The Conspiracy Theory

Amin sahib,

(India abolished Section 9 immediately after partition.)

Can you provide the source please. Thanks in advance. If India did indeed abolish this section immediately after Partition, it reflects indeed very well on the Indian politicos line of thinking.

(The constitution of Pakistan was delayed by all West Pakistanis including Liaquat)

Quite true. Only I hope you do not intend to saddle MAJ (pbuh) with the whole blame for it.

Diesel,

(There is no doubt that Congress was the eal party.The Muslim League was a bunch of toadies.)

Although I am otherwise staunchly pro- TNT/MAJ and anti-INC on this I am with you. INC was a very well evolved political party in 1947, while ML was a worthless entity if you take out MAJ (pbuh) himself.

Regards

Re: # 163

Dear Comrade

Please refer to Destruction of Democracy in Pakistan.India abolished Section 9 immediately after partition.

The Nizam of Hyderabad had heavily financed Muslim League so Mr Jinnah thought that somehow Hyderabad could be secured.A highly utopian and wishful ideal.

The constitution of Pakistan was delayed by all West Pakistanis including Liaquat so that the Bengalis chances of securing power could be sabotaged.

As you know the Bengalis were in majority and both Hindustanis and Punjabis regarded them as an inferior race.

A sad fact of Paki history.

regards

Agha

Re: # 170:-- There is no doubt that Congress was the eal party.The Muslim League was a bunch of toadies.

Anil sahib,

(First nail in the coffin of British Empire would be a more appropriate name for QIM. )

The nail in the coffin of the British Empire was struck by the "white Aryan racist, fascist,casteist, misoygnist bigoted freak" and the (willing/unwilling) sacrifices made by his German troops. Besdies, India had probably become a burden rather than asset for the Brits. So the "QIM" was a useless exercise as far as achieving Indian independence was concerned. But mercifully what it achieved was that it poisoned the Brits against the INC and made them more inclined towards ML and partition. The terms of the partition could actually have been worse of course (for instance J&K and undivided Bengal/Punjab cud have gone to pakistan) but fortunately JLN retrieved the situation well in time by bending backward to please both the Judge sahib and his wife (while MAJ (pbuh) was happily calling them two thorns).

Having said that I do think QIM, the Dandies' March and such other useless karnamas were not necessarily bad things-they created a sense of politicisation among the Injun masses which made transition to democracy a far more smooth affair than in Pakistan.

(Jinnah only delivered the partition. Minds had been partitioned a long before.)

I am glad you said this. MAJ (pbuh) was not solely responsible for partition as some Injuns (including on chowk) argue. Partition happened becuase large sections of Hanuds and Muslas were unable or unwilling to get along with each other.

Regards

Re: # 162

Pavocavalry Sahib:

You have poured in a lot of very interesting stuff to read. I wish you would have put it over a period. Your article on Chamb Sector completely aborbed me. If possible please put all your articles (e.g. impact of 1857-59 on Muslims of India and Pakistan) as separate essays here.

Your articles are refreshing change.

Re: # 154

Majumdar:

HP said:
"(Pakistan is the direct result of INC's adventur-ism of the Quit India movement.)"

You said:
"I know that"

Your comment may be to corner and beat another point out of HP's ignorant comment.

It is absurd to call it an adventurism. Terming Quit India Movement as adventurism shows HP's ignorance, and his lack of understanding of Congress's role and actions to secure independence even. HP's ignorant comment insults those masses who, in the absence of their leaders, launched the most successful non-violent movement in the history.

Jails were filled, not just leaders were jailed. This made Brits realize just how many people they can jail.

There was a system to support QIM that worked even when Congress leaders were jailed. There were volunteers who will go to the polce line in batches after batches, day after day. There were women at the line, ready with first aid and bandages to nurse beaten and injured volunteers. The only violence was by the police. After a while even system started to overflow, and there were situations when there was no room let in jails. Brits did not know how to deal with QIM.

Pakistan was not a price of QIM. Pakistan was the result of partition of minds, that started when first time in early 1900's group of muslim leaders, and fuedels wrote the first letter to Lord Curzon (??) demanding separation. Muslim League believed in this letter and came out with its 14 (??) point agenda.

Jinnah for some time was a member of both Muslim League and Congress. He did not see a conflict. Probably, he saw Congress, just as other hindu nationalist did, as an organization with the sole goal to attain independence.

Congress could have have been disbanded shortly after the independence, as Gandhi had suggested. Although, the consequences of no Congress period, could have desastrously delayed or damaged the process of building of democratic institutions in India.

Jinnah only delivered the partition. Minds had been partitioned a long before. Quit India Movement, and not Jinnah's typewriter, delivered independence of India. It also became a reason for Pakistan's independence also. This movement convinced the Brits that governance of civilians in India would no longer be possible with few brits, brown babus, police and officers of armed forces. The entire system can be overloaded to a grinding halt.

First nail in the coffin of British Empire would be a more appropriate name for QIM.

The jailed leaders could not tried for treason, sedition and similarly charges that were brought against them to put them in jail, who would then have to be freed. Many local regional leaders would turn into even harder liners.

In Congress leadership and Muslim League leadership Brits saw moderates who would work with them in post independence situation. There are reasons to be accept that Brits had felt that Pakistan lacked leaders, yet they were in a rush to get out. Brits owed sterling debt to India (and Pakistan) after the war, which could not be immediately paid back. British economy was devastated by Hitlers bombings and long war had drained resources. It did not have the same benefit of Marshall Plan that Germany and Japan had. Britain had to rely on Commonwealth for trade and commerce for reconstruction and rebuilding. Brits repaid their sterling debt mainly through preferred trade with the Commonwealth of nations.

Commonwealth citizens, including from India and Pakistan had equal benefits to the U.K. citizens in 40s and 50s. They introduced a voucher system to allow Indians and Pakistanis to come and work in England. There were welcoming centers to welcome these workers, talk about the difference of race issues later. As late as late 60s, Indian citizen living in England could vote in British elections.

Zee sahib,

(They had to vacate when regular army moved in with heavy artillery. Now they're in the mountains and will carry out hit and run attacks on army checkposts)

I have been saying this ever since the Swat insurgency began even though I have never been North-West of a straight line drawn from Jamnagar to Patiala!!!

Regards

... contd ...

As for Swat retreat impact on Waziristan, there is none. FATA is quite another story as Pavo has so efficiently elucidated.

Re:majumdar
"With the result that Indo-Pak matches are about as exciting as WI-NZ."

No kidding!! I was in Delhi last month when the first Indo-Pak test match was taking place at Feroze Shah Kotla. No one seemed to be interested in what was happening. Even after India won, there were no firecrackers or jubiliation. People just clapped and went home. I was telling my dad that finally we desis are becoming civilized and treating cricket as just a game.

On the other hand, there was a trade fair going on in Pragati Maidan. Pakistan had a huge pavilion with a food stall by some famous Karachi restaurant. The crowd was unbelievable as they were buying up pakistani goods and gobbling down the food. There was an Afghan stall as well and they were doing roaring business as well. Baap bada na bhaiyya, subse bada rupaiya... :-)

#159 Posted by viqarm,

There's nothing common politically between the Swat militancy and that of Waziristan, though ideological basis may be the same.

Firstly, Mullah Fazlullah and his men were never fighters but merely agitators. Their Lal Masjid connection forced them into militancy. They had no direct political nexus with the situation in Wairistan, but with some helpers from Waziristan and Bajaur they were able to take control of 5 out of 7 Swat districts from paramilitary and police, but had to vacate when regular army moved in with heavy artillery. Now they're in the mountains and will carry out hit and run attacks on army checkposts till a political settlement (i.e. implementation of Nizaam-e-Adal Ordinance) is achieved and that will be that.

Secondly, Swat has no border with Afghanistan therefore any logistical assistance from Taliban to them has to come from Bajaur and pass through upper Dir. That is the crucial territory which if things worsen and Bajaur's Mullah Faqir's militia decides to jump into Upper Dir, that may make things very difficult indeed for the Pakistan Army and it will be tough to maintain government control in Swat.

Very interesting times, indeed.

Amin sahib,

First of all a warm welcome to chowk. Very much appreciate the articles you have put up, only one gripe. The paras are too long and very hard on the eyes. If you could kindly shorten them a bit for readability.

Re: # 150

{{{(1) Why he kep Section 9 of 1935 Act allowing Governor General the power to dissolve the Assembly.Ghulam Mohammad made use of this later to dissolve the Assembly }}}

Pakistan became independent on Aug 14, 1947 and MAJ (pbuh) died within a year of that event. Maybe he did not have the time. Do you have any evidence to suggest that MAJ (pbuh) had intended that provision to stay on for ever? When did India abolish section- 9- I presume only on Jan 26, 1950 when the Consitution was adopted. However I may be wrong on this, if so please correct me. If however what I say is true, India took almost 2 and a half year to frame a constitution and mind you India (and INC) had a much bigger talent base to go about framing a constitution which Pakistan and ML did not have to the same extent. In any case, between 9/11 (of 1948) and 1954 there was enough time to frame a constitution and repeal Section 9. So why was it not done? Can you blame MAJ (pbuh) for it?

{{{.(2) Why Jinnah did not agree to Mountbatten's formula (Refers HV Hodson) that Muslim majority states join Pakistan and Hindu Majority states join India .}}}

This indeed was extremely foolish on MAJ’s part. If he had accepted this formula Kashmir would have been Pakistan’s. India was in 1947 far more concerned about Hyderabad and other Muslim and non-Muslim enclaves within India and wud have happily foregone J&K. But MAJ (pbuh) wanted not only JK on demo grounds but was also angling for Hyderabad and Junagadh (Muslim rulers) and also intriguing with Zubeida to get Rajputana principalities for Pakistan (on God knows what basis). The result India too resorted to similar double standards and since India carried a bigger gun, India got what they wanted, Pakistan was left with POK and NA only.

Ranjit bhai,

(The lack of desire to fight India any more is quite evident.)

Unfortunately, nowhere is this "lack of desire" more reflected than on the cricket field (most of the times). With the result that Indo-Pak matches are about as exciting as WI-NZ.

Regards

Re: # 160:-- I agree with your idea that Mughals could not rule without Hindu support.As a matter of fact there is a school of thought which thinks that Hindu advisors manipulated the Mughals into crushing the Sikhs because the Hindus feared the Sikh religion which I think was the most dynamic religion that India produced.

Re:pavocavalry#155

Very thoughtful and interesting analyses!! I would like to take issue with you regarding the concept of domination - muslim domination before 1857 or fears of hindu domination. The reality is way more complex than that. Muslim invaders did establish political rule over India, but the reality is that they established a system that coopted hindus in a big way. Mughal rule could hardly be called muslim domination, given that hindus were in top positions in basically an inclusive, meritiocratic system. Even military generals were Rajputs like Man Singh or Jaswant Singh under Mughals. In fact the Mughals would send Rajput generals to fight against the Marathas. Secondly from an economic point of view, both hindus and muslims were in the same boat. In fact, during mughal rule the treasury and finance areas were managed by hindus. The subcontinent was a rich place under Mughal rule and attracted attention all over the world for its riches. It is a fact of history that during entire Mughal rule, there was not one instance where all hindus joined forces to fight against Mughal rule - compare that to the middle east which saw religious jihads and crusades for centuries. One can speculate that it was because hindus were cowards, but then how do we explain the rebellion of 1857 where hindus wanted to violently get rid of the british?

The fact is that british rule was the worst period in Indian history for ordinary Indians - hindus or muslims. Economically India was reduced to penury - massive famines the likes of which were never seen before nor have been been seen since. The only jobs were government jobs, given that industry was non existent thanks to the british industries dumping goods, while agriculture was exploited viciously to impoverish people. The fabuluously rich subcontinent - sone ki chidiya - became a third world state under british rule. Politically the british were never inclusive keeping a strict racist attitude towards all indians and excluding indians from higher positions. Finally the british did everything possible to make hindus and muslims fight against each other - deliberately egging on each community against the other by scaremongering. You are right that fear was the motivation for Pakistan, but that fear was created by british propaganda coupled with the fact that government jobs were the only source of employment, ergo if you didnt have complete political control, you had no economic future.

It is indicative to see how the subcontinent has evolved after the accursed british left. The inherent diversity of the subcontinent has forced India to retain a democratic and reasonably secular system, where different communities compromise with each other as needed. There is no absolute control by any one group of people. The economic resurgence of India is not surprising either. That is the natural order of things, until the british showed up with their 'manhoos' presence. Hindu-muslim relations are coming out of their 200 year mutual paranoia and settling down to what it always was - mutual respect and non-interference. I will submit that ordinary Pakistanis now understand the dynamic of the subcontinent and want to embrace it as well. The lack of desire to fight India any more is quite evident. On the contrary, I think Pakistanis want normal relations with India and take part in its economic resurgence. Most Pakistanis want to focus on economic progress and have little interest in religious extremism.

So the bottom line is that the British rule created enormous deformities in the natural order of things in the subcontinent and that situation is naturally correcting itself.

Re: # 159:-- Sir , the Swatis are not very politically aware people.They are no match to Wazirs,Mahsuds or Afridis.
The real centre of gravity is Waziristan.It will remain so fpr a long time.Actually they are now waiting for the Americans ! Thats going to be real fun ! The tribals are not as hopeless as rest of Pakistanis.They have a history.

@Pavocavalry,
Sir, in light of your assessment of the tribals, what is your take on the setbacks suffered by maulvi Fazlullah's men in Swat this past couple of weeks?

Would you say that it is serious blow to the resitance in FATA? or a temporary phenomenon, a tactical retreat?

I find myself in agreement with many of your views about the effect of the policies being pursued by Pak govt in the NWFP. And I greatly fear that, in the longer term, it could lead to the beginning of the unravelling of Pakistan.

Impact of 1857-59 on Future Indo Pak Muslim Politics-11

A.H Amin

Impact of the rebellionon the future politics ofthe Indian Muslims
The rebellion was a decisive event in British Indian history. The fact that it failed increased its significance and impact on future British policies in India. It was not a mutiny as the British are trying to prove till today. It was a positive reaction by Indians of many races, classes and religions to overthrow a foreign company which was unjustly exploiting Indian people and their natural resources. It is again a misconception that had it succeeded India would not have developed as much as it actually did under the British Crown during the period 1858-1947. Freedom is always a step in the positive direction and to believe that a country can develop in a better manner under foreign subjugation is the worst possible form of mental and spiritual slavery. Those who forward this argument are even today not fully free, at least spiritually. The pride which a half starved Ethiopian feels is far better than the self-defeating complexes which hamper and retard the mental and spiritual growth of an African American who is much better fed and clothed than his Ethiopian counterpart! Foreigners may be surprised but even today a large number of educated Pakistanis believe that the British rule was the best thing which ever happened to this region! The British gave us many things in terms of infra-structure, educated institutions and legislation. They left things which we can see with the naked eye and which are still in operation and full use. But on the other hand they left things which we cannot see, but whose negative effects are devastatingly eroding the foundations of peace and progress of this region. They gave us roads, railways, canals, universities, things which have played a very important part in our progress, but they took our initiative, pride self- respect, tolerance etc. After 1857 they encouraged the divisive tendencies in the Indo-Pak subcontinent, sometimes inadvertently and sometimes by design. They encouraged communalism and separatism and divided India dooming it to long-term eternal Balkanisation and fragmentation whose first stage was witnessed in 1947 and the other stages may be round the corner in the next few decades. Here we observe another very common tendency in today's Indo Pak subcontinent. The British are accused for almost everything that goes wrong in both the country. Eminent intellectuals compulsively have a section in which their presentations on dissertation which focuses on “Our Colonial Legacy”. The British were not angels but it is unfair to accuse them for all the maladies that afflict our soul or intellect or our foreign relations or our electoral systems. “Divide and Rule” as a policy was adopted by them after 1857 because they wanted to rule and exploit the region in a peaceful manner! Here also many of their Viceroys and Governors etc. were genuinely trying to do something for the Indo- Pak people it is again a misconception to think that the pre-1947 Indo- Pak was groaning under the British hell! Nothing can be further from the truth than the assertion that the British were despotic. They were too sensible to be so and this is what distinguishes them and off course makes them superior to their French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese or Russian Colonial counterparts. In this regard it is no exaggeration that the British by conquering India with the sensible employment of their European troops assisted by the mercenary Bengal Madras and Bombay armies saved Indo-Pak not only from the Afghan and Mahratta predators but also from the really tyrannical rule of the Portuguese, French, Dutch, Spanish or Russians. The simple fact of history however, much we deny it now remains that Indo-Pak subcontinent would have been colonised by one European power or another in case British had not done so through the good offices of the honourable EEIC! The Indians were lucky that the British did so rather than any other European power! Had any other European power colonised India the whole course of history may have been different in two aspects. Firstly there would have been much more oppression exploitation and social injustice and thereby the people of Indo-Pak would have suffered much more than they ever actually did under the British Colonial rule. Secondly the Indians i.e. the Indo-Pak people would have become much more politically aware and extremist in their struggle for freedom than they ever were under the British rule. The leadership that may have emerged as a result of this struggle may have been qualitatively much superior and of a sturdier stuff than the one which we actually inherited in the post-1947 era. The British have an uncanny ability to create docile mediocre and unimaginative leadership in the countries they have ruled.
The above mentioned comparative merits of British rule over their other colonial contemporary states still does not mean that independence in 1857 was not as desirable as in 1947. The “Sepoys” were a surprisingly enlightened lot who were more Indian in their outlook than both Congress and the Muslim League. They achieved more in terms of Hindu Muslim unity in 1857 than was ever subsequently achieved at Lucknow or in the Khilafat movement.
There is a marked tendency in modern historians both in Indo-Pak and outside the subcontinent to dismiss the rebellion as an attempt by a decadent reactionary class of disgruntled princes to reimpose an unjust and antiquated social order in India, which would have taken the Indo-Pak subcontinent back into the medieval ages! While many reactionary disgruntled and decadent feudal lords and princes actively participated in the rebellion motivated by personal grievances and grudges, no one can deny the fact that the “Sepoy” who had been soldiering for the EEIC at the risk of his life for a mere seven rupees a month618 had all to lose and little to gain by defying the greatest empire of nineteenth century! The punishment of rebellion or mutiny was death by hanging or by a musket ball or bayonet or by being tied up and blown into bits by a nine pounder gun! The sepoys must not be compared to the worthless feudals whether in the North West Province (present UP or Uttar Pradesh) or Central India! These men were not like the Opportunists or casual but highly successful professional men who finally became our post-1857 leaders. A man who marches all the way from Mhow near Narbadda River all the way upto Delhi some 500 miles in the north during the phenomenally hot season of July-August of a Central Indian summer must not be compared to or equated with a loyal Nawab of Rampur or a Tiwana or Noon or Hayat from Punjab! We will not brand the last four as traitors because India in 1857 was not a country. But keeping in view the quality of motivation the “Sepoy” was fighting for a collective cause i.e. “Freedom” for entire Indo-Pak if he could successfully overthrow the British, whereas the Nawab or the Tiwana or the Noon or the Hayat were mercenaries fighting for personal gain, and to prolong the rule of a foreign power over India, however, humane for ninety more years! The Begam of Lucknow Hazrat Mahal was only a concubine elevated to the rank of wife before 1857 but her conduct in 1857 and thereafter raised her stature much higher than most notable chiefs of Indo-Pak Sub Continent. We may state with conviction that she was more of a man than any man in Indo-Pak who stayed loyal to the British. She preferred exile even when she was offered a pension and pardon by the British in an age when so-called respectable Indians were dying to get one favour or the other by resorting to the lowest strategies of sycophancy and boot licking. The Raja Ballabgarh and Jagirdar Rao Tula Ram of Haryana area despite being Hindus fought for a Muslim King when Muslim soldiers were vying with Sikhs and Gurkhas in plundering predominantly Muslim cities like Lucknow and Delhi. We see indomitable Rajputs, Talukdars like Beni Madho of Shankarpur, Devi Baksh of Gonda and Gulab Singh of Biswah refusing to go back and live under British subservience even when the British offered them the complete restoration of their Jagirs in Oudh! These brave Rajputs who were lords of fertile estates preferred the rigours of an uncertain exile in inhospitable Nepal over living in subservience at a time when many other Rajputs both Muslim Rajputs and Hindu Rajputs enriched themselves at the cost of independence and sovereignty of India! But what did they know about independence for just nine years ago they had been kicked by the Sikhs who had converted the Muslim mosques into stables and gunpowder magazines! The biggest joke of the century is that these gentlemen in the post-1857 were termed as “Chiefs” hailing from “Martial Races” How can a chief be martial when his people silently and docilely suffered while a minority religious group turned his mosques into stables and gunpowder magazines!
Another factor which distinguishes 1857 from all other previous British Indian wars is the fact that it was the first war of its type which could be called “Total War” or “Peoples War”. All previously fought wars were essentially like wars of Kings in pre-1789 Europe. The populace was not really bothered about the outcome and for the average Bengali the EEIC or Sirajuddaula were little different from each other. In 1857 the populace was actively involved, whether as an ordinary peasant helping Tantia Topi in Central India or as in the Pathan civilian assisting the British in the chase of the mutineers in Peshawar or Mardan! The populace specially in the Muslim dominated old centres of political power like Delhi and Lucknow suffered as much as the sepoys. The populace in Oudh actively assisted the sepoys and this was one of the principal reasons why the sepoys were fighting in many parts of Oudh right till May- June 1859.
Another factor which has seriously disturbed many Indo-Pak historians’ perceptions about the study of rebellion is lack of participation in the rebellion by many areas of India. Thus Majumdar being a Bengali could not digest the fact of viewing an event in which Bengalis played no role as a war of independence. Similarly the “Punjab Loyalty” factor has biased most of the Punjabi historians into viewing the rebellion in a negative manner. The answer to this dilemma is not difficult provided a historian for some time sets aside his nationality and views the events of 1857 dispassionately. The simple fact is that all regions of Indo-Pak resisted the British at various periods in the rough 200 year British domination period in India. The south in the shape of Mysore and the Mahrattas resisted the EEIC tenaciously during 1760-1803. That they failed is another issue which still does not prove that they were docile any more than the sturdy Irish who the British ruled for some 700 years. The Bengalis were revolutionary in their own way but Bengali grievances were different from UP or Maharatta grievances. Thus the Bengalis were active against the British while other parts were relaxing specially in the post- 1857 period. The Sikhs in Punjab were the toughest British opponents during the two Sikh Wars of 1845-46 and 1848-49. The British suffered more casualties fighting against the Sikhs than in fighting against the Afghans in the First or Second Afghan Wars. This regional bias against 1857 is both irrational and detrimental to the cause of Indo Pak history. The reason again lies in the most common fallacy of Indian history i.e. viewing the Indo-Pak sub-continent as a country. The term India or Indian merely donates a geographical area, there never has been and never will be an Indian nation. The whole region is a jigsaw puzzle of various nationalities of different religions who have just one thing in common i.e. “common masters”. At various times in history they have been ruled by foreigners who initially came for loot and rapine and later became more systematic and settled down and finally got absorbed in the Indo-Pak society. The reason that one community or region did not participate make it more “docile” or more “martial” two terms with poisonous connotations. The “anti-Punjabi” historians brand the Punjabis specially the “Punjabi Muslims” and “Sikhs” as “Traitors” or “docile”! Both the terms are incorrect but show that historians are also human beings and prove the idea that to be a historian we have to stop being as human as we may like to be. Unfortunately all ethnic groups are a victim to this tendency. The “Urdu speaking” or “Hindustani” projecting school of historians started an exercise of condemning all other parts of India as Collaborators after 1857. They projected the “Hindustanis” as the only aware people and as the true patriots. This line of thought was negative and counter-productive. The Punjabis became more anti-Hindustani. Partly the actual culprits of this poisonous trend were the British. The rebellion was a traumatic event and it really shattered their confidence in the previously believed irrational myth of their superiority. For the first time since their arrival in India their nights became sleepless out of fear of another rebellion. They adopted “Divide and Rule” as a policy. On one side they first created the term “Punjab Loyalty” projecting the Punjabi as a “hero” and the “Hindustani” as a “Blackguard”! The fatal administrative decision of transferring the Delhi province containing the old districts of Panipat, Delhi, Rohtak and Gurgaon and off course Delhi city to Punjab province from 1858 was the foundation stone of the ever-growing Hindustani Punjabi tension which has retarded the growth of at least Pakistan as a nation. This tension is compounded by other anti Punjabi feelings held by the Sindhi Baloch, Pathan, Seraiki and Northern Area people! The disease is serious and yet hilarious. As a Gentleman Cadet at the Pakistan Military Academe,. I was shocked and amused at a get-together organised by an officer instructor on the basis of belonging to the “Gujar Gaste”! If even among Punjabis there are people who are thinking in the terms of “Gujar”, “Arain” etc. then God help us! Coming back to the point the award of Delhi territory was openly declared by the British as a reward for “Punjab Loyalty” and as a “Political punishment” to the people of Delhi for having actively helped the sepoys in 1857. The funniest as well as the most tragic part of this decision was the fact that in the long run it harmed the Punjabi Muslims much more seriously than any other single decision taken by the British regarding Punjab affairs from 1849 to 1947! This administrative decision whose dire implications are somehow missed or ignored by seemingly clever historians including ardent Punjabophiles reduced the majority of the Punjabi Muslims from some 61% to 56% because the percentage of non- Muslims in these areas was much higher than West Punjab! The people of Delhi, Rohtak and Gurgaon etc. were subjected to a province with whom they had little in terms of a common cultural or historial heritage. They had to travel all the way from Delhi or Rohtak to Lahore for any major civil or legal business! The British officials in Punjab encouraged the Punjabis to look down upon the Hindustanis as detesting intriguers and black guards! The fact that European education came to Punjab slower than UP just like education in UP came long after it came to Bengal or Bombay further made this tension more complicated. The Upites despised the Punjabis as simpletons and duffers while the Punjabis resented the fact as some grand Urdu speaking clique conspiracy! The simple position was that European education came slowly to India from East to West, successively as the EEIC advanced westward from Bengal following Plassey (1757), Buxar (1764) Laswari (1803), Gujrat (1849). The fact that the Bengali Hindus were more successful in the ICS (Indian Civil Service) Examination was not because the Bengalis were more intelligent but simply because the Bengalis got a greater opportunity in terms of time to study in British sponsored universities and colleges. Few people today know that in 1880s the Upites were as scared of the Indian Civil Service open merit examination as Punjabis or Sindhis in Pakistan right from 1947 when they succeeded in imposing a quota system for selection to civil service right from 1950s till today. Thus in 1886 Pandit Ajudia Nath who was regarded as a spokesman of Hindu educated opinion in the UP told the Public Services Commission that the services ought not to be recruited by competitive examination unless this was done on a strictly provincial basis. The Pandit further explained the rationale behind his opinion by stating that the difference in the education of the different provinces made this necessary, particularly since opinion in upper India held strongly that it is better to be ruled by gentleman who belong to the same province. UP men backward in English education when compared with those in the presidencies felt that they would stand little chance in competition for the ICS places if thrown in with candidates from the maritime provinces, particularly Bengal 6. Later on during the pre-1947 and post-1947 period many Urdu speaking intellectuals started looking down on the Punjabi Muslims as intellectually inferior. The Urdu speaking historians thus described docility and cowardice as prime attributes of Punjabi Muslims in 1857. The Punjabis were naturally antagonized and a clear cut tendency emerged in post-1947 historians in Pakistan to avoid discussing 1857 and condemning it as a Hindustani dominated negative event! Both these tendencies on part of the Punjabi and Hindustani (Urdu speaking) intellectuals are negative. The reasons why the Punjabis did not participate in the rebellion have already been discussed in detail in our analysis portion. The presence of this negative tendency of mutual distrust and condemnation is self-defeating and dangerous. If we pick up any work dealing with Pakistani history we find a marked tendency to criticize each other. A Punjabi Muslim writing history will always make it a point to criticize Liaquat Ali Khan just because he was a Hindustani! While Liaquat Ali Khan was not an angel or an ideal choice is an open secret. The fact that the founder of the nation selected him as his principal lieutenant and number two man shows one thing very clearly i.e. he had no choice, if there would have been any other choice Jinnah would have selected a Punjabi or a Pathan. But there was none and he selected Liaquat. The fact that Liaquat failed in four years to do what Nehru in India did in two years only shows the mediocre standard of Muslim leadership in India in general and the Muslim majority provinces i.e. both Punjab and Bengal in particular! If we believe that Jinnah liked yes man and selected Liaquat because he was a yes-man then Jinnah had a very big choice since 99% of Muslim leaders of post-1857 India were yes-men! And the unionist party which dominated Punjab policies till 1946 had 100% yes-men. If Liaquat is criticised for being simply incompetent I will support the person who does it openly but if he is criticised just because he was not a Punjabi or a Pathan, I will defend Liaquat for all that he did. This bias based on ethnicity is our major intellectual failure. This bias has its roots in 1857 and in the myths of docility and superiority to which the rebellion gave birth! Another malady which afflicts almost every historian in Pakistan is the “Traitor branding complex”. The Urdu speaking intellectuals called the Punjabi Muslim traitors of 1857, the Punjabis called the Bengalis traitors in 1971, the Sindhis were branded as such in 1983 or in 1990 and today the people of Karachi are traitors. In 1975 Mr. Bhutto called Mr. Wali Khan a traitor. If this methodology is followed all successful Muslim leaders of the post-1857 period were traitors or descendants of traitors. We in Pakistan are inhabitants of a multi-ethnic state created on the basis of vague slogans of “religion” which were merely used to galvanize people. Till 1940 when there was no clear cut objective of the Muslim League and till August 1947 no one was clear about the boundaries of Pakistan. “Vagueness” and “Doubt” are two key words of the post-1857 history of Indian Muslims. Fear of Hindu domination temporarily united the Indian Muslims in the period of 1940-47. The pre-1916 struggle of Sir Syed was also not a struggle for Pakistan but for political survival of the UP Muslims in particular in the post-1857 period, during which the British became more anti-Hindustani and considerably pro-Punjabi. The real changes in the post-1857 period was that the Hindustani Muslims were branded as the main culprits while the Punjabi Muslims were hailed as heroic members of a martial race who were good cannon fodder for the British during the Battles of the Indian Mutiny as the British called them! Both were myths since those who rebelled and those who stayed loyal did so because of equally compelling reasons.
Thus essentially wrong concepts were nurtured by both the UP and Punjab Muslims regarding the pre-1946 period. The UP Muslims were supporting the League before 1946 not because they were more patriotic than the Punjabi Muslims but essentially because the League till 1937 and even till 1951 was a UP Muslim dominated organisation. Till 1940 the League had no concrete tangible goal and this shows that the Punjabi Muslims were doing perfectly the right thing by voting for the Unionist party. The Punjabi Muslim politicians disliked the pre-1940 League not because of any ideological reasons but because it was dominated by Non-Punjabi Muslims just like the Sindhi of today dislikes the Muslim League because he views it as primarily a Punjabi Muslim League which as a matter of fact it has been since Junejo was booted out in 1988 in particular and since 1985 when it was resurrected by the dubious military junta of Pakistan!
END NOTES
612 Ibid.
613 Pages-224 to 239- The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857 -R.C Majumdar-Mukhopadyay-Calcutta-1957.
614 Page-374-C. Hibbert-Op cit.
615Pages-48, 111 & 112-Article "The Context of the 1857 Mutiny Rebellion in India" in Past and Present-Issue No-46-August-1970 by Eric Stokes-
616End Note-Six-Page-432-C. Hibbert-Op Cit.
617Quoted on Page-158- The Atlas of the Crusades-Edited by Jonathan Riley Smith-Facts on File Inc-New York-1991.
618Page-111-T.A Heathcote-Op Cit. till 1895 the Infantry soldier who was the three fourth element of the Indian Army was paid just Rs 7/- per month.