in their language. Mr. Jinnah lacked these qualities, lost the tussle for leadership, and flew off a tangent.

Now since you are an authority on the life of Mr. Jinnah, kindly tell me, is it true that he said that he secured Pakistan singlehandedly with only his typewriter, or something to that effect?

Re: # 399 Correction.
Remove `of birth` from from question.

Re: # 390 YLH
``Secularism means a separation of church and state and to bring together an inclusivist system... Jinnah`s entire life was a struggle to that end``
YLH, do you believe that separate electorates based upon religion of birth is the same as `separtion of church and state`? Simple `Yes` or `No` will suffice. Thank you.

And (Manto’s bhai) Naqshi baby,

How is that setting up of “Dar ul Islam” in London coming along?!!

You don’t want to miss out on your religious duty, do you?

Thanks to ``understanding`` folks like Manto here, don`t despair!