The ANP Challenge

manato saab, you did not answer my question bout your photo saab?

salam

Peon of the West

PS: I have read Hamid Khan's book... but not completely. I will read his view of Bacha Khan etc and get back to you.
You will obviously appreciate that Hamid Khan's view on what Pakistan was created for is identical to mine.

Salman,

Jamaat-e-Islami is Ghair Muqalad and not Barelvi. They infact hate Barelvis.


Zakkk,

As far as I know Jinnah put up the demand for reforms in NWFP and Balochistan on several occasions in the 1920s, including the 14 points:

Reforms should be introduced in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Baluchistan on the same footing as in the other provinces.

He raised the same demand in the Roundtable conference. But perhaps the greatest service he did was not related to reforms but ending the military occupation of the tribal belt through Operation Curzon.

I hope our leaders follow suit.

Yasser: What exactly was Jinnahs contribution to the development of NWFP? To my knowledge the Khan brothers seeking support against the draconian laws that NWFP, was under originally, were rebuffed by the Muslim League and after that approached the COngress.?

Also you are right that the ANP colloborated with the establishment post 1990 (although they backed nawaz shari rather than GIK ) No ANP members name is on the mehrangate list to my knowledge although several PPP ones are

http://dawn.com.pk/weekly/cowas/20071208.htm

Incidentally have you read Hamid Khans book on constitutional history and Pakistan? What do you think of his opinion of Bacha Khan and Wali Khan?

hamdani you wrote

3. Ofcourse Bhutto hobnobbed with the Islamists...But Bhutto did not claim to be secular or non-violent.

"4. ANP did join up with Nawaz Sharif's Islami Jamhoori Ittehad."

whats the point here? you are comparing ANP with which party in Pakistan? PPP had alliance with Mufti Mehmud's son in 1993 when they created Taliban.

Hamdani's argument proves one thing that ANP is still "the most Secular" party in Pakistani politics. (watch my words) ofcourse you won't accept MQM as real political party. (please don't start arguing about that now lol)

If you know a party which can get 5-6 National assebmly seats and is more secular than ANP. then please let us know.

I see Jamaat-e-Islami the biggest party of Brelvis. They don't believe in democracy and elections they believe in revolution. They infiltrate their people in Media, Army and civil services, in 70s they came in elections. Their idea is: a few righteous people should bring revolution and impose (their brand of) Islam. They are the biggest supporters of Jihad. Their propaganda for "Afghan jehad" and their share in Zia's Majlis-e-shoora and the $$$s which came from US to fight that War is well known. MMA as whole supports Taliban. (perhaps not the Shia faction) so dividing deobandi and brelvi into Jihadi and non jihadi is not working practically. if it said that only Pashtuns are deobandi then what about Kashmiri Militants and their support base in Punjab.
Basically Jihad is a Responsibility of a Muslim against evil. its only the interpretation and the use which can make it good or bad. Bacha Khans non-violent struggle was a Jehad. if someone was writing in newspaper against the British it was also a jehad. it can have any form of struggle against something bad considered by the society. Since occupation and colonization is considered bad or evil by the society of any country, then getting rid of it is the right of the people. To use that right is Jehad in Arabic. Hindu would give it any other name Christians would call it something else for example Crusade.
It is a more political jehad. people get money from Saudia or Kuwait or UAE to convert people to Wahabism. there are more than 10,000 Madrassas in Pakistan. I know a few grand Madrassas which are built by Wahabis in Balochistan near Quetta. the presence of Arab Militants ( or terrorists) proves that it was not our Jehad it was imposed on us by United States and the West.
So Hamdani should have problems with its use by different people but not with its basic concept.

Manato saab, why do you look so different in the photo here and the one on your home page.

you have grown old very quickly saab.

may be i am new here so made a mistake

Regards

Peon of the West

Yasserbhai,

I hate to agree with you but I do now. :)

Re: # 756

Dear VRV,

As far as Deobandis are concerned... in my view the reason why they haven't gotten militant in India is exactly what you say: lack of opportunity (Their role in politics of India otherwise has hardly been exemplary). In Pakistan, CIA + ISI backed Afghan War gave them the opportunity to implement and experiment with their Jehad doctrine.

I mean restart the whole debate all over again on another board :)

Majumdarda,

I always maintained that the leaders are not Gods. They are mortlas and lemme make it public the private msg of my friend Yasser (with due apologies to Yasser for making it public as it's a matter of extreme necessity).

He too believes that the top leadership of Freedom struggle were humans as well and therefore were fallible. It's difficult for him to admit that in public.

Yasserbhai,

///////Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and others also ascribed to the view that English jurisprudence was perfectly Islamic and according to Sharia and Jinnah being a lawyer who believed in British justice system did not believe his religion was in conflict with modern life.///////

This is comparable with a political statement. Amputation, eye4eye justice system is NOT compatible with English jurisprudence. In similar vein, eating pork and drinking whiskey is also not compatible with Islam. I dont know how Ahmed Khan and Jinnah thought that way.

As for Deobandi school of Islam, they are not gun toting fundoos, esp in India. If they did in Pakistan it's bcoz ISI gave them. Deobandis supply the syllabi of the madrasas & that doesn't include political education abt fighting Soviets/US.

They sided with Indian national leadership all thru. If they are eligible to be called as anti-Pakistani from ur pov, so be it.

Yaar, 750+ is a good record. Lets restart this on another board.

Re: # 753

Well said. If all concerned realized this, we would save each other a lot of unnecessary hurt.

Dear Salman,

Reading your last kind email to me, I have realized that our extreme public positions against Jinnah and Bacha Khan respectively is caused by the fact that we have been talking at each other instead of with each other. In deference and respect to your kind words, I will refrain from responding to any perceived provocation and I suggest you do the same. The "teeli baz sajna" below is no friend of yours I can assure you. I suppose this is what Adam Khan, ZAKKK, Ijaz-Gul, HP, Majumdar and even Harish bhai to a certain extent were trying to tell us.


Dear VRV,

In addition to my last post, I think there are only two or three points I will respond to- I hope you will read it in detail and not respond with knee jerks.:


1. The issue of promising Sharia: It is true that Jinnah assured Pir of Manki Sharif- a barelvi- that Pakistan's laws shall not be in conflict with Sharia. Let me also say that even the laws of secular India today are not in conflict with Sharia. Jinnah's argument was that the principles of Sharia are not in conflict with modern jurisprudence. Here Jinnah was using the dialectics of a great lawyer.

And this is a commonly held Muslim modernist point of view. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and others also ascribed to the view that English jurisprudence was perfectly Islamic and according to Sharia and Jinnah being a lawyer who believed in British justice system did not believe his religion was in conflict with modern life. (Ofcourse this might be because Jinnah was a Khoja Ismaili and Khoja Ismailis actually follow Hindu inheritance law). It may be so that the Muslim modernists are wrong and Jinnah was wrong and Islam is incompatible with modern statehood and secularism. Personally I do not consider myself a believer atleast anymore, so jury is out on that.


2. I have already quoted the difference between Barelvi and Deobandi Islam many times.

Barelvi Islam
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-barelvi.htm

The Barelvis follow many Sufi practices, including use of music (Qawwali) and intercession by their teacher. A key difference between Barelvi and Deobandi that Barelvi's believe in intercession between humans and Divine Grace. This consists of the intervention of an ascending, linked and unbroken chain of holy personages, pirs, reaching ultimately to Prophet Mohammad, who intercede on their behalf with Allah. It is a more superstitious - but also a more tolerant - tradition of Indian Islam. Their critics claim that Barelvis are guilty of committing innovation (Bid’at) and therefore, they are deviated from the true path - the path of Sunnah.

The Pakistan Movement got support from the Barelvis (Low Church). It had faced opposition from the National Indian Congress which was supported by the Deobandi seminaries (High Church). However, after the establishment of Pakistan as an Islamic state in 1949, Barelvi Low Church was too mixed up with mysticism to be a source of Islamic law. Ironically, Pakistan moved away from the 'spiritual pluralism' of the Barelvis, who had supported Pakistan, and relied on the more puritanical Deobandis who had opposed it.

Unlike the Deobandis, the Barelvis see the Prophet Mohammad as more than a man, a part of the divine light of Allah. This doctrine gives rise to a form of Islam that provides a space for holy men and esoteric practices and graves appear to be often more ornate than those found within Deobandi communities. The Wahhabi (Arabia), Deobandi (Pakistan and India) and Jamaat-I-Islami all are anti-sufi, and against the over devotion to Muhammad, whereas the Barelvis emphasize Muhammad's uniqueness. Indeed, nearly 85% of South Asia’s Sunni Muslims are said to follow the Barelvi school, closer to Sufism. The remaining 15% of Sunnis follow the Deobandi school, more closely related to the conservative practice of Islam. Most Shiites in the subcontinent also tend to be influenced by the Sufis. Pakistan’s Muslims, like other Muslims in the region, tend to follow a school of Islam which is less conservative, and hence the support for strongly and overtly religious parties has been minimal.

One should note that Deobandi fundamentalists have been the mainstay of Islamization in Pakistan.

3. Ofcourse Bhutto hobnobbed with the Islamists. Have you missed my debates with Masadi on Bhutto? But Bhutto did not claim to be secular or non-violent.

4. ANP did join up with Nawaz Sharif's Islami Jamhoori Ittehad. Even Salman bhai will tell you because it led to disenchantment even amongst ANP wallahs.

5. As for Jinnah recommending Bacha Khan's name from the frontier in 1929, I have already quoted the letter from Jinnah to Irwin in which Jinnah pressed the viceroy for Bacha Khan's release and Jinnah nominated him for the roundtable conference (though I don't know if he actually went). Ofcourse Bacha Khan was a famous leader in NWFP but he shot to national fame in the 1930s. Interestingly Bacha Khan resigned from the Congress workin committee after disagreeing with Gandhi and Nehru in 1942 (ironically for the same reason Jinnah had resigned from the Congress in 1920).

-YLH

Guys,

What is the point?

Are we saying that MAJ, JLN, MKG, KAGK are saints who never compromised with what was not right? Or are we saying that while people who achieved a level of greatness, they too like lesser mortals may have made compromises to achieve some personal or political goals?

If we are arguing the first I think our heroes will be shown to have feet on clay by their detractors. If we stick with the second, I think we will be on rather more solid footing.

Regards

Dear VRV,

That is August 12, 1948. 1947 was a typo and I corrected this. Atleast have the decency to investigate.

You may produce the accusation against Jinnah from Nehru, Patel or others specifically, the kind that you produced .

"If one talks of Saifullahs one points out that two brothers are in PML-Q and one in the PPP. Does it mean we should not mention one side of the family altogether"

please don't insult the khan family by comparing them with these corrupt drug smugglers.

"Look Salman, my friend, I have already responded to your "proofs"
haha this is funny. what was his response? you have added words to mr Woplerts text. haha. anyone cn go and check the book, where have I added words. and am I stupid to add words to a well known book commonly available to prove my point? Not Really. what can we belive of him?

Since Yasser made a chargesheet against the Ghaffar Khan and his legacy, I am constrained to reply the chragesheet seriatim:

#737 Posted by MantoLives on March 26, 2008 6:30:59 am

////////Jinnah leaving constitutional means and ways doesn't mean he was calling on people to kill Hindus. No honest person will accuse him of it. Name one opponent of Jinnah... Gandhi, Nehru, Patel or Azad .. who opposed Jinnah of violence. Not a single one. Not even your Bacha Khan. Nor have you been able to produce a single statement from Jinnah calling for violence./////////

Yasser is using lawyerly tricks here. Jinnah was indeed resposnible for the violence everywhere. If Gandhi, Nehru didnt name im coz they're hoping against hope abt the partition of India and Jinnah was the key person who can stall it.

Yasser is plain moron to say that nobody accused Jinnah of DAD violence.

Patel did it. Nehru did it. Maulana Azad did it. Gandhi was busy touring the country against the tide of communal virus
spread by Jinnah the Serpent. Even Wavell sought clarification on the violence. This pro-ML GG sought explantionas from Jinnah, Suhrawardy abt the DAD violence but never from Gandhi, Nehru or Azad.

/////////1. Bacha Khan and his family have a history of flip flops on the issue of whether they are part of Pakistan or whether they are separatists. ///////////

Jinnah did a lot of them. Jinnah was a staunch nationalist and later a staunch secessionist. That the mother of all flipflops.

//////////2. The "Secular" Bacha Khan Family has been closely allied to Maulana Mufti Mahmood and the anti-Pakistan Deobandi Fanatics (the forerunner of the taliban).//////////

Deobandis were not fanatics. The Deobandis were not anti-Pakistani (which is a loaded point coz they knew that it's impossible to relocate every Muslim in India to an Utopia promised by Jinnah coz there're Muslims in every village of India) but staunch nationalists, lest they be seen as gaddaars.

The vital point I forgot to mention was that Deobandi school of Islam came into being after the famous book of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan on the reasons for the failure of 1857 Uprising. One of his points was that Islam lost its true essence in India and Deobandi School of Islam was supposed to reinvigorate it. So Deobandis were not religious extermists but a School of puritanical Islam.

Btw, Yasser had no answer to the question of Jinnah's promise abt Sharia in Pakistan.

///////3. The banned NAP's leaders were part of the Nizam-e-Mustafa movement in 1977 which brought down the Bhutto government in the name of Islam. This included Bacha Khan's daughter in law: Begum Nasim Wali Khan./////////

Bhutto himself hobobbed with fundoos and he's infact the progenitor of funddoism in Pakistan.

///////4. Wali Khan and his family were released by General Zia. Ghani Khan proudly received Sitara-e-Imtiaz from General Zia. So much for being principled and anti-dictatorship. ////////

I dont see any wrong in receiving a civilian honour. If they had refused it, Yasser wud have branded them as anti-nationals. Cant have it both ways, khotey!


/////////5. The ANP collaborated with ISI-engineered IJI of Nawaz Sharif in 1990 and then was part of the army-backed extreme right-wing anti-PPP foces of the 1990s.////////

The implication is that ANP was cohoot with ISI an IJI? How does that sound khotey lawyer? ISI is a staunch Pakistani body and ANP are supposed to be anti-national. How can they join hands together (in theory)? Why opposition to PPP is called anti-national?

Political alignments take place every country in this world. U r stacking canards against ANP leaders.

///////6. Bacha Khan was in touch with Fakir of Ipi and his insurgency against Pakistan. Bacha Khan himself said on several occasions that Pakistan would not be based on Sharia and pathans should rise up against Pakistan. He promised that Pathanistan would be based on Pukhtun traditions and Sharia.////////

Bachu Yasser, Ipi was againt Jinnah. Seond point is that Jinnah himself did several flipflops in his mothered life.

///////7. Hayat Sherpao or not - ANP has been involved in high profile assassinations and feuds.////////

Sherpao murder acusation is a dud. What other assisinations do u have in the hat?

///////8. Dr. Khan Saheb was a leader in his own right. He is listed as a great leader by the ANP... and his cause was taken up by Wali Khan in his book LIES ARE SACRED. So why do you get upset when I point out his establishment contacts and his role in the Republican Party? If one talks of Saifullahs one points out that two brothers are in PML-Q and one in the PPP. Does it mean we should not mention one side of the family altogether?///////


Salman can answer this better.


//////Also I don't understand why people like you try and equate Bacha Khan, a small regional leader with a national leader like Jinnah who in effect introduced your Bacha Khan as a leader.///////

This concept of small and big is in ur mind khotey lawyer. Ghafar Khan was a popular leader who's known all over Indian subcontinent. It's laughable that Jinnah introduced Ghaffar Khan.

As what?


//////(On the issue of direct action day, I already demolished this accusation in several other posts and you can go and see them.)///////

Jinnah stood as accused even to this very moment. How come u exonerate that Serpent??

#737 Posted by MantoLives on March 26, 2008 6:30:59 am

//Jinnah leaving constitutional means and ways doesn't mean he was calling on people to kill Hindus. No honest person will accuse him of it. Name one opponent of Jinnah... Gandhi, Nehru, Patel or Azad .. who opposed Jinnah of violence. Not a single one. Not even your Bacha Khan. Nor have you been able to produce a single statement from Jinnah calling for violence.//

Yasser is using lawyerly tricks here. Jinnah was indeed resposnible for the violence everywhere. If Gandhi, Nehru didnt name im coz they're hoping against hope abt the partition of India and Jinnah was the key person who can stall it.

Yasser is plain moron to say that nobody accused him of DAD violence.

Patel did it. Nehru did it. Maulana Azad did it. Gandhi was busy touring the country against the tide of communal virus
spread by Jinnah the Serpent.


//1. Bacha Khan and his family have a history of flip flops on the issue of whether they are part of Pakistan or whether they are separatists. //

Jinnah did a lot of them. Jinnah was a staunch nationalist and later a secessionist. That the mother of all flipflops.

///2. The "Secular" Bacha Khan Family has been closely allied to Maulana Mufti Mahmood and the anti-Pakistan Deobandi Fanatics (the forerunner of the taliban).///

Deobandi were not fanatics. The Deobandis were not anti-Pakistani (which is a loaded point coz they knew that it's impossible to relocate every Muslim in India to an Utopia promised by Jinnah coz there're Muslims in every village of India) but staunch nationalists, lest they be seen as gaddaars.

Btw, Yaser had no answer to the question of Jinnah's promise abt Sharis in Pakistan.

//3. The banned NAP's leaders were part of the Nizam-e-Mustafa movement in 1977 which brought down the Bhutto government in the name of Islam. This included Bacha Khan's daughter in law: Begum Nasim Wali Khan.///

Bhutto himself hobobbed with fundoos and he's infact the progenitor of funddosim in Pakistan.

///4. Wali Khan and his family were released by General Zia. Ghani Khan proudly received Sitara-e-Imtiaz from General Zia. So much for being principled and anti-dictatorship. ///

I dont see any wrong in receiving a civilian honour. If they had refused it, Yasser wud have branded them as anti-nationals. Cant have it both ways, khotey!

///5. The ANP collaborated with ISI-engineered IJI of Nawaz Sharif in 1990 and then was part of the army-backed extreme right-wing anti-PPP foces of the 1990s.///

The implication is that ANP was cohoot with ISI an IJI? How does that sound khotey lawyer. ISI is a staunch Pakistani boy and ANP are supposed to be anti-national.

Political alignments take place every country in this world. U r stacking canards against ANP leaders.

//6. Bacha Khan was in touch with Fakir of Ipi and his insurgency against Pakistan. Bacha Khan himself said on several occasions that Pakistan would not be based on Sharia and pathans should rise up against Pakistan. He promised that Pathanistan would be based on Pukhtun traditions and Sharia.///

Bachu Yasser, Ipi was againt Jinnah. Seond point is that Jinnah himself did several flipflops in his mothered life.

//7. Hayat Sherpao or not - ANP has been involved in high profile assassinations and feuds.///

Sherpao murder acusation is a dud. What other assisinations u have?

///8. Dr. Khan Saheb was a leader in his own right. He is listed as a great leader by the ANP... and his cause was taken up by Wali Khan in his book LIES ARE SACRED. So why do you get upset when I point out his establishment contacts and his role in the Republican Party? If one talks of Saifullahs one points out that two brothers are in PML-Q and one in the PPP. Does it mean we should not mention one side of the family altogether?//

Salman can answer this better.


///Also I don't understand why people like you try and equate Bacha Khan, a small regional leader with a national leader like Jinnah who in effect introduced your Bacha Khan as a leader.//

This concept of small and big is in ur mind khotey lawyer. Ghafar Khan was a popular leader known all over the Indian subcontinent. It's laughable that Jinnah introduced Ghaffar Khan?? As what?


///(On the issue of direct action day, I already demolished this accusation in several other posts and you can go and see them.)///

Jinnah stood as accused evern to this very moment. How come u exonerate that Serpent??

#725 Posted by MantoLives on March 26, 2008 5:15:07 am
Re: # 721

///As for Bhabra Sharif "massacre"... according to you it took place on August 12, 1947. Jinnah was already on his deathbed by then barely even able to move.///

Was Mantolives drunk when he wrote this?? How come Jinnah was on deathbed on 12th Aug 1947?? WHo raised the flag of Pakistan on 14th and 15th Aug then?

Look Salman, my friend, I have already responded to your "proofs". I don't agree with the spin you are putting on these so-called "proofs".

Let us agree to disagree. If you are serious in understanding why Pakistan was created ... you should read Indian jurist H M Seervai's "Partition of India: Legend and Reality" which shows that Jinnah tried to keep India united till the very end.

As for Bacha Khan - my criticisms are based in fact. I did not disrespect him till you started abuse Jinnah without any basis. So let us learn to accept that you have the right to dislike Jinnah and I have the right to dislike Bacha Khan.

You have the right to have your own point of view. but point of view doesn't mean that you insult someone. Calling them crooks opportunists corrupt.
I have proved MLs violence and I have more to show about Mr Jinnah and ML. I have showed you that they were conservative and used Islam for their goals.
ML’s opportunism is well known. It was shown in 1943 when they formed a Ministry under NWFP Governor Cunningham without having members in the assembly. His letter shows their corruption and horse-trading. So this horse-trading is not something new for them
These are things you blame Bacha Khan for.

"I accused Bacha Khan of colluding with Fakir of Ipi. That is all. So I can't give you evidence for something I did not claim."

People can have friendships with anyone, can be with opponents too. I stated before fakir was Hero he fought the British. Eve they have praised him. Called him a brave principled enemy. Its part of Pashtun culture they have high regard for enemies too. When they meet they give full respect to each other. Qayyum Khan’s problem was he was not Pashtun. So having kind of friendship is understandable. As you said Pir of Manki became Bacha Khan’s good friend later. They forgot about what happened in 1946-47. Pir was the main guy who created such a situation in NWFP which gave a reason to the British to conduct referendum in NWFP instead of asking the assembly as was part of the formula. Their regard of each other was clear that they were old “babas” they had fought the same war from different fronts. They were sincere in whatever their beliefs were. Some used violence against military some used against people and some remained non-violent.
If Bacha khan had helped fakir in anyways either financially or militarily then it would have been said that He wanted to topple the “unislamic” government of Pakistan otherwise there is no problem in it. He had friendship with Gandhi Nehru Family and Kabul government. They also didn’t have good relations with Pakistan government.

I don’t see any problem in it. If someone else feels something wrong in it he can tell us.

"If you try to compare Bacha Khan with some angels then I would have to accept that. Angels cannot go against the will of God. But human beings can."

The basic issue here that Salman seems to be suffering from is his inability to accept that I might have a differing point of view- which I have the right to entertain. Apparently I don't have the right to be alive even if I don't agree with the hagiographic one sided representation that Salman ascribes to.

I have my own reading of history and I think I have the right to that.

Mufti Mahmood was an old ally of Bacha Khan in NWFP against the Muslim League:

"When you are dipped in shit you cannot call someone dirty for having a particle of dust on his shirt."

Yes and that is essentially what your abuse against Jinnah amounts to given the history of the Khan family's flip flops.

Bacha khan was not involved with Mufti Mehmud. so stick to Bacha khan for once. we will talk abouut Wali Khan later.

...how is abusing Jinnah going to absolve your Bacha Khan of his misdeeds?

When you are dipped in shit you cannot call someone dirty for having a particle of dust on his shirt.

You cannot speak of Bacha Khan in a vacuum. He was there with all those opponents. Nobody could reach the height of his character. After all that abuse and persecutions. He still didn’t lose hope. He was still a Pakistani. When a lot less than that happened to one of your guys, he fled to India saying I will be back riding Indian tank. So if you tell me Mr Jinnah was good Bacha Khan was bad. Then I will show you Jinnah was one of the worst and the biggest flip-flop. If you try to compare Bacha Khan with some angels then I would have to accept that. Angels cannot go against the will of God. But human beings can.

Re: # 738

I accused Bacha Khan of colluding with Fakir of Ipi. That is all. So I can't give you evidence for something I did not claim.

Re: # 736

If you insist on misinterpreting what I am saying I can't help it.

You kept claiming that Qayyum was the mainstay of the Muslim League. I merely pointed out that Qayyum was till 1946 not even a member and later wasn't even on the Executive committee.

you have not given any evidence that Bacha khan or his KK was involved in "violent action" to bring down the "unislamic government" of Pakistan

Here is my response again:

Salman mian,

Instead of going in circles lets stick to the facts. Even if we accept your quotes as they are, they don't show that Jinnah was inciting violence. Jinnah leaving constitutional means and ways doesn't mean he was calling on people to kill Hindus. No honest person will accuse him of it. Name one opponent of Jinnah... Gandhi, Nehru, Patel or Azad .. who opposed Jinnah of violence. Not a single one. Not even your Bacha Khan. Nor have you been able to produce a single statement from Jinnah calling for violence.

But forget that (you are obviously not very objective)... how is abusing Jinnah going to absolve your Bacha Khan of his misdeeds?

1. Bacha Khan and his family have a history of flip flops on the issue of whether they are part of Pakistan or whether they are separatists.

2. The "Secular" Bacha Khan Family has been closely allied to Maulana Mufti Mahmood and the anti-Pakistan Deobandi Fanatics (the forerunner of the taliban).


3. The banned NAP's leaders were part of the Nizam-e-Mustafa movement in 1977 which brought down the Bhutto government in the name of Islam. This included Bacha Khan's daughter in law: Begum Nasim Wali Khan.

4. Wali Khan and his family were released by General Zia. Ghani Khan proudly received Sitara-e-Imtiaz from General Zia. So much for being principled and anti-dictatorship.

5. The ANP collaborated with ISI-engineered IJI of Nawaz Sharif in 1990 and then was part of the army-backed extreme right-wing anti-PPP foces of the 1990s.

6. Bacha Khan was in touch with Fakir of Ipi and his insurgency against Pakistan. Bacha Khan himself said on several occasions that Pakistan would not be based on Sharia and pathans should rise up against Pakistan. He promised that Pathanistan would be based on Pukhtun traditions and Sharia.

7. Hayat Sherpao or not - ANP has been involved in high profile assassinations and feuds.

8. Dr. Khan Saheb was a leader in his own right. He is listed as a great leader by the ANP... and his cause was taken up by Wali Khan in his book LIES ARE SACRED. So why do you get upset when I point out his establishment contacts and his role in the Republican Party? If one talks of Saifullahs one points out that two brothers are in PML-Q and one in the PPP. Does it mean we should not mention one side of the family altogether?

On another note:

Also I don't understand why people like you try and equate Bacha Khan, a small regional leader with a national leader like Jinnah who in effect introduced your Bacha Khan as a leader. I already quoted the facts on that. So instead of abusing the one man (Jinnah) who did something for Pushtuns, try and defend Bacha Khan on his own merits.

And please... don't resort to inane arguments that you've used so far "you are not objective because you are Punjabi" ... "you are not neutral because you are an Ahamdi" ... "you are not neutral because you are from the PPP". That has nothing to do with it.

Just stick with the programme.

As for "Shameful Flight" I think this line sums up the entire message of the book:

(on Mountbatten)

"Nor did he have the humility or good sense to listen to India's two wisest political leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah, both of whom tried their frail best to warn him to stop the runaway juggernaut to Partition"

Page 10 Shameful Flight


In other words... had Mountbatten listened to Jinnah and Gandhi, lives would have been saved. Since you are basing everything on one adjective ... surely this black and white statement of who the "wisest" leaders of the Subcontinent should tell you where Jinnah stands.


(On the issue of direct action day, I already demolished this accusation in several other posts and you can go and see them.)

regarding babarda massacre

"And the main architect was none other than Bacha Khan's old Congress comrade Qayyum"

you mean he joined ML in 1946 then Qayyum Khan was CM of NWFP and member of ML a staunch supporter of Jinnah. when he ordered that Massacre. it was the fault of Congress becasue before he was a member of that party? my question to all fiends is.
who else belives in hamdani's argument?

Salman mian,

Some secularism you stand for : You declared (on several occasions) I can't be objective because I am "Qadiani" and Jinnah was a Non-Muslim because he was Ismaili.

Ofcourse this is kind of secularism Bacha Khan was espousing when he colluded with Fakir of Ipi and vowed to bring down the unIslamic government led by the Ismaili Kafir Jinnah right?

As for the rest of your post, I have answered each and everyone of those allegations.

Mr Hamdani
we are not done yet. you bring everything in one post. so lets talk about Ghaffar Khan and Mr Jinnah once then we can go Wali Khan and others.

you have not proven that I have added words to Mr Wolperts text. those words are still there in the book. if you lie and say that the "violent" word is not there then I have challenged everyone here to check the book and prove me wrong. I can't say more than that. Jinnah welcomed violent Action. those are the words of Stanley Woplert. As I know you. it was expected from you. I was surprised that howcome you have not asked me that " learn english then talk to me" thing long before.

Cheema brother

We are all for secularism (I hope we are) the point here is Muslim League was or is a conservative party. they were aggressively using Islam to get votes. Mr Jinnah wrote letters to people promising them that Pakistan would have laws according to shariya. that’s how he was getting support from different sections of masses. the reason Pakistan constitution was not formed was the same . he was not showing his cards he kept people in illusion. Basically it was wrong thing to do because decisions should be taken according to the wishes of the members or in other words people should have seen Jinnah's ideas and joined ML or voted for it. in this case ML members were getting votes for Islam because Pakistan and Islam were synonymous.
They used violence to prove that Muslims and Hindus cannot live together. Jinnah said
Either divided India or destroyed India.
Due to these our people still don’t know what was Pakistan created for. I am sure you know all this. If you need some proofs I can make them available for you.

Dear Salman,

"Hamdani is a born liar" and "I am sure Hamdni you add and omit words from the text"

First of all if you feel I have been dishonest or have misquoted something, I challenge you to bring one quote where I have added anything of my own. Now I have already responded to your posts in detail including the issue of your quotes- which even if true don't prove what you are trying to prove. On the contrary you still have pointed out one flaw in the accusations I put up against Bacha Khan. Nor have you produced any evidence of Bacha Khan's good friend Pir of Manki Sharif wanting to kill Nehru.

Frankly this is getting boring. I don't have time to waste with someone who can't even make sense.

ok hamdani paste that here again let me see what you have stated in it. about Jinnah and his league. how much was he responsible for the activities of his fanatic league comprised of jehadi and corrupt elements and opportunists
you keep repeating HP brothers remark about me. Should I write someones remark about you.
"Hamdani is a born liar"

I am waiting your reply.
So anyone checked the book and found out that some words were aded or omitted from the Stanley Wolpert's text. Where it was said that Jinnah welcomed Violent action. I am sure Hamdni you add and omit words from the text. I just realized people can do it.

majumdar bhai,

"it wud be unfortunate"

My posts 590 and 682 explain my idea of patriotism. I hope Cheema sb also reads it.

Cheema sahib,

Please dont go away. We are all friends in spite of our differences. You are as asset here.

(I much prefer Gandhi ji myself but each their own as they say! I hope that doesn't disqualify me as a loyal and proud Pakistani in your eyes.)

It wud be very unfortunate if that was the case.

I have to give credit to my Injun colleagues here- VRV, HYD, Sadnaji, Beej. In spite of my severe criticism of JLN/MKG and staunch support of MAJ, the man who divided India, they have never questioned either my patriotism or my character.

Regards

Sallu bhai,

Re: 722

#1 Hindoo-Muslim relationships were severely strained and the subcontinent plunged into a cycle of violence.

#2 By 1948 MAJ (pbuh) was severely ill and possibly not in control over ML and Pakistan affairs.

Regards

Correction August 12, 1948.

And the main architect was none other than Bacha Khan's old Congress comrade Qayyum.

Re: # 724

"I came across one of your articles on 1974 (Pakistan RIP); very impressive. Having secular tendencies myself, I'd love to see the day when a solid secular democracy has taken root and to see it prosper in our homeland."

Thanks.

Re: # 721

How does one argue with someone like you who insists on ignoring straight answers and going in circles for a punch line he is not going to get? The answer is there in several posts, but especially in 633.

As for Bhabra Sharif "massacre"... according to you it took place on August 12, 1947. Jinnah was already on his deathbed by then barely even able to move. But lets humor you and say that Jinnah was not "fit" to be governor general, how does it prove the facts I have put up about Bacha Khan false?

I think you are not worth anyone's time ... nor should I base my assessment of ANP on you, because you are as HP says an unintelligent ANP worker who knows nothing.

Re: # 720; Yasser bhai

Many thanks for taking the time to inform me of Mr Jinnah's virtues and strength of character; I have nothing against the man but just thought a bit too much credit seemed to be going in his direction on some of these discussions. I much prefer Gandhi ji myself but each their own as they say! I hope that doesn't disqualify me as a loyal and proud Pakistani in your eyes.

The pbuh thing was a hangover from a previous discussion I had with Majumdar bhai; from a non-believer's perspective, I don't mind if Mr Jinnah gets a few extra Brownie points in the hereafter as a direct result of this practice!

I came across one of your articles on 1974 (Pakistan RIP); very impressive. Having secular tendencies myself, I'd love to see the day when a solid secular democracy has taken root and to see it prosper in our homeland.

Many thanks again. Sorry to interrupt....

I don't get Hamdani's points here.
He keeps saying Jinnah Jinnah. does it mean Jinnah and MUslim League are differnt? Muslim league's corruption is well known. I have posted Governor NWFP letter here. which tells about ML's corruption and horse trading.

Majumdar bhai

1- you said Jinnah didn't ask ML to start violence they did it on their own. it kept on going till May 1947.

2- Hamdani said Babara shrif Massacre and that ordinance were the creation of Qayyum Khan. Jinnah has nothing to do with that.

It means Jinnah was not able to control his Party and he was not capable of running a country as governor general.

Mr Hamdani why are you such a coward. just answer the simple question.
in your view
Jinnah didn't ask the Ml for violence.
or
Muslim League as party didnt start violence.

DOn''t tell us where to go simply answr the question and dont fool around

There are two statements... which I think sum it up. One by H V Hodson and the other by Dr. B R Ambedkar .. which might explain why Majumdar bhai and I use (PBUH) for Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah.

"One thing is certain, it was not for any venal motive that he changed. Not even his political enemies ever accused Jinnah of corruption or self seeking. He could be bought by no one and for no price. Nor was he in the least degree a weathercock, swinging in the wind of popularity or changing his politics to suit the chances of the time. He was a steadfast idealist, as well as a man of scrupulous honour." (Page 39- Great Divide)


and

From Pakistan or Partition of India by Dr. B R Ambedkar - the author of Indian constitution:

"Secondly, it forgets that Mr. Jinnah, who represents this ideological transformation, can never be suspected of being a tool in the hands of the British even by the worst of his enemies. ..... it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah."


Those who wish to abuse Jinnah, should go right ahead but one should not stop others from holding a point of view which is rooted in history.

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.

Harish,

"Gandhi in his misguided belief that he could appeal to a wider Muslim audience tried to cultivate the Muslim clergy by supporting the Khilafat movement"

We are trying to see Gandhi's actions through the prism of our time. We have had multiple paradigm shifts since the days of partition. It amounts to be charlatanic on our part to analyse a past decision without taking into the considerations the factors Gandhiji&Co would have chosen among the many. Gandhi&Cos decisions might have given results that are not acceptable in the current paradigm but the question is did Gandhi&Co take a decision to harm people.

The outcome of a decision the present generation desires and the aspirations of a long gone generation could not have been identical. Our present aspirations or the present ideas could have been an anachronism for the people of Gandhi's times.

When Gandhi could withdraw agitations just because he didn't approve of ChauriChaura, which the decision's outcomes presented themselves in his times, wouldn't he thought about the support for the Khilafat movement. Gandhi&Co would have gone by the covariates and the hypothetical results they could deduce out of decisions.

OTOH it is very different for being indecisive...you don't get bricks as well as bouquets.

Dada,

Maulana was the true rep of Indian Muslism and everybody knew it. A for him being a fundoo, it's only laughable. He's religious but not a fundoo.

He was the education minister of free India but he never imposed any religious education. There's Humayun Khan from East Bengal who succeeded Maulana as the Ed minister of free India; he too followed the path of Maulana. Prof Nurul Hasan of yesteryears too followed the great path of Maulana.

There's a diff btw religious Muslims and fundoos is very clear.

VRV sahib,

(Yasser does hate G/N/Gh coz they came in the way of Jinnah's Nizam in the whole of Indian Subcontinent. )

MAJ (pbuh) had no intention of imposing his "Nizam" all over India, he wanted a Pakistan only (incl whole of Bengal and Punjab). It was Azad types who wud have wanted to impose a Nizam -e-Mustafa over whole of India.

(but the moment he realized it was going nowhere)

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

(At no time did Gandhi espouse violence or support any kind of violence - even in the heyday of the Khilafat agitation. I think you already know his stance on the Chauri Chaura killings. )

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!!!

Regards

#691 by majumdar

It wud be fair enough to accept MKG's role also.

Gandhi in his misguided belief that he could appeal to a wider Muslim audience tried to cultivate the Muslim clergy by supporting the Khilafat movement, but the moment he realized it was going nowhere, he withdrew support. It may have been a foolish move but by no means a malicious one. At no time did Gandhi espouse violence or support any kind of violence - even in the heyday of the Khilafat agitation. I think you already know his stance on the Chauri Chaura killings. That was pretty much his stance throughout.

OTOH, Jinnah openly consorted with the communalists, playing up the differences (Hindus worship cow, Muslims eat it etc.) between the two communities at every given opportunity. He created paranoia amongst the Muslims masses by saying yoking Hindus and Muslims would result in civil war.

Maybe the answer is simple. He had none. He was merely being honest.

There are enough sources that blame Jinnah and the Muslim League for the DAD violence. If you go through the link I posted a couple of days back, you can see for yourself.

Dada,

I tell u the truth. Yasser does hate G/N/Gh coz they came in the way of Jinnah's Nizam in the whole of Indian Subcontinent.

He's Jinnah's prick extraordinaire!

Further to 694 (Zee),

Dari-speaking means that u r not a Gangaram but a blue-blooded Persian.

VRV sahib,

695

You are right. There were Momins with interests in progressing towards the modern world and there were others who wanted to live as per 7th century Arab norms. The same divisions exist today.

The point is MKG/INC chose to consort with the second types than with the first types. That is YLH's gripe.

Of course it cud be very well argued that the Type 2 Momins were right and Type 1 Muslims were wrong all along.

Regards

In just one day Yasser took this board towards 700 posts. Yasser the hoenybum, u never disappoint urself.

Majumdarda,

There're different hues in Indian history of that period. Muslims were not minorities at that time. They're equally represented in every field of life (no quota). Even in pre-Jinnah period Indian Muslims were prominent in promoting the cause of Indian Independence.

Name a meeting in London (pre-Jinnah period) in support of India or her causes, u have several Muslim names in that meeting. This is what I saw in pre-Jinnah period news items on India (The Times archive)

Zeemax (640),

The Khans were not into this game of TNT nor they were actively encouraging riots and murders.

I understand that u lived there (NWFP) and u r a Dari-speaking family.

Whether u like it or not Jinnah was an established criminal in India. It's for the Yasser to counter this.

VRV sahib,

Re: 692

That is the thing that is different about the way of thinking of some of desi Momins. I wud have used "wrong" but afraid of Kaal bhai's danda, I am using "different" instead. They had no issues with Brits ruling over India and running it to the ground but they suddenly discovered that British India was dar-ul-harb 'cos the Brits removed a frikking retarded ruler of distant Turkey.

Regards

'Besides I suppose no religious scripture played a part in Maulana Azad's famous fatwa in early 1920s that India was Dar-ul-Harb and the Muslims should move to Afghanistan.'
(689)

Yasserbhai,

U r puting things are divorced from the context.

It's the time when WWI was goin on & Khalifa was abolished by the British who're also ruling India. Since India was ruled by the British it was decided that they shud follow the example of the times of prophet Muhammed. That's why they wanted to migrate to Afghanistan i/o living under British.

But the truth is that a few hundred ppl moved o/a that fatwa.

Harishbhai,

(storm was building up months before in advance)

It wud be fair enough to accept MKG's role also. First of all he brought all kind of obscurantists to the fore by starting the Khilafat movement. Surely you must be aware of the karnameys of the God fearing Moplahs of Kerala. And then equally suddenly he called off the NCM without even fully consulting his partners the Muslims. With the result that a huge amount of distrust was created between Hindus and Muslims. So you had a double whammy.

A roused Muslim population.
Distrust between Hindus and Muslims.

So is it MAJ' sole fault that Muslims and Hindus were sepaarted by walls of distrust and animosity.

There indeed was a storm but if you want to locate the energy source of that storm system you have to look elsewhere!!!

(I don't know what motive Nehru had for not speaking out,)

Maybe the answer is simple. He had none. He was merely being honest.

Regards

#686 by majumdar

A dishonest man does not indulge in dishonesty all the time. He is dishonest only to service some ulterior motive. These guys may not have been dishonest when they did not accuse MAJ (pbuh) becuase they may have realised that their claims wud fall flat.

Who is to determine when these "dishonest" men were honest and when they were lying? Nearly 60 years later, Jinnah is still haunted by accusations of having instigated violence. As I said before he may not have been directly responsible for all that went on, but by turning a blind eye when his cohorts were instigating Muslims, he must accept his share of the blame. It wasn't as if he was caught by surprise; there were warnings early on and the storm was building up months before in advance in the form of provocative speeches where leaguers threatened to shed blood; thundered that they were no believers in ahimsa; that the death and destruction they would wreak would put Hulaku Khan to shame etc.

Harishbhai, Now since u believe that MKG and JLN were honest men shud you not accept that they were honest in not implicating MAJ (pbuh)

I don't know about Nehru, but I believe Gandhi was honest to a fault. A man who speaks about his innermost (even intimate) feelings in his book cannot be anything but that. He may be guilty of many misadventures but no one can accuse him of malice. I don't know what motive Nehru had for not speaking out, but with respect to Gandhi, it could simply be because he was never known to speak out against any of his rivals in public. If Gandhi didn't blame Suhrawardy, the man widely believed to be behind the actual violence - going on to even live with him for a month to demonstrate that Hindus and Muslims could live with each other in peace, what makes you think he'd talk about Jinnah?

Re: # 687

Except that they took every opportunity to blame others like Suhrawardy.

Besides I suppose no religious scripture played a part in Maulana Azad's famous fatwa in early 1920s that India was Dar-ul-Harb and the Muslims should move to Afghanistan.
But then I suppose in India the title of religious zealotry is reserved for those irreligious gentlemen who take up the political causes of a community based on religious identity.

Mahatmas and Maulanas are exempt from such love.

Vengat,

MKG and Azad were indeed religous zealots of sorts, under the right circumstances Azad may have evolved into a full time jihadi. JLN wasn't a zealot, he was just an idiot who was fond of kissing commie and Islamist fundoo a***s.

Regards

Re: # 686

Majumdar,

Don't get into the pipe logic. There are lateral roads. MKG, Nehru and Azad chose political expediency over anything else you can fill in here. Now don't try to describe all the above mentioned leaders in the plane of a religious zealot, who would have sought religious scriptures' guidance for his decisions, these leaders were intelligent and they had their own convictions.

Harishbhai,

(1. If you claim they were dishonest and if they had implicated Jinnah, you would have argued that the accusers weren't credible so we can't go by their word.)

Yes!!!

(2. And if we accept your claim of their dishonesty, since they didn't accuse Jinnah, doesn't it logically follow that they were being dishonest by not doing so? )

A dishonest man does not indulge in dishonesty all the time. He is dishonest only to service some ulterior motive. These guys may not have been dishonest when they did not accuse MAJ (pbuh) becuase they may have realised that their claims wud fall flat.

Harishbhai, Now since u believe that MKG and JLN were honest men shud you not accept that they were honest in not implicating MAJ (pbuh)

Regards

Re: # 683

Agreed bhai but I wasn't referring to you nor did you egg him on. :)

Re: # 681

Harish bhai

May I interject.

I think what Majumdar is trying to say is that since in his view they were dishonest, they would have jumped to the opportunity to denounce Jinnah at the first opportunity. The fact that even they didn't accuse Jinnah amounts to something.