The ANP Challenge

harish bhai,

The Lahore Convention of 1940 had 100 000 people. The Delhi convention had 90 000. What you say was true upto 1936... when Jinnah increased membership of the League and remodelled it on Congress lines.

All India Muslim League was divided on 17th December 1947 between PML (under Khaliquzzaman) and the Indian Union Muslim League (under Muhammad Ismail). Your junior external affairs minister is part of that party.

In Pakistan, the successor Pakistan Muslim League, along with other political parties, was banned in 1958.

The feudals who had briefly joined the Muslim League at the end of the Pakistan movement were encouraged by the establishment to join the Republican Party in 1954-55. Muslim League sat in the opposition till it was banned.

Suhrawardy and Mamdot formed what was known as Jinnah Awami Muslim League. This Party ultimately transformed into Awami League.

When Ayub Khan allowed the parties to work again, two Muslim Leagues came into being... one with people like Mahmudabad and Khaliquzzaman etc who supported Fatima Jinnah.... there was Ayub's own Muslim League which had Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as the secretary General.

Ayub's Muslim League died out... the other Muslim League was divided into two anti-Ayub factions: Qayyum group Malik group. Both of them I believe were part of the PPP government in the 1970s.

Parties were again banned in 1978... A new Muslim League came into being in 1986 under Junejo. This Junejo Muslim League was divided into Junejo League and Nawaz League. Later Junejo League was divided into Chatha League and Watoo League but soon their main people joined in with Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League. When Mush came along, PML-N was divided into N and Likeminded. Likeminded later adopted the name PML-Q.

The thing is that there has always been two Muslim Leagues after 1958... one that is pro-establishment and the other than is anti-establishment. At times, the pro-establishment League also turns into the anti-establishment league ... like Nawaz Sharif's League.

It is however the great emotional attachment the people of Pakistan have to the name that makes these politicians revive the Muslim League every now and then.

Harishbhai,

(the Muslims middle-class is a tiny segment of India's Muslim population )

True and in that sense MKG/INC may have resorted to realpolitik in hobnobbing with the obscurantists. But with disastrous consequences.

Vengy,

(If it had the support of the middle class, why did not it survive atleast for two decades in Pakistan? )

The real PML died with MAJ's successor LAK. I am not an expert maybe YLH can expalin better. But lemme try. ML's base was mainly among Muslims of minority provinces. Bong Momins were mainly supporters of a left wing Muslim party led by Fazl-e-Haq while Punjab and Sindh which were dominated by feudals had traditionally been stronghold of feudals and agrarian interests like the Unionist Party. Their conversion and thus loyalty to PML was shallow. So PML soon came to be hijacked by feudals like Mamdot, Tiwana, Hyatt and the rest of the gang. They got control of the League from its erstwhile Mojo leadership after LAK's murder and were unwilling to share power with the populist Muslim forces of Bengal (who also had some Hindoo support). The Bongs were thus alienated and in West, the feudals sold their soul to USA and the Army very soon.

Regards

#715 by vengatramanan

Where is ML in Pakistan now? If it had the support of the middle class, why did not it survive atleast for two decades in Pakistan?

I have no idea Vengat bhai how long beyond Jinnah the party survived. However, my main argument has been that the ML if it indeed had the support of the moderate Muslim middle class (which in those days might have been tiny), must have been a rather small party.

I suppose the later ML morphed into the PML, of which there are two versions right now. One is the PML-N (Nawaz Sharif's party) and the PML-Q (the Musharraf-supported party). However, Yasser could probably enlighten us to its fate in the post-47 era.

Re: # 711 Majumdar Bhai,

This is not my discussion so I'll get out after this. I still think you are giving too much credit to MAJ and very little where it is due (MKG).

What MKG did was through being naive and basically sincere. What MAJ did/achieved was more opportunism than anything else; being at the right(?) place at the right(?) time, perhaps.

I think there is a difference.

I still think you should drop the pbuh, but it is upto you I guess; you obviously have a very soft spot for the man!

Sorry to butt in.

Cheers

Re: # 714

Harish,

Where is ML in Pakistan now? If it had the support of the middle class, why did not it survive atleast for two decades in Pakistan?

#711 by majumdar

Re. your reference, thanks.

But was unwilling to share power with an emerging Muslim party which had middle class representation as well.

Majumdar bhai, the Muslims middle-class is a tiny segment of India's Muslim population today. Do you seriously think it would have amounted to much in those days when Muslims were even more backward than they are now?

"But was unwilling to share power with an emerging Muslim party which had middle class representation as well."

LOL

"INC found it necessary to pander to a bunch of murdering thugs and obscurantists."

So these were the thugs who were involved in killing the Muslims of Calcutta?

What Maulana Azad said abt religion + politics is no diff from what Gandhi said. I think they were too naive to ignore what the poisonous snakes like Jinnah and Mahasabhaites were planning.

Yasser's trying to be smart by half when he says that Maulana promoted religion extremism and issued fatwa as he felt that India became Dar-ul-Harb.

Thanks that he now gave (albeit C&P) the whole context of that fatwa.

Harishbhai,

(Any references Majumdar bhai?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauri_Chaura

{{{Mahatma Gandhi asked all Indians to end the Non-cooperation movement, and went on a five-day fast to absolve himself of what he perceived as his role in inciting the attacks. }}}

(His pandering to the Mullahs also was part of a strategy )

That is the point. INC found it necessary to pander to a bunch of murdering thugs and obscurantists. But was unwilling to share power with an emerging Muslim party which had middle class representation as well.

Regards

Harishbhai,

MAJ (pbuh) wanted Pakistan but certainly did not intend to create a genocide in the process, it happened but was not inevitable nor his intent. And need I remind you of his famous 8/11 speech.

As for the original map of Pakistan there are of course two versions. One is the various "stans" of Ch. Rehmat Ali and the other is the Pakistan plus undivided Bengal, Punjab and North East. Obviously there was no way the Hindoos were going to give up that lebensraum.

Regards

#701 by majumdar

He withdrew support becuase of the Chauri Chaura act. Not becuase Khilafat was going nowhere.

Any references Majumdar bhai?

It was good that he eschewed violence at Chauri Chaura but what about the Moplah rebellion what made him keep his mouth mum. Maybe he had read some of Maulana Urstruly's fatwas that Muslim violence against idolators is right!!!

If anything, my gripe against the man is that he went out of the way to accommodate Muslim sensibilities as was evident during the Khilafat agitation and the Moplah rebellion. But again, it wasn't out of malice against Hindus or moderate Muslims; it was just because he believed in the inherent goodness of human beings. His pandering to the Mullahs also was part of a strategy to make his Muslim audience more representative as against the small educated Muslim segment (I'm sure you know Muslim literacy rates then were way lower than they are today) the party had then.

#705 by majumdar

Did MAJ (pbuh) make the Pakistan demand to harm Muslims or Hindoos for that matter.

Majumdar bhai, MAJ might have made the Pakistan demand for the benefit of Indian Muslims, but in the process if it harmed Hindus (Sikhs and some Muslims too), he didn't show any remorse for it.

#701 by majumdar

MAJ (pbuh) had no intention of imposing his "Nizam" all over India, he wanted a Pakistan only (incl whole of Bengal and Punjab).

Again Majumdar bhai, you do know what the original Pakistan map comprised of, don't you? If not, please take a look at what the original plan envisaged. Yasser should be able to help you out with it. Not for nothing did Jinnah resent the moth-eaten Pakistan he eventually got.

Re: # 705

Majumdar,

Nobody claims that Jinnah wanted to harm people but he was ready to if his ambitions were not met. He was of the view that Muslims will be greatly harmed if he left them in the Hindu India. He was ready for the sacrifices, which he anticipated.

Majumdar,

I told you pliant and non-pliant Muslims... apparently the fundooness or lack thereof doesn't depend on anything else but the willingness of the Mualana submit himself to Gandhi's commands.


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.

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.

Vengat,

(but the question is did Gandhi&Co take a decision to harm people.)

No.

Did MAJ (pbuh) make the Pakistan demand to harm Muslims or Hindoos for that matter.

Regards

The diff btw religious Muslims and fundoos is very clear.