Islam as a political weapon in Pakistan

islam was used as a political weapon by jauhar brothers and later by jinnah right from 1927.what about that .the muslim higher and middle classes for gaining an unfair advantage created pakistan.

The most crucial developments in this regard took place under the civil and military regimes of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (1971-1977) and General Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988);


yes..there was a hole in the space time continuum and time, in pureland, jumped from 1988 to 2008. All the periods in between when the pakistani army used political islam to create the jihadis for it's battles in kashmir and afghanistan...it's like that never happened...

Perhaps it was Pakistan not the West that Iqbal wrote this couplet for:

Tumhaaree tuhzeeb apne khunjar se aap hee khud kushi karay gee/

banay ga jo shaakhay naazuk pe aashyana hamesha na payedaar hoga

Translation:

Your (mulla-military) culture with its own dagger(Islam)will one day compel you to commit suicide on your own volition,

A (political) nest built on the weakest branch(religion) will always remain on the verge of falling on the gound.

Half of Iqbal's prophesy was fulfilled in 1971 -- the rest will, under Mehsud Musharraf.

For post #1 FakirIppi- You are quite ignorant about history my friend. It was not Jinnah that used religion but Gandhi and the congress who had a false facade of secularism. Jinnah was a strong opponent of the Khilafat Movement and thought it will procreate fundementalism while Ghandi supported this movement to get sympathy muslim votes. Jinnah never used Isalm as a tool but the geopolitical situations of the muslims in the subcontinent and congress's short sightedness, stuborness and lust for power as a political tool.

God knows what world you live in, Mubarka Ahmad sahib. Even someone as ignorant as I am knows that few Pakistani leaders have advocated a theocracy, not even ZAB whom you accuse of 'abusing' and 'misusing' Islam.

There is a vast diversity of opinions within Islam, and it is natural and probably ok to accuse others with whom you disagree of abusing and misusing Islam.

THAT STRATEGY is a political tool/weapon, and it is used commonly even outside of Islam.

------------

People have already propagaged Islamic democracy, Islamic liberalism, Islamic progressivism, and Islamic socialism. Surely someone must have spoken of Islamic secularism. You might want to dig it out and actually join the fray.

Relevant article … addresses some of the core problems plaguing Pakistani politics.

Saudi/UAE support for ZAB’s “Islamic policies” … out of fear that Pakistan may fall under Soviet influence … is interesting. It is similar to the US/western fears of Iran gravitating towards the Soviet orbit after the fall of Shah. This apparently prompted the west to favor the lesser evil of Islamic revolution, thereby covertly supporting Khomeni. As Khomeni and his revolution gained strength, Saddam was propped up in Iraq in order to neutralize Iran. I can’t vouch for accuracy of this narrative, but it does explain quite a bit.

From what I’ve gathered, ZAB Islamized politics out of sheer ambition and political expediency; he personally couldn’t care less about Islam or Nizam-e-Mustafa etc. Singling out Ahamdis worked for him as it served to unite the ummah behind him. Apparently Zia, on the other hand, lived and breathed Islamic politics. ZAB made a deal with the devil, and later Zia took this Islamization business to new heights. Eventually both men succumbed when matters spun out of control.

All through this analysis is a confusion of cause and effect. It was the Feudal/Colonial duo that first used Islam to manipulate the Muslims of India, using MAJ to establish Pakistan, setting a whole dynamic in place which could not be controlled by ignoring the frankenstein of that MAJ constructed (for political expediencey)regardless of the "secular state" rhetoric thereafter. This theological interpretation of Pakistan due to the partition rhetoric, legitmating mythology for which was created by MAJ's sidekick the Allama Iqbal, continued all the way until ZAB appeared on the scene and for the first time politics shifted to bread and butter issues, however the Frankenstein did not die even though it was weakened. It was again resurrected by the Feudal/Colonial (US)/Mullah trio in order to bury and push back the people's agenda. What ZAB did was the effect of such manipulation by the trio mentioned above, what he did was try to rescue the movement that would have seen a healthy shift of politics away from manipulative theology towards bread and butter issues that were of utmost importance to the masses that lived in Pakistan. Even though he tried, the shenanigans of the MAJ and the resulting catastrophie of partition had deeper roots and colonial support and ZAB was defeated and the Frankenstein was further strengthened by the Colonial/Feudal/Pak Army trio using the Mullah as fodder in Afghanistan... that is the reality behind what is described as "Islam" in Pakistani politics...

In #8 read "which could not be controlled by ignoring the frankenstein of that MAJ constructed" as

"which could not be controlled by ignoring the frankenstein that MAJ created (with help from his sidekick the Allama..)

Re: # 2
I've focussed on, and limited this article to, the two aforementioned regimes. This piece is basically about how religion evolved as a political tool in pakistani politics - post-1988 is not something i've explored, or attempted/claimed to explore here.

Re:

"#5: dryiabbasi
It was not Jinnah that used religion but Gandhi and the congress who had a false facade of secularism."

Apparently you've fallen for the FUD factor used by Jinnah & Co. to further his communal cause.

@ #11 tvarad

And you seem outrightly prejudiced. If you try to study the independence of these two countries without a bias then you will realise what i stated. It is a historical fact (and not my interpretation) tha Jinnah strongly opposed the Khilafat movement and the fundamentalsit like Maudodi opposed Jinnah and Pakistan. No one can single handedly change history without mass support, India has yet to realise this. No rebelion, revolution or independence movemnt can be sucessful unless they have masses supporting them who have a sense of injustice agaisnt them.

#10 Posted by barka on January 3, 2008 4:03:05 pm

Your article is about "Islam as a political weapon" and you didn't cover post 1988 when your country used, or attempted to use, islam as a political weapon in afghanistan and kashmir

sorry..that's a cop out...isn't that the most significant period..isn't that what's lead to this FUBAR situation in the land of the pure today?

I would think political parties continued struggle till 1970 when first free and fair election were held.
In West Pakistan or (Pakistan) for that matter although Bhutto took a majority, but that does not explain all.
First Pakistan was a defeated nation, and foremost task for Bhutto was Nation Building.
Second although Islamic Political parties had less than 10 percent seats in National assembly, but their hold was significant on Media. Secong Jamiat Ulamae Islam of Mufti Mahmood was forming the NWFP Government and also were supporting Baluchistan Government.
Third Jamat-e-Islami had started to get organized.
All these factor gave Islamic parties more strength than their poll number suggests.
I would think the election of 1970 were held in a different situation and Bhutto formed Government in a different atmosphere.
It is just a presumption that if Bhutto ruled West Pakistan of 1970 he would have not given to the pressure of Islamic parties.
After 1971 he had an entirely different task.
General Zia on the other hand was deeply Islamic to begin with and 1979 Afghan war helped in his mission.

#12 dryiabbasi:

"No one can single handedly change history without mass support, India has yet to realise this."

Megalomaniacs can also change history by conning a whole people (just ask Hitler). It is obvious that Jinnah played the pied-piper to the sub-continental Muslims to wean them away from more liberal leaders like Maulana Azad, Ghaffar Khan etc.. Pakistani Muslims are now staring at what lies beyond the cliff he led them to while Indian Muslims don't quite face the same problem, have not been swamped by Hindus, not lost their culture, have equality with other communities (all of which Jinnah said could never happen).

#12
". No rebelion, revolution or independence movemnt can be sucessful unless they have masses supporting them who have a sense of injustice agaisnt them"

were the muslim masses driven purely by a "sense of injustice"?. I believe that the "sense" was limited only to the muslim elite (zamindars, landed feudals & aristocrats) who inherited that sense from their forefathers who lost their priviledges in 1857. like any society muslim society in united india was a stratified society. each subgroup was drive by different motives.

It was Gandhi who manipulated religion for political ends and destroyed the unity that Jinnah had worked so hard to create. People like Tvarad are too biased to accept a fact of history. Jinnah was the only politician in the history of the subcontinent to be called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity.

It was the devious alliance between Caste Hindu fascist leaders like Gandhi and their side kick the Muslim Clergy that forced Jinnah to fight for and win Pakistan. Congress' inability to accept rational and secular leaders like Jinnah as the true representatives of Muslims and Congress' reliance on freaks and Mullahs instead led to the creation of Pakistan.

And ofcourse... while the clergy wanted to keep the Muslims backwards (and thus play into the Gandhian idea of India), Jinnah and the Muslims who followed him had asked for political and economic safeguards... something patently unacceptable to Gandhi and the Congress... Muslims like Jinnah daring to speak for them ... oh my God.
there is a much greater link of Gandhi to Moplahs and indeed Jamia Hafsa ... than the two nation theory that Jayp wants to malign and has even taken to inventing quotes... you know could care less to bring them together but if someone can so illogically argue and try to link the Islamo-fascist tendencies in a small minority of Muslims to our legtimate stance for Pakistan... then one should point out the obvious links between Gandhi and true Islamic fundamentalist and terrorist movements of South Asia... I do not wish to dwell Gandhi honestly but if this line of argument is taken... should I not point out the facts?


Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: ’It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE ’HIMALAYAN ERROR’ of Gandhiji’s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League’.


and

’Since the Khilafat agitation, things have changed and it has been one of the many injuries inflicted on India by the encouragement of the Khilafat crusade, that the inner Muslim feeling of hatred against ’unbelievers’ has sprung up, naked and unashamed, as in years gone by’.

and

A terrible and gruesome fallout of the disastrous Khilafat experiment of Mahatma Gandhi was the Moplah Rebellion in Malabar District in 1921. According to the Report of the ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF SERVANTS OF INDIA SOCIETY, the number of Hindus murdered by Moplah Muslims was 1500, the number of Hindus forcibly converted 20,000 and the value of property looted about Rs three crore. When the national and local leaders appealed to the virulently anti-Hindu Moplah Muslims in the name of Mahatma Gandhi to follow the ways of peace and non-violence, they replied bluntly with Islamic fervour: ’GANDHI IS A KAFIR, HOW CAN HE BE OUR LEADER?’ Dr Anne Besant declared: ’The Moplah Muslim marauders murdered and plundered abundantly, killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatize. Somewhere about 100,000 people were driven from their homes with nothing but the clothes they had on, stripped of everything’. She also accused all the Khilafat religious preachers for all this terrible atrocities. J Campbell, chief of the Intelligence Department, Government of India, held the Khilafat leaders squarely responsible for inciting racial hatred resulting in Moplah carnage.

http://www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06aug/2208ss1.htm

Mahatma Gandhi’s attempt to harness the feeling for the cause of national independence backfired and led to the uprising in Kerala known as the Moplah Rebellion. It took the British several months to put it down at the cost of thousands of lives.



Moplahs were very much part of the grand Khilafat Movement that Gandhi was spearheading and Gandhi kept apologising for them


The Dravidian Moplahs had directed their revolt with class venom against some Aryan high-caste Hindus with property as well as Britishers: Brahmanical elements tried to use that to spark a crisis in Hindu-Muslim relations all over India. Gandhi tried to hold a balance: like the U.S. press and the Negro nationalists who read it he stressed that the Moplah uprising could be made part of a united drive for independence by Indians of all sects.But he was also aware of the pan-Islamic dimension: in a December 1921 call to the British to suspend their attacks against the Moplahs, he was to observe that the Moplahs saw themselves as fighting for a religion with methods they considered religious: Yogesh Chadha, Rediscovering Gandhi (London: Century 1997) p. 254.


And lets not forget the Tehreek-e-Hijrat Fatwa that Gandhi’s right hand man Azad gave to Muslims which gave Muslims two options "JEHAD" or "HIJRAT".

The Muslim Ulema, thinkers and activists called for the boycott of foreign goods and non-cooperation with the British government. Meetings were organised in order to rally the masses to support these issues. The meetings were organised under the banner of Mo’tamar al-Ansar (The Workers Conference) and various newspapers such as Al-Hilal of Maualana Abul Kalam Azad and The Comrade of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar. Both Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Maulana Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar were put behind bars for publishing anti-British articles in their newspapers. The latter spent four years in prison between 1911 and 1915CE.


The allegiance of the Muslim intelligentsia of India at that to the Khilafah is unquestionable. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad summed up their view when he wrote in his newspaper al-Hilal on 6th November 1912 that the Ottoman Sultans possessed the only sword which Muslims had for their protection. Insofar as the “caliphate was essentially a religious integration of the shari’a”, it became “necessary by revelation, is of God’s institution and that obedience to its authority is farz, or positively commanded”.


The Khilafat Movement


In September 1919, Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali, together with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani, started a new organization, the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Their avowed aim was to use whatever leverage they had to protect the Khilafah. They organized Khilafat Conferences in several northern Indian cities. It is noticeable that the scholars and activists that were part of the Khilafat movement came from different schools of thought and backgrounds, for example Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was known to be a ‘ghayr taqleedi’ (non-taqleedi – who believed Taqleed to Mazahib is prohibited) and Maulana Mahmood Hasan was Deobandi who are followers of the Hanafi Mazhab yet they were united in the objective of working for the maintenance of the Khilafah.


In 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee agreed on two important organisational goals: “first, to urge the retention of the temporal powers of the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph, and second to ensure his continued suzerainty over the Islamic holy places.”

Delivering the presidential address at the Calcutta meeting of the Bengal Provincial Khilafat Conference in 1920, Maulana Azad discussed the importance of Khilafah he declared, “the purpose of this institution was to organise and lead the Muslim community in the right path, to establish justice, to bring about peace, and to spread God’s word in the world. For all this it was absolutely necessary for the caliph to possess temporal power”. Maulana Azad had no doubt that “without an Imam, their lives were un-Islamic and that they would be damned after death”.


Maulana Azad published a book in 1920 called Masla-e-Khilafat (The Issue of Khilafah), he stated: “Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this”.

In the same book page 176 Maulana Azad said, “There are two types of ahkam shariah, the first is related to the individual like the commands and prohibitions, the fara’id (obligations) and wajibat in order to perfect oneself. The second is not related to the individual but is related to the Ummah, nation, collective obligations and state politics like the conquering of lands, political and economic laws”.

According to Peter Hardy, Maulana Azad believed that, “The Muslim who would separate religion and politics for Muslims is an apostate who works silently”.


The loss of political power in India and the threat posed by a combination of forces to the temporal authority of the caliph, was so worrisome for the leaders of the Muslim community that some of them felt compelled to issue fatwas ‘in favour of migration (hijra)’ from India.


Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a fatwa which was published in the daily Ahl-e-Hadith of Amritsar on 30 July 1920. In his fatwa he urged Hijrat from India as an alternative to non-cooperation with the British. (YLH’s note: Was the Hijaz Born Azad a "Wahabi"... note "Ahle-Hadith)

Maulana Abdul Bari’s fatwa said, “every Muslim residing here should adopt non-cooperation but if (that is) impossible, should proceed for hijrat”. Maulana Shaukat Ali issued a statement on behalf of the Central Khilafat Committee, “expressing the hope that all dedicated Muslims would stay in India and work for the non-cooperation. Only if it did not succeed would they consider resorting to hijrat”. The impact of the fatwa was electrifying and thousands of Muslims preferred to leave the Dar al harb of India where their religious rights symbolized in the position of the Turkish Caliph was being infringed.


And most amazing was the fact that Gandhi’s encouragement led to Deobandi ulema creating the Jamiat ulema Hind ... which in its numerous forms and heads plagues South Asia even today... and all these groups are spin offs of the same.


As for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.... whether the Masadi likes it or not... ZAB was Jinnah's greatest fan though he managed to singlehandedly dent Jinnah's legacy by allowing the Ahmadis to be declared non-Muslims. But still it was Bhutto who gave Pakistan the Quaid-e-Azam Academy and the Jinnah propagation project.


Poor Masadi lies day in day out but Zulfikar Ali Bhutto wrote from his death cell :

"With the exception of your father, the Quaid-e-Azam and perhaps Suhrawardy either charlatans or captains have run this country. Perhaps things will change with a struggle spearheaded by the militant youth. If things do not change, there will be nothing left to change. Either power must pass to the people or everything will perish."

Masadi is a classic case of someone who doesn't bother to actually read something but resorts to second guessing and third rate patch work. Hardly the academic.

The poor guy probably hasn't read a single one of ZAB's books... certainly not "Myth of Independence". Had he actually read the book, he would have come across the chapter where ZAB quotes Beverley Nichols' famous "Interview with a Giant"... Suffice to say it is a slap on the face of Masadi and his abuse directed as Jinnah by none other than Masadi's own idol of worship the Raja of Larkana.

It is the finest defence of Jinnah, by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Whatever his faults, and ZAB was after all a Wadera above all else so there were many many many least of all his absolute contempt for people... but no one can fault Bhutto for his honest devotion to Mahomed Ali Jinnah (though it was never enough for him to actually emulate the great man's honesty and integrity and courage)

To quote (Ghulam Ahmed Parwez's) Tolu-e-Islam's website (Bhutto could have been addressing freaks like Masadi):

On December 21, 1976, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto addressed a joint session of the National Assembly and Senate of the federation held to commemorate the centenary of birth of Quaid-e-Azam. Addressing Quaid-e-Azam's portrait hanging on the wall, he said in a most dramatic fashion: -

"Quaid-eAzam!

I know what arrows pierced your heart (during struggle for Pakistan). The British said you were arrogant. This was understandable, because you had refused to bow before them. The Congress leaders and their henchmen called you stubborn. That too was to be expected, because they had failed to trick you. What is not understandable, and what must have certainly bewildered and distressed you is, that the nation, for whose sake you were putting up with all this, was in forefront of your tormentors!"

Then he went on to give details of what people from one province or the other had done against the Quaid-e-Azam. After this detail, he remarked about the irony that the Maulvis and Maulanas had also pounced upon him. He followed with an observation that among his critics, a certain person, although saying things similar to others, couched them in a comparatively fancy language. Then he started quoting in English, excerpts from the book by Mr. Maudoodi titled "Muslims and the Present Political Turmoil" Volume 3. He quoted so extensively, that the text covered two columns and a half of Pakistan Times of December 23, 1976.


So there... this lays to rest the uneducated and ignorant claims by Masadi about Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

Now we know how he will respond:

1. He will declare that I don't have the intellectual depth.

2. He will declare that he knows Bhutto better because he has done much research on god knows what.

3. He will declare that he is gospel truth himself.


In retrospect... the worst thing Jinnah did was to create opportunities for people like Masadi. It is anybody's guess what sewer Masadi would be in if it hadn't been for Pakistan.

Re: # 17

You are just too prolific when it comes to Mahatma. Though I am not a student of history, I can say one thing for sure that Gandhi's good-heartedness has shaped the thoughts of most of our people.

I or even you are not in a position to know what really happened during that era and we are left to infer from the documents. I believe the ability of the authors, of those artefacts; to not to get influenced by their own proclivity to ideologies would have been impossible.

The only way to infer Gandhi's qualities is to see the impact he has had on the lives of people around the world and the state of our society. Though we have several problems we still have a positive resultant feeling about our society, which in itself explains the sound principles of the leaders here.

Your idea of Gandhi might still have some authenticity, but you over do things and end up less credible. In your obsession I have seen you many times losing your objectivity. We never have lost sight of the fact that Gandhi was another human being but we also understand how difficult it is for an ordinary mortal to raise beyond his prejudice.

All I can say is whenever we think of Gandhi we resolve to be good human beings, which in itself is a great achievement of Gandhiji. I believe Gandhi’s intentions were good and I do not judge him based on few of his actions/decisions.

Anybody can quote people selectively and substantiate their ideas. Gandhi was a political leader and definitely he would have had his share of critics during his time.

The point Mr. Ramanan is that Gandhi is the father of bringing religion into politics for his own political ends.

I have quoted your own Congressmen and historians. The problem with people on chowk is that they make tall claims without backing up with historical facts.

I don't know what this goodheartedness is... all I know is that Gandhi wanted Mullahs to be in control of the Muslim community because Mullahs were less threatening (they did not ask for political safeguards and economic safeguards like secular Muslims like Jinnah did).... it is an old tactic of a majority leader.

You may read post 17 along these lines. Pakistani masses will always opt for a Jinnah or a Bhutto and never for a Maulana Azad or Maulana Fazlu. That is the bottomline.

#19 Posted by MantoLives on January 3, 2008 11:07:37 pm


Pakistani masses will always opt



that's moot really..seeing as how you'all won't really be given a real chance to opt for anything...you'll just have to go where the leash leads you...

Mantolives:

#19,

"The point Mr. Ramanan is that Gandhi is the father of bringing religion into politics for his own political ends."

The one thing I've learned about living in India is that you cannot remove religion from anything. And I'm saying this as an atheist.

The man was honest enough to say that his political philosophy was guided by his religion and yet worked towards an inclusive, secular nation. By him being Hindu, he didn't ask anyone to be less of a Muslim, Christian, Sikh or whatever. I respect people like Maulana Azad for the same reason.

The dishonesty with Jinnah was that he acted like he was secular but did everything in the name of religion. After getting Pakistan, he wanted to put the genie of communalism that he had released for his own ends back in the bottle and wanted Pakistan to be secular! Now that's hypocrisy.

Tvarad,

Once again you haven't bothered to read what I wrote. I completely disagree with what you've written. The man you are describing is NOT Gandhi but simply someone who exists in your head.

Go back to 17 and read what Gandhi really was. He is solely responsible for bringing the religion genie out of the disgusting bottle it should have been kept in.

Jinnah's concerns were the welfare of his community. Therefore religious theology was not the point. Because he wanted economic and political safeguards and not religious per se ... he was unacceptable to majoritarian fascists like Gandhi.

I suggest you read this part again:

Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: ’It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE ’HIMALAYAN ERROR’ of Gandhiji’s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League’.


Ofcourse you respect Azad more. Leaders like Azad were never a threat to majoritarian fascism of Gandhiji and others. Infact the Mullahs like Azad, Maududi and Madani played Gandhi's game of keeping Muslims backwards educationally, politically, industrially etc.

Read 17 in toto again.

PS: Contrary to your claims though... Jinnah always put a clear foot forward after leaving the Congress. He took on the role of the spokesman of the Muslim community. It is qualitatively different from becoming a Mahatma.

Jinnah was absolutely clear that he was not a maulana or a religious leader but simply putting forward legitimate political and economic claims of his community.

His 11th August speech and vision for Pakistan was not any different from his entire career. He wanted a Pakistan based on justice, fairplay and equality for all citizens.

On the contrary the only hypocrites are people like Gandhi who kept up the facade and lie of secularism while promoting religious bigots and mullahs for their own political ends.

The only way for the survival of Pakistan

Pakistan was come into existence by the special gift of Allah “Subhana Wa Tallah” on August 14, 1947. If we remind the historical events of the creation of Pakistan, we would see a gloomy picture of hatred, violence and bloodshed at the time of partition and migration to and from Pakistan. Many of our cultured and so-called educated people now forced to believe that the creation of Pakistan was gifted by the English Rulers of the subcontinent, who woven a conspiracy against the Muslims of India and specially the Muslims of new country.

The fact that Pakistan was created on 27th of Holly month of Ramadan. The month which is sacred for its divine blessings from Allah. The prayers and religious offerings are accepted by the special grace of Almighty Allah and the Muslims are bestowed with the unseen prizes and gifts according to their purity of intentions and connection with their Mighty Creator Allah.

We on the whole as a Muslim Society living in Pakistan have totally ignored the facts and figures and true purpose of the creation of Pakistan. More or less 1 million Muslims were murdered or died during the transitional period of subcontinent. The day begins with the creation of Pakistan; we have been conspired with wrong mythology and ideas. We have forgotten the two nation theory which was the basic factor of the establishment of a Muslim estate in the subcontinent.

Pakistan was established in the name of Allah and to practice the Muslim laws, rules and regulations of Holly Quran. Our forefathers cheated us and spoiled the blood of martyrs of partition. The only way to survive our beloved Pakistan is to fulfill those promises which were undertaken by our forefathers with Almighty Allah. No peace and harmony can stay in this region without the practice of Quranic Code of Conduct in the society on the whole and individually at homes. We have to collectively fight to eradicate the evils of society like, drinking, telling lies, conspiring against each other for material pursuits, bribery, dishonesty in our routine dealings, forgery, cheating, dodging, using every hook and crook to get rich, availing opportunities against the national interest, supporting such elements who are harmful for the greatest interest of Islam and Pakistan, etc. etc.

We all know what evils have taken roots in our mind and hearts which have corrupted our body and souls and taken us far from the path of a civilized and cultured society which was the magnificence of Islam at the time of the rule of Hazrat Omer Bin Abdul Aziz (Razi Allah Ho Anho).

We have to adopt the Holly Sunnah of our beloved Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) in every dealing of our life otherwise we would be definitely vanished from the face of the earth and Allah will take charge to some other people to perform His Holly Duty.

Please reanalyze the circumstances ever since the creation of Pakistan and take the right step which would be in accordance to the Quranic Code of Conduct and Holly Sunnah.

aziz qureshi,

You are as mistaken as your Indian counterparts.

uba # 16

"were the muslim masses driven purely by a "sense of injustice"?. I believe that the "sense" was limited only to the muslim elite (zamindars, landed feudals & aristocrats) who inherited that sense from their forefathers who lost their priviledges in 1857."

Then you believe wrong. (Almost) every single Muslim was driven by a sense of injustice perpetrated against him or her by Hindus. The few who were not so driven attended evening prayers led by Gandhi.

whatever the wishes of the founders of Pakistan..the reallity is the reality. Religion is a major force driving the nation. why hide from it?

whatever the wishes of the founders of Pakistan..the reallity is the reality. Religion is a major force driving the nation. why hide from it?

"Islam has been used as a systematic tool for furthering political aims and governance authority within the aforementioned regimes."

Is this article a joke?

Pakistan was founded upon Political Islam that was the basis of TNT and division in 1947. Pakistan or "Pure-land" was based on the notion of Islamic purity of the momeen followers from naji idolators like me.

Every other regime there furthered the "purity" of Arabic identity of that political Islam - now Talibanis have clearly emerged as the consequence of that Arabic purity so eulogized by the Pakistanis.
Pakistan has been clearly moving towards Arabianization whereas idolator Indians have certainly moved towards de-dhimmification since independence.

Once again... laddu you are not very educated about the history of Pakistan. Your assertion is incorrect.

Please read 17.

I suggest you read this part again:

Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: ’It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE ’HIMALAYAN ERROR’ of Gandhiji’s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League’.

Re: # 30

Gandhi was stupid- I believe he could not bear to read the entire Medina portion of Quranic verses... so he was half educated about the 'bad cop' routine of Islam.....he probably thought Khilafat was some sort of a 'respect for all religions' state ......... but of course he was half educated in Islam and so he fell into the trap of Political Islam.... mullahs loved his dhimmitude by the way ...... he probably did not like Jinnah because Jinnah was a munafiqoon and ate pork.... Jinnah did not like those smelly mullahs who wanted to follow the second part of Medina Quran.... probably Jinnah also never went beyond the first part of Mecca Quran.....

#24 Posted by aziz.qureshi,

Are you telling this to people who have now invented a 'Visa God', in addition to the usual monkeys, cows and elephants as well as their excrement etc., and expect them to know what you're talking about?

But you have my sympathy!

Divine Intervention? Indians Seek Help From the 'Visa God'

By Vauhini Vara

HYDERABAD, India -- Lord Balaji is one of the most-worshiped local incarnations of the Hindu Lord Vishnu. His adherents flock to his many temples to pray for things like happiness, prosperity and fertility.

Lately, the deity has grown particularly popular at the once-quiet Chilkur Balaji temple here, where he goes by a new nickname: the Visa God. The temple draws 100,000 visitors a week, many of whom come to pray to Lord Balaji for visas to travel or move to the U.S. and other Western countries.

Wall Street Journal 31 Dec

#17 Posted by MantoLives on January 3, 2008 10:14:01 pm

Nice to see Manto enjoying himself. :)

Welcome back Manto.

#24 Posted by aziz.qureshi on January 4, 2008 3:31:14 am


Pakistan was established in the name of Allah and to practice the Muslim laws


While this may not have been true in 1947 and while this might not have been what jinnah wanted, this is the reality today...

manto can bury his head in the sand all he wants but the sounds of "pakistan ka matlab kya" will still make it to his ears..surely nobody can be this oblivious to the reality around him..


In the most recent World Public Opinion poll of Pakistanis, it was found that 60 percent of Pakistanis believe that "Sharia should play a larger role in Pakistan law" than it does now.

#19 Posted by MantoLives on January 3, 2008 11:07:37 pm


The point Mr. Ramanan is that Gandhi is the father of bringing religion into politics for his own political ends.


that may be true..I could even take a tremendous leap and accept that gandhi is responsible for the jihadi problem in pureland today and the whacking of bhutto and the declaration on ahmadiyyas....

the fact is that gandhi is dead...has been dead for a long time...saying he's to blame doesn't change the fact that pureland today is jihadis'r'us...

Eklavya #26:

"(Almost) every single Muslim was driven by a sense of injustice perpetrated against him or her by Hindus."

How the ruled can perpetrate injustice against the rulers (of which Muslims were part of) is one of the most bizarre accusations one can think of. Very Alice in Wonderland stuff. Unless, of course, Muslims think that it is their god-given right to rule and denial of that right constitutes discrimination :-).

Re: # 36

Dear Indians,

This Eklavya is a Paki troll doing the "good cop" routine trying to fool the hindu idolators by professing virtues of dhimmitude......please ignore him!!!

zeemax,
If Islamic fundo terrorists can strap explosives and blow themselves and a bunch of their antagonists up in the forlorn hope of making out with 72 virgins in some imaginary place, surely there's nothing strange in someone trying to do the opposite, viz. seeking a better life for themselves in the real world?

laddu, I have never undestood why some Hindus hate me so much. Isn't it acceptable to ask that we constantly re-evaluate our beliefs in light of the real world?

---------------

tvarad, see if you get any of the following. My fear is that you won't.:

Congress was unjust to Muslims.
Gandhi was a leader of Hindus.
Hindu were oppressing Muslims.

Just because these statements don't make sense to you, it doesn't mean that they were untrue for all others.

That's why I have been trying, humbly, to wean Hindus away from this whole notion of "justice." It's almost as dangerous to us as that of "love."

These are not our key civilizational concepts. We need to build societies that are NOT dedicated to the pursuit of "justice," and do not do things for or justify them on the basis of "love."

---------

That doesn't directly address your question. Sorry about that.

Re: # 39

My only fear is that you would never negate the kalima-

Please say this and write again in your next post -

"There is no god called Allah and Mohammad is not a Prophet."

Also, I have read enough of original Quran and Hadith to understand why muslims like you try to spin propaganda that blames the victim of oppression with 'oppression' in return!!!
I have read enough of Pakistani tafsirs to understand where your gems come from.
Tell me Mr Eklavya Khan Saheb what is ths "our" beliefs that you talk about?
Do you know how to do pujan on the Buts in our 'dingy' temples??

Eklavya #39

"I have never undestood why some Hindus hate me so much. Isn't it acceptable to ask that we constantly re-evaluate our beliefs in light of the real world?"

Indeed, given the happenings in the land of the pure in recent times, perhaps the physician will try to heal himself?

Eklavya is an old chowkie and I am surprised people are accusing him of being a Paki troll.

Fairmindedness should not automatically lead to denigration.

laddu, if there can be a god with four legs and three noses, why can't there be another god calld allah; and if one god can scurry around on the back of a rat why can't another one send down a man called mohammad?

Bhai we can't get bogged down in these things. If we believe in logic (and there is no need to do that), we have to be consistent.

Well, thanks, manto. I do take more provocative stands now, and that upsets some of my friends. No biggie. Sometimes I am right, other times, they are wrong. :)

(Great to see you back in action here.)

Re: # 44

As expected Mr Eklaya Khan alias Mr Kaalchakra Khan saheb...your lid is blown off....you failed to negate the kalima........

laddu, I cannot negate the kalima.

I personally will not and cannot take any stand of which I am not convinced, logically and morally. At some time, we can definitely discuss that, in a mutually respectful manner, if you would like.

Re: # 46

Please reveal your true muslim identity than try to conduct this taquiyya stuff for hindu idolators like me.
I would appreciate that more because unlike some dhimmi hindus born and brought up in centuries old dhimmitude and fear of momeen god I am completely freed of my dhimmi North Indian culture.
I have the pride to openly profess the 'truth' of my idolator civilization!!

#46 Posted by Eklavya,

... err .... I think laddu is a muslim. Think about it.

Re: # 48

Zee bhai,

You are amazing !!!
It never crossed my mind that I could indeed be considered a mirzai !!

Why are you guys trying to understand Eklavya? Bhaiyon aur behenon..concepts such as space/time, logic, consistency etc. do not apply to our friend. i love this snippet of muddled thoughtprocess..hahah

"laddu, if there can be a god with four legs and three noses, why can't there be another god calld allah; and if one god can scurry around on the back of a rat why can't another one send down a man called mohammad?

Bhai we can't get bogged down in these things. If we believe in logic (and there is no need to do that), we have to be consistent."

#49 Posted by laddu,

On second thought indeed ... you could indeed be a mirzai, or a hamidm or an SR.

Eklavya,

Coming to think of it, what's wrong with a God who promises one an 'afterlife' (and very well-argued mind you) when people have 'gods' promising them Visas to USA?

The problem is, people just will not look beyond life. They can't. They just want 'gods' who will promise them love, and happiness, and male offspring, and visas.

Looking beyond life is scary, so guess that's fair :)

Dear Author,

Thank you for this wonderful essay. As a person who was born in the late seventies and grew up during Zia's rule, the various points contained within your essay clearly rang true. I remember when I was in 5th grade in the early 1980's, Arabic language was made compulsory in our school, though this policy was discontinued with the demise of Zia.

As you pointed out, its funny that Islamization policies during Bhutto's and Zia's regimes focused on curtailing individual freedom, but never managed to do anything really productive for the people of Pakistan.

A universal healthcare system was never introduced.

A social welfare system wasnt instituted either.

Rather, rights of half of the populations i.e. our women were severely curtailed.

You are right, Saudi Money had a lot to do with Bhutto's and Zia's policies as well as the rise of Madrassas in Pakistan.

MY Islamic Studies professor Dr. Arthur F Buehler gave a lecture in 2002 on the rise of Fundamentalism and Madrassas in Pakistan, and he said that before the 1970's there were only four hundred some Madrassas in Pakistan and by the middle of 1980's there were close to 9000.

He also postulated that the lifeblood of these Madrassas were the petrodollars finding their way from Saudi Arabia.

{"President Ayub Khan (1958-69) showed clear modernistic tendencies; yet retained a modest complacency towards a degree of pre-existing Islamic ideology legitimized by the Pakistan movement, but took it no further . The trend of predominantly religion-free politics continued with Yahya Khan (1969-71), who similarly showed little sympathy for the religious parties. Till the rise of Pakistan People’s Party in the 1970s, the political stance regarding religious parties had been unsympathetic, as evidenced by the imprisonment and original announcement of death sentence of Maulana Maududi, head of the Jamaat-i-Islami in response to the Punjab disturbances in 1953."}

Dear Mubarka,
Thank you for presenting this important topic in a proper context. The title of your article could very well be "The Abuse of Politicized Islam In Pakistan."

Pakistan was created by secular-minded Muslims for many reasons, the least of which was the establishment of a theocracy. Whether it was the commercial interest of the Marwari and Bombay businessmen, the selfish feudal concerns of UP/CP Zamindaars, or the personal political ambitions of MAJ, one thing is abundantly clear. The JI, Deobandis, and other bearded brigades wanted no part of Pakistan. To their credit, they could not see any religious benefit in establishing so-called Islamic rule for two-thirds of Muslims while one-third remained in a much weakened and helpless position.

Over one million Indians died, tens of millions were uprooted, thousands of women were raped and abducted, and millions of people were looted, ruined, and separated from families to satisfy the lofty ambitions of just a few "leaders." Those Muslims who remained in India became a hated and suspected fifth column for the aggrieved Hindus and Sikhs.

Following partition, Pakistanis settled down, partly as a result of exhaustion and partly because of the need for survival, to build their nation. Islam to the early Pakistanis meant belief in Allah and His Messenger (PBUH), praying when possible, fasting when necessary, giving charity often, and otherwise eating, drinking, living and letting live.

It was only with the elections of 1970, that ZAB rediscovered Islam as a tool for his personal triumphs. He used Islam, provincialism, ethnicity, language, and the PAF against the Qadiani Punjabis, majority Bengalis, liberal Pakhtoons, Urdu-speaking Mohajirs, rebellious Baluchis, and even his former supporters in the Punjab. The only mistake he made was trusting a religious Zia Ul Haq as his top military man. The real abuse of Islam began and reached its peak with Zia - the results of which Pakistan is still encountering three decades later.

Salim

zee, nothing wrong at all, and it is far more inspirational.

(Zee, boss, I have NOT ignored your question on UP. I am just going through a very rough period in which it is hard for me to write anything, and almost impossible to write anything personal. As soon as I feel capable enough, and can mentally relax, your wish would indeed be my huqm. Thanks for your understanding.)

Salim_Chuhan #54:

"Following partition, Pakistanis settled down, partly as a result of exhaustion and partly because of the need for survival, to build their nation."

Come now, assassinations, army-takeovers, wars literally from day one of Pakistan's independence and you call that settling down?

My view is that Pakistan was the result of Solomon's judgment on whose baby it was gone wrong. The fake mother got her wish and so it was DOA.

Pre-independence Indian leaders debated for decades on what a free India was going to be, which is why the polyglot nation got a sound footing in nationhood that has enabled it to withstand assault by a succession of mediocre leaders starting with Indira Gandhi. Those who were asking for Pakistan never went beyond defining it as "Pakistan is not Hindu". Such an ideology can only take you so far.

"laddu, I have never undestood why some Hindus hate me so much. Isn't it acceptable to ask that we constantly re-evaluate our beliefs in light of the real world?"

Kahan Veer Savarkar aur kahan Praveen Togadia. It is Savarkar's tragedy that Hindu seculars hate him and the Hindu rightwingers do not understand him. It seems you are destined to follow a similar fate.

I would think political parties continued struggle till 1970 when first free and fair election were held.
In West Pakistan or (Pakistan) for that matter although Bhutto took a majority, but that does not explain all.
First Pakistan was a defeated nation, and foremost task for Bhutto was Nation Building.
Second although Islamic Political parties had less than 10 percent seats in National assembly, but their hold was significant on Media. Secong Jamiat Ulamae Islam of Mufti Mahmood was forming the NWFP Government and also were supporting Baluchistan Government.
Third Jamat-e-Islami had started to get organized.
All these factor gave Islamic parties more strength than their poll number suggests.
I would think the election of 1970 were held in a different situation and Bhutto formed Government in a different atmosphere.
It is just a presumption that if Bhutto ruled West Pakistan of 1970 he would have not given to the pressure of Islamic parties.
After 1971 he had an entirely different task.
General Zia on the other hand was deeply Islamic to begin with and 1979 Afghan war helped in his mission

Re #17 Manto is lying shamelessly about Gandhi just as he is about ZAB. Gandhi did not support the Khilafat movement because he wanted a Muslim Khalifa installed. He supported it because with it he shared a common anticolonial motive. It is one thing for the clergy "wanting to keep the people backward", quite another for the Jinnah types to keep the Muslims in perpetual slavery to the White man. When the white man had destroyed all institutions that described the Muslims in India, left them little to no representation in the state machinery, an organized movement had to start in the religious domain the only institution that survived...The guy (Manto) is an ignoramus who worships the dog-ugly MAJ, he will not reason, for example regarding his point about ZAB, let me copy paste his dishonest BS from another thread even after we've discussed this and it has been answered....
---------------------

Manto writes " ...Time Magazine..."

That my friends (and enemies) is the sum total of his intelligence, to copy paste from websites, from magazines and some obscure books written by orientalists and other "experts". Regarding using well known facts (which no one not even the orientalists dispute) and his sense of reason, the guy (or "freak" ) is totally disabled.

He writes "To quote (Ghulam Ahmed Parwez's) Tolu-e-Islam's website (Bhutto could have been addressing freaks like Masadi):

On December 21, 1976, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto addressed a joint session of the National Assembly and Senate of the federation held to commemorate the centenary of birth of Quaid-e-Azam. Addressing Quaid-e-Azam's portrait hanging on the wall, he said in a most dramatic fashion: -

"Quaid-eAzam!"

We discussed at length, (over two and a half threads worth) the ZAB and MAJ issues, but like a dishonest "freak", Manto deliberately keeps repeating his falsehoods regarding the ZAB to make unjustified claims and to fool those that have not followed the debate, and he does it in a most deceptive manner at the very end (fine print) of pages and pages worth of worthless copy pastes.

Now, this claim about the ZAB being the "founder" of the Church of MAJ is total horse sh**. ZAB the politician evolved in his time in office. At the time he wrote "Myth of Independance" (which I have read), he was trying to justify the shenanigans of the MAJ (regarding Pakistan) in the context of imperial "divide and rule", which he claimed evolved into "unite and rule" as spheres of influence developed (viz a viz the US and the Soviet block). In doing so he badly tripped himself not realizing that the creation of Pakistan itslef was the first step in this "unite and rule" thing that he was trying to rail against. Now, Manto accuses the man of being a manipulator and fooling the people of Pakistan to get power. Now that claim might hold some water when the man was on the rise and reaching the zenith of his career but it certainly cannot define this words written from the death cell in a letter to his daughter in which he opens up the possibility that what the MAJ did was a "mistake" and future events would either prove or disprove that (and they sure as hell have proven it).

Now, you all think that Manto doesn't know this. He does because I have on atleast three seperate occassions elaborated on this quote by the ZAB and how he evolved and did not, towards the end of his life have any doubts that this whole experiment by the MAJ, working as a peon for the feudals/colonials, was the absolute right thing as Manto religiously believes in it to be.

Now, he cannot answer me or counter my claims, all he can do is repeat his BS about me not having read his orientalist masters- who know shit about Pakistan by the way, and other tabulators whose work he spits out in news caster prompter style, calling that "intelligence" or literary work. The guy is a sorry excuse for a human being. He did not even refrain from using his father's death to score points against me and baselessly rail against my sincere condolences. Now he calls me a "freak" and gets away with it, watch how fast the chowk staff ban me because I called this sob a "freak" as well....

Vengatramanan writes about Manto: "You are just too prolific when it comes to Mahatma"

He is not prolific, he is horrific when he talks about most people that differ from his object of worship, the MAJ.

Manto writes "In retrospect... the worst thing Jinnah did was to create opportunities for people like Masadi. It is anybody's guess what sewer Masadi would be in if it hadn't been for Pakistan. "

Jinnah didn't create any opportunity for me, the "opportunities" were created by my relatively well to do great grandparents who became less well to do in the same area (that was called Pakistan later, than they were before. You don't know shit about me so better keep your goddamned mouth shut. I don't belong to a family of petty bourgeoisie like you do that I need MAJ creating "opportunities" for me even as he slaughters millions

It was indeed ZAB who broke Pakistan as envisioned by Quaide Azam by making an earth-shaking amendment in the constitution to convert it into a 'Fatwa' which made the very faith of Paki Muslims questionable, requiring every Paki citizen to submit a disgraceful, absurd and humiliating affidavit (Half Nama) about his faith whenever he claims to be a Muslim. This is the crux of the matter which Mubarka dare not highlight. She (?) is of course excusable as even Fouji usurpers who could though rape the constitution in whatever manner they liked could not touch this 'Fatwa'.

That "half nama" is a non issue that does not affect the lives of the very vast majority of Pakistanis and those that it does affect it does not take away from their social standing whatsoever. It was forced upon the ZAB thanks to the legacy of MAJ and his use of religion (that he didn't believe in ) to get Pakistan, making this a weapon in the hands of the colonials and the feudals to beat a people's prime minister with. ZAB understood their games and was trying to counter them for the sake of the REAL issues, unlike that swine MAJ.

In #59 read

Now, you all think that Manto doesn't know this. He does because I have on atleast three seperate occassions elaborated on this quote by the ZAB and how he evolved and did not, towards the end of his life have any doubts that this whole experiment by the MAJ, working as a peon for the feudals/colonials, was the absolute right thing

as:



Now, you all think that Manto doesn't know this. He does because I have on atleast three seperate occassions elaborated on this quote by the ZAB and how he evolved and towards the end of his life, did not have any doubts that this whole experiment by the MAJ, working as a peon for the feudals/colonials, might not have been the absolute right thing, in other words it could have been a mistake whose victim he was going to become

Manto " quote (Ghulam Ahmed Parwez's) Tolu-e-Islam's website "

The guy who perverted the Quran in the tradition of the MAJ and his sidekick in order to manipulate politics giving a bad name to rationalist Muslims that try to sift through the errors of traditionalism, everywhere. Now they just say, "they are pervaizis" and the discussion ends. To be perfectly honest, the guy was an idolator who worshipped MAJ, setup a shrine for himself and knew next to nothing about science. And why is Manto, a so called secularist (in reality the High Priest of the Church of MAJ) taking refuge in a similar freak, it is beacause they both share one of their gods, MAJ.

masadi #59 through #65 save #62 by teshash,

Masadi Sahib,
As everyone knows, I am no big fan of MAJ. Also, I don't subscribe to the absolute sainthood of ZAB. The only thing I am sure of is that Zina Owl Hag was the devil himself.

You sir are sounding like a complete fool and would probably make more sense if you did elbow exercises with Hamidumdum Sahib on the shores of Lake St. Clair. Carry on, please! You are hanging yourself. :)

SC writes "You sir are sounding like a complete fool and would probably make more sense if you did elbow exercises with Hamidumdum Sahib on the shores of Lake St. Clair. Carry on, please! You are hanging yourself. :) "

As usual more shallow BS from you. I am not talking about the "sainthood" of ZAB, merely trying to clarify the political context in which he was able to achieve what he did. You on the other hand have not been able to show in your post how I am making a "fool" of myself. Shallow nonsense colored by ethnic overtones is all we have come to expect of you, unfortunately...

The holier than thou attitude is a surefire bastion of fools, scoundrels and bigots. Religion throughout history has been the root cause of some of the worst strife the world has ever seen. Any time a certain sect of people starts believing that their fairy tales are the truth par excellence, and another sect says vice versa, conflict is surely to occur. Thus, it is great folly to intermix the volatile concoction of religion with national politics, as the wise nations long ago discovered. That most of our leaders used religion for self-serving reasons merely illuminates the great charlatans they all were. ZAB was a corrupt power hungry juggler, and a hypocrite, saying one thing and practicing quite another, and was complicit in the break up of the country. Maybe with many youngsters his memory and image is getting fuzzier with the passage of time, but many still remember how his eloquent verbal jugglery held many riveted to his antics in their foolhardy days of youth. Finally, his pompous stupidity took him to the gallows. Zia was a despotic thug. As leaders go, after MAJ it has been a continuous downward spiral, which is the blight of Pakistan. It’s a strange topsy turvy world we live in, people who were good, like Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, were branded as traitors by a certain lobby, while the evil one’s became great saviors of the nation. However, if we were to look at it dispassionately and don’t even agree with his politics, the facts are that Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan was an uncorrupted man of principles and he clutched on to them till the very last. He never grabbed for power and never became anything but a great leader for the movement of independence. His sobriquet was “Sarhady Ghandi”, and he headed the pacifist secularist Khudai Khitmatgar and Redshirt movements. Someone recently in eulogy said of him, that he was probably even a greater leader than Gandhi himself, because coming from as violent and macho a place as the Frontier, he still chose antiviolence methods to register his protests. Nevertheless, nuggets are often lost in abounding muck.

Re #66- Salim Sahib, the thing I admired about ZAB was that he had exquisite taste in drinking the finest single malts. As a young kid I sat on ZAB’s lap while he was visiting Multan in 1972. I felt something very powerful at that moment. He made a few bad choices and made some really stupid decisions, but he was not a bad person. He let his megalomania get the best of him. He would have made an outstading boyscout leader or a sociology lecturer had he not entered politics.

Goldfinger writes "ZAB was a corrupt power hungry juggler, and a hypocrite, saying one thing and practicing quite another"

Corrupt really, what case of corruption was ever brought against him? Breaking up the monopoly hold of a few families over Pakistani society is no corruption, breaking away from being a peon of the West, the Commonwealth and SEATO is no corruption, turning political discource to bread and butter issues rather than "Muslims and Hindus cannot get along" is no corruption. Juggling for these things faced by insurmountable odds and being successful on many fronts is certainly no corrutpion. Invoking religious exclusion to get a country, causing the death of millions and animosity that still grips the lives of millions on the other side of the border and BS on this side of it, as is the legacy of MAJ is corruption manifold. Youngster my a$$, the guy has no clue about the poster but is reduced to ad hominem because other than slogans he has nothing.

Goldfinger "Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan was an uncorrupted man of principles.."

Who never amounted to anything. Living in a utopian world is one thing, facing the reality set in motion by the elite and then getting through some principles is leadership. Adopting the institutional precidents set by the elite for "principled folk" is no greatness or leadership, becomming an entire institution by your lonesome to change what has been set is greatness in leadership, that is what ZAB possessed moreso than anyone in Pakistan before or after.

Kulharee writes "Re #66- Salim Sahib, the thing I admired about ZAB was that he had exquisite taste in drinking the finest single malts"

Ha ha this is getting rather funny. The champion of "secularism" and anti-Islam nonsense here on chowk, Kulharee himself is reduced to mullahesque (ad hominem) arguments against ZAB, to prove some "point" to me. Read and enjoy!

Re: # 66

Massaddi Mian:

" Masadi Sahib, ...... You sir are sounding like a complete fool and would probably make more sense if you did elbow exercises with Hamidumdum Sahib ..."

Listen to Salim Sahib. When he speaks, only Magua has spoken before him.

If you do not know who is Magua... then you have indeed wasted your beautiful mind in 7th Century and Mills par-course.

Re: # 42

Yasser:

I watched Khuda Ke Liye. All I can tell you that ... Islam indeed needs an escape for its followers, else more Mary / Mariam will die, and more eldest son will be crippled by other fanatics.

Re: # 42

Yasser:

I watched Khuda Ke Liye. All I can tell you that ... Islam indeed needs an escape for its followers, else more Mary / Mariam will die, and more eldest son will be crippled by other fanatics.

Some people like anil live in the world of fiction, it is for that reason that few here pay attention to their dimwitted posts

Re: # 76

Massaddi Mian:

"...few here pay attention to their dimwitted posts ..."

Aap tou vakai mein hans bhi nahin sakte.

Aur uss din, haank rahe the ki aap kitne... kya kahein, Massaddi Mian bilkul Massaddi Mian hi rahe. Dimaag ko izzazt dijiye, Massaddi Mian. Bahut fateh ki baat mein kah raha houn.

Yasser ko pareshan mat kijiye. Uski aur Salim ki suniye. Kaano ka meil nikaal kar suniye. Karachi mein kaan ka meil nikalne wale zinda nahin hain tou Dilli ja kar nikalwa lijiye. Nahin tou mullah wala brain transplant karwa lijiye, yeh jo brain galati se mil gaya hai uski galati muaaf kar dijiye aur usko baksh dijiye. Mein uski taraf se pairvi kar rahun. Bahut abuse kiya hai aapne, apne brain ko. Woh ab nahin sah sakta.

Gustakhi ke liye muafee chahta houn, what Yasser and Salim write is beyond you.

The Essence of Indo Muslim Politics

A.H Amin


30 April 2004


The Indo Pak Muslims history is not all heroism or raiding or even Jihad but many compromises made in the name of class interest , opportunistic motives and myopic outlook !

How then one must describe the Indo Pak Muslim history in a nutshell to the layman foreigner ! The Muslim factor was introduced in Indo Pak by the Arabs in 711 once they landed in Sindh and captured it ! The Muslim conquest was re-commenced by the Turk Ghzanavids in late 900 and a Muslim empire firmly established in India's north by 1200 with the capital at Delhi ! The Delhi Sultans as the early Turk conquerors were known followed a narrow policy with regards to religion which was later mellowed down by their successors the Syeds and Pathans to some extent ! The Mughals under Akbar however introduced pluarlism in Indo Pak not merely because Akbar was a liberal but because Akbar realised that the majority Hindus could not be ruled indefinitely by a 10 % minority unless the state accomodated the Hindus !
Akbar's pluralism was to some extent dropped by his successors Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb but Hindu revival by Marathas forced the Mughal successors of Aurangzeb to abandon the narrow religious outlook of Aurangzeb !



The Muslim Mughal Empires decline started with the outbreak of the Maratha insurgency and was accelerated by the Sikh insurgency , Nadir Shah's invasion and the subsequent many invasions of the Afghan Ahmad Shah bdali.
The situation of the Muslims in 1803 was not glorious by any definition ! Delhi was a Hindu Maratha ruled city while Punjab and Frontier were Sikh ruled ! The latter being a singularly pathetic case since the Sikhs were just 8 % of the population but ruled because they were qualitatively superior !



In 1803 and 1849 three knights in shining armour saved the Indo Pak Muslims from Hindu and Sikh domination ! These were General Gerard Lake of the Bengal Army who defeated the Marathas and captured Delhi ,General Wellesley who defeated the Marathas at Assaye and General Hugh Gough who defeated the Sikhs in 1845-46 and 1848-49 !
From these dates Indo Pak Muslim history is a history of compromises and loyalism ! Loyalism first to the British in order to compete or barely survive as against the Hindus and Sikhs and later loyalism to Americans in order to survive post 1947 Indian hegemony !



The 1857 rebellion in the middle was a lower class rebellion against the British in which some feudals joined out of class motivation !
All major Muslim leaders from 1858 till 1947 were essentially manouevring brokers whose politics was anti Hindu and looked towards the British as good judges who would favour the down trodden Muslims ! The prime motivation of these leaders was not Islam but higher and middle class interests, jobs in the civil service , saving large feudal estates , a share in the self governmemnt pie ! The Hindu dominated congress was more fearless since it knew that it would rule India after the British left !



Syed Ahmad Khan , Nawab Mohammad Hayat of Wah , Agha Khan , Iqbal and Mr Jinnah all were absolutely clear that the Muslim classes that they were leading wanted safety against Hindu domination and not freedom of India with a Hindu dominated government !