Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity

#357....
Manto
"Jinnah was a true Indian patriot..."
Do you know, what it needs to be a patriot?
How much Jinnah knew about India? Nothing...
How much interaction he had with people of India? Nothing..
Partition was not very ancient event. Bloodshed is still in the mind of people in their 80s/90s...In, no yardstick Jinnah deserves any respect from Indians or anybody else, other than Pakis....

"Maybe someday India will atone for the sins of Gandhians and the Congress Party..."

People have done that for long time. Starting with PVN, Indians become smarter and Pakistan (apart from being nuicense creator) never appears in middle-class discussions...You can check that in Indian newspapers...

Manto, you know, why Majumder and lot of Indians support Jinnah (specialy now)? He helped Indians from getting rid of mediaval arab barbarism to great extent...It is like local thug getting support for killing the crazy street dog....


Coming to Gandhi, apart from Chauri Chaura, Gandhi was not directly associated with any movement, that ended up with violence and loss of life (at least from his followers). One or two abberations, do not make his achievent mean. The people, against whom (British Govt.), he initiated movement, should be the best judge....

Moplah jihad was purely islamic problem....

Posted on behalf on Manto:

Any fairminded Indian patriot regardless of his faith or origin who loves India and who has the gutts to read history for what it is will - I have no doubt- one day come to the conclusion that Gandhi was one of biggest charlatans to walk the Indian soil and that Jinnah was a true Indian patriot before he was a Muslim and he was driven away by bad policies.

Many people in India have come to this conclusion. These people are the true patriots of India and its greatest well wishers ...

I know of atleast three major works of history and politics that have done their part in setting the record straight in India:

1. "Partition of India: Legend and Reality" by H M Seervai

2. Gandhi and Jinnah: their role in the quest of indian's freedom.

3. Jinnah: a corrective reading of Indian history by Asiananda


Maybe someday India will atone for the sins of Gandhians and the Congress Party... And maybe Pakistan will re-discover the true facts of partition and Pakistan and India shall stand together as neighbors and allies against the entire world as Jinnah had wanted it before it was soured.

Posted on behalf of Manto:

Dear NKG,

This is not about Jinnah but Gandhi. However direct action day has been discussed to death here and you can see the discussion elsewhere on chowk. Suffice to say your equation of his one call of direct action (civil disobedience) with call for violence is historically untenable ... Every single one of Gandhi's calls ended up in violence and what you are argue for Jinnah is then 100 times more applicable to Gandhi.

Jehad was operationalized by Gandhi's Khilafat movement. Read post 169. I have also established a clear link between today's Jehadis and Gandhi's favorite deobandi mullahs.

Eveb breakaway faction of Pro-Congress JUH - usmani's jamiat- quoted Gandhi (and certainly not Jinnah) to defend the Islamic content of Objectives resolution. Read PCA debates. So this Islamic state business has nothing to do with Pakistan's creation per se.

Gandhians used reactionary Islamist ideology to discredit the Muslim bourgeoisie leadership. In NWFP especially and in rest of india example the KK and JUH spread the rumor (or fact) that Jinnah did not even know how to pray and that he married a "kafira" (majlis e ahrar) and that his daughter was married to a kafir.


As for your "civilized" comment it just shows your bias and an unfortunate inability to see the facts for what they are.

Adam mian,

You did no such thing bhai. Your logic would make sense if either Majumdar or I had claimed that Gandhi was biologically the grandfather of the taliban which is a numeric impossibility. Grand daddy is a metaphor and we've already proved why.

Look I concur with you that Bacha Khan's appeal to sharia was political. It is not as much even that but the damage that the claim that faqir of ipi with Bacha Khan's support that Pakistan government was irreligious and therefore jehad was fard against it that is similar to the situation today.

Jinnah's letter to manki promising that "the laws shall not be in conflict with sharia" my friend is quite different from promising one kind of interpretation of sharia law. It was a lawyerly response by Jinnah to the campaign against him by Gandhi's buddies the Jamiat e ulema Hind and KK etc proclaiming Jinnah's antipathy to Islam and irreligiousity.


It proves that Gandhi's project of using Islam and Mullahs to discredit bourgeoisie Muslim leadership was still in operation.


However what makes Gandhi the grand daddy of taliban is the fact that he politicized Islamic mullahs and made jehad and Islamic stick a permanent feature of the political landscape ... A far cry from the Muslim bourgeosie interested political and economic empowerment which led the Pakistan movement.

Re: # 276
Manto...
Indians are against Jinnah not for creation of Pakistan. The bloodhsed mattered most to Indians. If your national hero, Jinnah, was so confident about his support base as per as separate country is concerned, he and ML should have waited for couple of more years. After British leaves, Pakistan could have been created with some fixed time frame. Who called for Jihad/direct action day? M K Gandhi or ML/Jinnah? Who incited tribals to invade Kashmir (1948)?
Who are calling for Jihad in Kashmir? Pepole living in Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore etc., who had nothing to share with Gandhi....Kashmir terrorism is Jinnah's legacy of Islamic state.So is Taliban....Your holy book was not creation of Gandhi. Neither, Gandhi ever followed your holy book....

A civilised person can not ask for a separate country through thuggery and attack on civilians. Jinnah, throughout the history of Pakistan creation, represented that thuggery and Jihad....


Coming to Gandhi...

Gandhi had single point agenda at that time; let the British leave India without much bloodshed and animosity. British people should not raise any finger towards Indians, after they leave India. He was successful in his mission and so he is revered everywhere. Whether he has slept with his niece, it does not matter to most of the people....

Yaaaawn!

Yasser, dear boy, I don't think you have your normal handle on Gandhi in your interacts on this board. So here it goes:

Gandhi is a racist, fascist pig who slept with his nieces.

Mantolives:

I just showed you the hopelessness of your logic and on that your cried foul!? and instead of pointing out "deviousness" in my posts I think you should reconsider your flips from "grand daddy" to "enabler".

HP:

Can you think of any major muslim leaders from the past who spoke out against Sharia in Public? Even Jinnah as evident from his letter to the Pir of Manki was using sharia as a binding constraint in his image of a secular Pakistan.

Ghaffar Khan used to refer to hindus as "Ahl-i-Kitab" and to Gita as a sacred text. I think this interpretation is far more liberal than what modern day PPP believes in its views of the Ahmadis.

Ghaffar Khan is also accredited with the first ever monthly Pushto magazine "Pukhtoon" (1928). In it were articles that challenged the concept of Purdah and raised issues on woman rights.

His son Ghani Khan, a prominent Pushtoon poet ran a column in that particular magazine in which he challenged Pushtoon norms and especially the Mullah. If you read Ghani Khan's poetry he uses the word Mullah as synonymous to "hypocrite".

For these reasons, any opposition to this family has come with the title "Kafir", whether it was the time of partition or today. I remember during one election campaign, some Jamiatiyas had a picture of Ghaffar baba standing next to Gandhi jee and they were showing it to people as evidence of Ghaffar baba being a hindu.

Manto I think is one of the very few (if not the only one) who would describe Wali Bagh as a fort for Islamic Fundamentalism. To the JUI or JI followers and leadership this might come across as a great insult.

So I completely disagree with your assessment of him as a religious conservative. Political spectrums change over time and we have to judge these historical figures by the dynamics at their time. If one is to apply todays western norms of political correctness to the past, then we dont have any "liberal" politicians in our history...

I mean what do you think would be Jinnah's or for that matter Zardari's view on homosexual marriages?

masanmuthu # 350,

Often I have wondered if the khilafat movement to restore the muslim temporal body succeded, what would have been the shape of the world today.
For an organized religion like christianity, a pope (despite being catholic head) can at least speak for the large xtian community in various matters.
Be it violence against xtians or interfaith issues etc. The xtians feel that they have a voice. So what happens when an organized religion is decapitated by removing its temporal head. With no more leadership (how so ever much ridiculous they may be) fanatics usually try to gain control
by claiming to be stricter followers of their respective faiths. I think this is the story of islam since last century. Now you pay with having bin laden s and ayman zawahiris of the world trying to become the leaders of their ummah. See how progressive they have become. I don't see the big deal in having a nincompoop as head of any organized religion who displays anger or happiness at the state of his community from time to time. At least
some maniac terrorists cannot usurp the whole community in the name of God. I doubt it if the khalifa (if he had been the head today) would have ever allowed anyone else to take his powers over the ummah away from him. He would have put to place the bin ladens in their respective caves.
At worst he would have been looked upon just as the pope in his long frock is looked upon by the world. But in todays world, just as the pope had to change the past positions of the church w.r.t the evolution theory, inquistion etc. there was at least some chance that the established leader of the ummah would have been forced to reconcile and modernise the stupid ummah instead of encouraging them to run after the 72 virgins.
My last thought about the two organised religions' parallels is comparing their evolution to china and soviet union. By controlling the reforms slowly the chinese have managed better even with a stupid commie system. But what happened to soviets who tried to get rid of it too fast. Now you have Putin controlling russia.

So lets stop blaming the poor old chap who with all his whims, quirks and idiosyncracies who left a lasting legacy of non-violence that the world is emulating. Blaming him for the taliban perhaps would be like Ahmedinajad's logic of dismissing the holocaust as it never happened.

Adios

Manto writes "Richard Attenborough's character in Jurassic Park is obvious equivalent of Gandhi.

And the Raptors and Rex etc are equivalents of Islamic and Hindu fundamentalism which Gandhi-unwittingly- spawned."

This person is a god damned genius. Like Homer Simpson said the World is like a donut, Manto says the struggle against Brit colonization is like Jurassic Park. No wonder we are in the shape we are in when such is the mentality of our "men of letters". What a god damned joke this person is.

Have a nice day,

TNI Masadi

Glad to see you agreeing on the issue of Khilafat movement atleast.

I don't think I ever disagreed on the stupidity of Khilafat movement.

My disagreement is with Gandhi being blamed for the rise of Taliban. And I have seen just flimsy reasons to support that story.

Dash,

Less popular and just causes...

Ras,

This is the finest cause there is. World must be freed of irrational superstitions that Gandhi embodied.


Masanamuthu,

Glad to see you agreeing on the issue of Khilafat movement atleast.
You should read "ironies of history: khilafat movement" by Hamza Alavi- a well known and well respected historian in both India and the West.

What I have said and what Majumdar is very clear. It is certainly not that taliban are non-violent "gandhians" or resemble Gandhi in anyway other than their distaste for progress. Nor have we said that there were no jehadis before Gandhi... However historic antecedents must be clear.

I suggest you go back to what Majumdar actually said. I stand by my conclusions in 169.

Don't you folks get tired of debating over and over on same old subjects. In the last decade have you managed to convert any to your way of thinking? you guys remind me of Adda from my native Pune.

Re: # 346 RAS, do you really think .....naah forget it...though here is an interesting proverb

A deaf ear is followed by death and an ear that listens is followed by blessings. (its african BTW)

But Mantolives is training to be a Barrister on Par with MAJ and as a result he has to take stands which are not popular. But in this case, Mantolives is getting carried away with his arguments...

Manto Mian,

Please hold back your thoughts here and concentrate your

energy where it can do some good.

Regards

Ras

Dear Mantolives:

That Gandhi germinated the current day jihadis of the Taliban variety is your story. It could find a few takers who want to find a person to assign the blame for whatever reasons, but I don't believe it and find it actually funny. There were jihadis even before Gandhi was born.

I have read your #169 (or rather comments from Achyut Patwardhan) even before. I agree with that to the extent that Gandhi supported the regressive Khilafat movement and the backward looking Muslims. whereas he was all for reforms in Hinduism, he just turned the other way in regards to Islam. But that is different than saying he is the cause of the jihadi Islam.

Achyut Patwardhan and you seem to attach too much importance to Gandhi. I don't think he had much influence on Muslims to actually reform Islam. He is a Kafir and at best a perfect dhimmi. Even the one who was with Gandhi is the Khilafat movement has said this (Maulana_Mohammad_Ali)
"Even the most degraded Muhammadan was better than Mahatma Gandhi."

That is the influence Gandhi (the perfect dhimmi ) really had.. :-)

Dear Masanamuthu,

That is neither here nor there.

Indeed if you read my post 169 you would see that some of these groups had become Gandhi's frankenstein monster during his lifetime.

As a rule out of control frankenstein monsters don't distinguish between their makers and other people.

In many ways the Jurassic Park 1 2 and 3 and Richard Attenborough (the maker of Gandhi the movie) in it is a much better and more accurate movie on Gandhi's life.

Richard Attenborough's character in Jurassic Park is obvious equivalent of Gandhi.

And the Raptors and Rex etc are equivalents of Islamic and Hindu fundamentalism which Gandhi-unwittingly- spawned.

No we don't. We don't know who the governor is talking about... But we certainly know he is not talking about Usmani's breakaway faction which supported the League.

The credit for Taliban goes to Mufti Mahmood and his son and his disciple ...who have an unbroken historical continuity with the Congress.


Hmm.. So according to you Gandhi and Congress are both the father and mother of Taliban. Somehow, the picture of Gandhi leading the jihadis of Taliban doesn't look right or sound logical from what we know, even though it would be cool compared to the boring 'Gandhi' movie.

arjun, what do you think?. Imagine a scene in Gandhi-2 where Gandhi is exhorting the jihadis of Taliban to bomb the Buddhas. :-)

My note to AH Amin about this going mudfest.

Dear Mr. A.H. Amin....I request to moderate your comments. I fear we can loose you. They may try to hurt you. We need honest thinking person like you to be alive and kicking. You have developed analytical skills and honesty( practice makes it second nature) to look at things as they are not to massage the facts. You are always swimming against "established" current as you try to find the source of problems so you have to go against current which is mindless and full of lies and half lies. Just It came to mind why people go on wrting about Jinnah and Gandhi. Why they not go to your historic analysis of Indo pak History. They loose in details which are nearly irrelevant in overall picture. It is and was a economic anxity and leading neuroris of and reactions of land owning and mercantile interests. You have written excellently about 1857. Now recent mudfest is comic, I lament to say the information is not knowledge, otherwise Libriaris will be full of knowledge. Knowledge does not take you much what is additionally required is wisdom to draw logical conclusions and learn from those. Kindly contribute to this newspaper and moderate. Hopefully many will realiase just shouting abuses does not prove or disprove any thing.
Your comment is 200% correct , this is all going Tamasha for last 60 years it has no substance just ecochember with recording of "his Masters Voice"
Sincerely A.Madani
Good Day

What precisely?

We've already shown that taliban were created by the mufti mahmood faction which was the dominant group and pro congress.

You haven't even told us which jamiat e ulema are you talking about because governor is certainly not talking about Usmani's let alone establish a link.

First make up your mind or get it checked.

masanamuthu
"Well.. then we do know that there is another JU(X) in NWFP outside the Congress fold supported by ML that could potentially be the mother of Taliban, if we consider Congress/Gandhi to be the father of Taliban."

Precisely.

No we don't. We don't know who the governor is talking about... But we certainly know he is not talking about Usmani's breakaway faction which supported the League.

The credit for Taliban goes to Mufti Mahmood and his son and his disciple ...who have an unbroken historical continuity with the Congress.

Either way ... even if it was true and there was this third JU(X) ... It was the pro-Congress Mufti Mahmood faction that created Taliban...whereas no one even knows of this third JU(X). My own feeling is that Cunningham might have used some of the people within the JU ... if true.


Well.. then we do know that there is another JU(X) in NWFP outside the Congress fold supported by ML that could potentially be the mother of Taliban, if we consider Congress/Gandhi to be the father of Taliban.

:-)

Sadna,

Give it up you are boring everyone now! You have no argument left.

I do have an argument but I will deal with Yassar later on that.

As I said, I am not saying that Cunningham was. Please contact his heirs and correct his diary.

There was no JUI before partition. The same people were called JUH.

Pathans have been going to Madrrasa in deoband and other places for a long time. For poor pathan it was for jobs in Mosques etc. In sindh majority of Mosques still have pathan mullah.
In our village mosque, we had a pathan mullah and his speeches were in urdu and people used to poed over that. But they had no choice...there weren't very many Sindhi mullah around.even in India before partition many mosques had pathan mullahs.

cricketer Irfan Pathan's father is from swat and he went as far as Gujarat to get a job in a mosque and stayed there after the partition.

One reason Gandhi and Ghaffar Khan were so close was because they were both conservatives. Both religious and otherwise as well. Thats why Ghaffar Khan never opposed sharia in public.

Hain how would a party which was part of Congress government in NWFP and which elected Azad to the contituent assembly be pro-pakistan and pro-ML?

I think you've lost your mind completely.

Apna ilaj karao. Only someone completely deluded will buy your lies. I know just the person waisay.

Good night.

OK, so now you admit a faction of the JUH existed in NWFP and was used by Cunningham to start up the NWFP Muslim League in 1937 and spread anti-Khidmatgar pro-Pakistan propaganda in the war years.

Now, was this pro-ML pro-Pakistan faction of JUH in NWFP extremist?

Sadna bibi,

That was Jamiat e Ulema Hind of NWFP ... It was the deobandi party ...it got support from deobandi students and its president was Azad. I don't get how you concluded that it was for usmani's JUI which did not exist in NWFP or balochistan.

The fact that cunningham's diaries mentioned JUH sarhad and not JUI is a slap on your face.

Yeah now I've changed words around - saying that will get rid of Cunningham's diary.

That last post was also addressed to HP. Suddenly he knows nothing about anything.

Mantolives
Again, your wishful thinking assertions are all that you've got. It is a recorded fact that JUI had pre-independence support in Pakistan regions in NWFP and Balochistan because students from those regions went to Deoband school to study.

So I still haven't gotten the answer to my question : please show proof that the pre-independence pro-British pro-ML Jamiat Ul Ulema in NWFP which Cunningham writes of was not extremist and the organisation became extremist later only when the pro-Congress faction joined it.

Sadna,

Cunningham was not working for British after 1947. He was working for the government of Pakistan. There was no need for him to nurse a party in NWFP for ML support.
Btw, after Partition, The Khan sahib ministry was dismissed and Qayoom Khan became the Chief Minister.

I don't know why the Pro-Pakistan faction died. Maybe they lost support after the partition or there might be one or two still lurking there but they never won any elections there.

I am not a custodian of political parties record in NWFP and Political parties don't apply to government before they go out of business to keep a written record.

That party pretty much died all over Pakistan including Karachi and Hyderabad where they were popular at one time. Though they still retain a structure and and I think Mualana Noorani's son is still the leader.

No ... What he is saying is that Mufti Mahmood's JUH pro congress became what is today JUI-F (and S) ...and that it was this faction that created the taliban.

The pro-pakistan JUI has dissipated into other political groups like PTI.

Sadna,

Jamiat e ulema was led by Azad. Your claim doesn't make any sense.

You can go on lying.



Masanamuthu,

I am disputing sadna's copying. She often changes words around and I have pointed it out in the past.

Either way ... even if it was true and there was this third JU(X) ... It was the pro-Congress Mufti Mahmood faction that created Taliban...whereas no one even knows of this third JU(X). My own feeling is that Cunningham might have used some of the people within the JU ... if true.

Sadna's whole angle was to prove that somehow mufti mahmood faction supported the League (you can check her posts from 170 to 230)...and she has clearly been proven a liar there.

HP, you have so far mentioned only the Usmani faction.

Are you saying that Cunningham who returned as Governor of NWFP after independence at Jinnah's request, allowed the Jamiat Ul Ulema in NWFP (which he had used for pro-British pro-ML anti-Khidmatgar activities throughout war years), to disappear and disintegrate after independence? What is your reference for that?

Oh I get it ... You are trying to say that Azad was actually on Muslim League's side secretly...wow now that is a bombshell.

I thought you were saying it. Let me try to understand.

1. Are you disputing the Brit governor's diary?.
2. If not, are you saying that Brits paid JU(X) under Maulana Azad to take an anti Congress line?.
3. If no, does that mean there existed some JU(X) which could take extremist positions before 1947?.

and I completely agree that it takes courage to challenge established points of view.

Unfortunately the authors have merely conformed to the existing "gandhi was a saint" point of view. They lack the moral courage to not conform.

Maharana,

Search NWFP history yasser latif hamdani on google. I have a five part series which will give you an alternative view on NWFP and Frontier Gandhi. It is good to know all sides of the picture.

Also search yasser latif hamdani + gandhi. You will find an alternative pov on that as well.

Tahir & Syeda,

I read this article quite late and wanted to express my thanks for a wonderful write up. Such ideas have a way of remianing immortal whether practised by Gandhi or MLK jr. and perhaps later on by others. Yes it is important that the seed that was sown by Gandhi be carried on by others. Historically, NWFP was the place where Panini the world's first grammarian was born. Later on it saw many culutral landmarks achieved. During the independence struggle If I remember correctly, frontier gandhi was allied with the independnce struggle using non-violent methods. I feel bad for the people of NWFP they have become cannon fodder in the hands of paki establishment. Indeed it is most relevant for the NWFP to ask whether the non-violent struggle method or the kalanishkov method is better for the people. The last 20 years are a testament to that.
Keep up the good work. It takes more courage to express one's views that are not in conformity with the established opinions. More so, when the established views are held by virulent jehadis.

Adios

Sadna,

Oh I get it ... You are trying to say that Azad was actually on Muslim League's side secretly...wow now that is a bombshell.

No wonder Gandhi dismissed him as Congress president for accepting the cabinet mission plan.

Now the world makes sense...

As for your other comment ... How is "creating taliban" being affiliated with the Hindus or and not created taliban not being affiliated with Hindus.

The simple fact is that the pro-congress Ex-JUH JUI-F ended up making the taliban.

The thanvi-usmani JUI of Karachi dissipated into other political groups.

Sadna,
There is no cover up. It is just your capacity to understand various factions and their politics.

Since your knowledge of Pakistan is all gleaned from newspapers, you are having difficulty with the internal Pakistani politics.

Yassar,
I really don't know much about this Barelvi and deobandi distinctions. To me a mullah is a mullah! and JI is wahabi which is like another name for Alquaida!

masanamuthu
HP and Mantolives are trying their best to cover up all mention of that JU(X).(one more wagging finger icon)

Mantolives / Sadna:

either of you can clarify.

So British governor has remarked in his diary that he paid some version of Jamiat Ulema, let's call JU(X).. Assuming this is not a lie,

it implies

1) Brits paid off Maulana Azad to take anti Congress line.
2) Brits paid off some other Maulanas not affiliated to take anti Congress line.

which one is right.

Yeah Mantolives, as I said since you judge Deobandis' extremism by their past affiliation to Hindus, and by no other criteria, you should find such explanations very comforting.

"However after independence, these two Jamiat ul Ulemas became extremists because the pro-Congress Jamiat ul Ulema Hind took them over.
I think people get it after you repeated it so many times, HP and Mantolives. According to you pro-ML Deobandi Jamiat ul Ulema and incited mullahs = not extremist while pro-Congress Deobandi Jamiat ul Ulema and Khidmatgars = extremist."

Here is the missing piece.
The pro-Pakistan group never got any foothold in NWFP after the creation of Pakistan. It was popular in Karachi and Hyderabad under Shah Ahmed Noorani because of the mohajir .
The Pro-Pakistan group pretty much died in Karachi and Hyderabd after MQM burst on the scene in both cities as I mentioned in one of my posts.

The former pro-Congress section after the death of Mufti Mehmood and under Fazal Rehman and Maulan Samiullah provided support to the Mujahidin first and then Taliban. First set of Taliban came for Maulana Sami's madrassa in Nushera.

So the Pro-Pakistan group had nothing to do with Taliban...

HP,

I would imagine that Noorani's JUP would have something to do with this whole thing but isn't Noorani clan a barelvi sunni party?

masanamuthu
Oye, that's blasphemy. The British never supported Muslim extremists only Hindus did(wagging finger icon).

Well sadna...the pro-congress faction is responsible for the taliban. The pro-league faction has dispersed into parties like tehreek e insaaf and tehreek e istaqlal and national democratoc party.

HP,

Precisely. Thank you.

Now that is the difference between Usmani's karachi based jamiat e ulema ...they like their counterparts in India never got a chance to practise militancy under a military regime.

It was the erstwhile pro-congress faction that was responsible for the creation of taliban. This was the faction which till 1947 had in its ranks of legislators Maulana Azad himself representing NWFP in the constituent assembly.

Sadna should stop making a fool of herself.

OK, lemme AGAIN summarize your precious argument which you keep repeating:
The Jamiat ul Ulema mentioned by Cunningham as spreading anti-Congress pro-Pakistan propaganda in NWFP from 1937-1946 was not affiliated to Jamiat ul Ulema in any other part of the country and was of no significance because though it was Deobandi and helped incite mullahs in favor of ML and against Khidmatgars, it was not affiliated to the Congress and hence was not extremist. Same goes for the pro-ML Jamiat ul Ulema Usami faction which Jinnah supported and which campaigned against Khidmatgars in 1946 - it was not pro-Congress and hence was not extremist.

However after independence, these two Jamiat ul Ulemas became extremists because the pro-Congress Jamiat ul Ulema Hind took them over.

I think people get it after you repeated it so many times, HP and Mantolives. According to you pro-ML Deobandi Jamiat ul Ulema and incited mullahs = not extremist while pro-Congress Deobandi Jamiat ul Ulema and Khidmatgars = extremist.

Man..this gets confusing..

Does that mean the British governor "cunning" was paying maulana azad ?. :-)

Maulana's Sanullah's Madrassa in Naushra produced the first group of Taliban.

Corr:
Maulana SAMIULLAH's Madrassa in Naushra produced the first group of Taliban.

The Mufti group under his son Fazal Rehman and a follower Maulan Sami supported the Taliban and Jihad in Afghanistan starting 1980...I believe. Maulana's Sanullah's Madrassa in Naushra produced the first group of Taliban.

HP,

Spot on except that the JUI of today was Mufti Mahmood's JUH which was till 1947 led by Azad who was also its elected representative in ICA and then PCA (which he resigned from).

JUI does not stand for Jamiat e ulema Hind. It stands for Jamiat e ulema Islam which did not exist in NWFP before 1949.

Pathetic. Just to cover up one lie you are coming up with a million new ones.


The president of JUH was Maulana Azad. How would that JUH be campaigning for Pakistan.


The pro-ml JUI was based in UP. Left over JUH merged with JUI in 1949 ... But the pro pakistan faction of Ehteshamul haq thanvi left in 1954.

2.JUI did exist in NWFP pre-independence

1)Again Sadna JUI is just another name for Pre-partition JUH(azad-Madni group)
2)JUI did not exist before Partition. It was known as JUH.
3)JUH or the Mufti group a branch of AZAD and Madni group never supported ML in NWFP in any capacity.

Mufti Mehmood never supported ML after the partition too until 1977 against Bhutto when Wali Khan convinced him to do so.

Sadna,

Where is JUI mentioned? Your entire point was about JUI ...and now it turns out that Cunningham doesn't even mention JUI ...

The point remains that Azad was the president of Jamiat e ulema in NWFP.

And shabbir ahmed usmani's JUI was no where near NWFP ...definitely not in 1942.

The League did break a few mullahs ...did they call themselves Jamiat e ulema sarhad I don't think so. But Sadna's entire nautanki revolved around Congress not being responsible for Jamiat e Ulema despite the fact that Jamiat e ulema's president was Azad.

How is that possible.

If this is vowel parsing that you are not very lit up.

Mantolives, when you have to parse vowels, you are done.

HP
Yeah, JUI might not have taken money directly, but I think Cunningham paid off mullahs through them. The point I am proving with those excerpts is that
1.Khidmatgars cannot be held responsible for JUI which indulged in anti-Khidmatgar pro-ML propaganda at British behest.
2.JUI did exist in NWFP pre-independence

As you wrote, in 1946 the Khidmatgars/Congress did form the provincial govt in NWFP with JUI support, but that does not dismiss the pro-ML activities of JUI in the war years and the campaigning of the Usmani faction against Khidmatgars in favor of Pakistan in 1946.

3. The third point is that to say only one of these JUI factions, the pro-Congress one was extremist, (by virtue of being pro-Congress it appears), is wrong.

No where does Cunningham say JUI.

This repost is obviously based on your inability to read. If you go and read it again you will see that you are wrong.

The President of Jamiat e Ulema was Maulana Azad. Jamiat e Ulema elected Azad to the constituent assembly in 1946.

How can Jamiat e Ulema be involved in propaganda against the Congress if its leader is himself a leading Congressite?
Your evidence actually shows that the British govt was using the Congress and Faqir of Ipi both or atleast had links with them through Jamiat e ulema.

Cunningham records their doings in detail. For instance:
Jamiat-ul-Ulema toured in Kohat district in Jun�42 and in Peshawar and Mardan in July doing intensive propaganda-
a. Anti-Axis, on the Islamic theme generally, and
b. Anti-Congress, particularly on the Pakistan theme.
Mullah in Peshawar and Mardan intensified the anti-Congress propagand during July � August�42.

He was talking about the Pro-Pakistan Usmani group NOT the AZAD or Madni group which was also Mufti group in NWFP. You are just confused!
Mufti Group never supported Pakistan. And in 1942 there was a Pro-Pakistan group in JUH.

"Cunningham writes that he had persuaded the leaders of Jamiat-ul-Ulema Sarhad to go to Faqir Ipi in Waziristan and tell him that his opposing Britain was no longer in the interest of Islam; now Britain was at war with Germany and Italy, and had taken up arms against kufr, which itself was a wholly Islamic objective."

This is very much possible. But that does not mean that JUH's(of Madni and Azad) NWFP group were Muslim League supporters.

This was second world war and some factions of the Congress also supported the British over Germany. This a political issue and this does not mean that they were pro-British. Did congress take money from British for supporting the war effort?

And this is a repost:

Cunningham records their doings in detail. For instance:
Jamiat-ul-Ulema toured in Kohat district in Jun�42 and in Peshawar and Mardan in July doing intensive propaganda-
a. Anti-Axis, on the Islamic theme generally, and
b. Anti-Congress, particularly on the Pakistan theme.
Mullah in Peshawar and Mardan intensified the anti-Congress propagand during July � August�42.

"
Cunningham writes that he had persuaded the leaders of Jamiat-ul-Ulema Sarhad to go to Faqir Ipi in Waziristan and tell him that his opposing Britain was no longer in the interest of Islam; now Britain was at war with Germany and Italy, and had taken up arms against kufr, which itself was a wholly Islamic objective.

This campaign of rallying Islam to Britain�s support through letters, speeches, personal lobbying, etc., was being carried out with extraordinary secrecy so that nobody got a hint that Britain itself was involved in it. Cunningham, however, remained in constant touch. He was told of every bit of progress. When Faqir Ipi�s aide, Mohammad Waris, wrote back to Jamiat-ul-Ulema Sarhad, he quickly learnt about it and was pleased. He noted the friendly tone and the lack of any sign of suspicion that the effort had been undertaken at British behest."

Cunningham should have asked Mantolives, poor guy was confoosed :(

OK I got it(from FP)

JUI in NWFP was not actually JUI but another organisation of the same name JUI which also supported the British and ML and creation of Pakistan just like the other JUI. But NWFP JUI was not extremist, like the third JUI which was extremist because it was allied to the Congress.

That all "three" JUIs(NWFP, breakaway Usmani and JUH) were all Deobandi is of course irrelevant to their extremism, it is only Congress Hindu support which made one of them extremist and the others secular/moderate(until the pro-Congress faction took them over after independence in 1949 or 1954, Mantolives is not sure).

Sadna you have no clue what you are discussing. You keep jumping and claiming something new and contradictory to your own earlier stance.

We were discussing exactly that ...when you claimed that jamiat e ulema supported the league from 1945-1947... And your lie was caught ...it turns out that jamiat e ulema was led by Azad at the time and had elected Azad to the constituent assembly in 1945-194f elections.

Just admit it. You took a risk and lied. Then you tried to claim that Cunningham spoke of JUI... Then it turned out that poor guy never mentioned JUI which wasn't even present in NWFP.

I think Sadna is mixed up with the names and acronyms.

JUH= become JUI only after the partition in Pakistan led by Mufti mehmood and Maulana Ghalum Ghose Hazarvi. The Party split in two and Hazarvi turned pro Ayub. Now the Party has a third group of Maulana Samiullah.

JUH(usmani group) a pro ML faction from the original JUH in pre-partition India

JUH usmani group= JUP in Pakistan after Usmani moved to Pakistan and this party was later led by Maulana Shah Ahmed Noorani.

So the Governor might have encouraged the JUH(usmani group) but not the Mufti Group of the Maulana Madni and Azad faction. Mufti group hated ML.

Sadna

There was no JUI in NWFP before 1949. After 1949 the same Jamiat e ulema Hind changed its name to JUI and merged with Karachi-based usmani faction of JUI.

there was only one Jamiat e Ulema Hind that was supported by the Congres and was led by Azad.

League might have managed to break a few mullahs but there was no organized group as such called JUI which supported ML before partition in NWFP.

You are confusing the Jamiat e ulema with Jamiat e ulema islam which had no presence in NWFP.

Unless you understand the difference, your entire point is ignorant and worthless.


Muslim League couldn't possibly use a party whose president till 1947 was Azad and which elected him to the constituent assembly from NWFP.

HP
We are not arguing about support of Mufti Mehmood for Congress. Please read the recap I posted below. Its all yours now.

"While I see a nationalist motive behind Ipi's struggle, it was an insurgency which rallied people around the cry that Pakistan's govt was too irreligious to impose sharia."

Manto,
Even Ghaffar khan never demurred about the Sharia in NWFP.
You couldn't do politics without some reference to Sharia in NWFP at that time. In fact GK's lukewarm support to sharia often created problems for him. One reason he lost the referendum was also that the Maulvis from UP and the ML students from UP in NWFP started talking about Sharia and Islam in Hazara and DIK before the partition.

Mantolives
Now you are parsing vowels? Good luck with that.

Let me recap:
You began with saying that Congress and extremist Jamait e Ulema supported each other.

Then when it was pointed out that Jamiat e Ulema had a pro-Pakistan pro-ML faction, you dismissed them as "insignificant".

Then when it was pointed out that Jinnah had the Pakistan flag raised by that 'insignificant' JUI faction's leader Usmani and had his funeral prayers recited by him, you started saying pro-Congress JUI took over the pro-ML faction after independence.

When it was pointed out that Jamiat e Ulema had a pro-ML anti-Khidmatgar presence in NWFP since at least 1937 if not earlier, then you admitted there was a pro-ML JUI but the pro-Congress faction took it over in 1954.

Then when I asked for proof that the pro-League JUI was not extremist, you changed the year of takeover of pro-ML faction by pro-Congress faction from 1954 to 1949.

Now you are saying there was no pro-ML faction in NWFP ever and Cunningham never mentioned the JUI and if he did it was a different organisation.

Your sole argument boils down to this - only the Deobandi mullahs supporting the Congress were extremist hence were JUI, all other Deobandi mullahs supporting the British and Jinnah in NWFP were not extremist, hence cannot be JUI.

OK. majumdar might buy it, but Cunningham will have to be designated liar. Small sacrifice I think.

Sadna,
"You mean NWFP Governor Cunningham's diaries lie about paying off JUI in NWFP to start the NWFP Muslim League in 1937 and to support the British with anti-Congress pro-Pakistan propaganda during war years."

Did he pay them to start Muslim League in NWFP? In that case he is lying but if British supported JUI or JUH(one and the same thing)them financially to gain their political support then that is plausible.

I hope you understand the difference and rephrase your argument.
Mufti Mehmmod and his party which was former JUH never worked with ML before and after the partition. His son Maulana Fazal is a different beast.

In fact, there is a famous quote by Mufti Mehmood which goes like this: Hum Pakistan bananay kay gunnah main Shreek nahin thay". (we have nothing to do with the Sin of creation of Pakistan.)

1. George Cunningham's diaries don't talk of a JUI but the Jamiat e ulema meaning Jamiat e ulema hind and it talks of specific leaders who broke away. If you could show me where Cunningham uses "JUI" I will accept your view.

2. As I pointed out ...there was no JUI in NWFP till 1949 ... Shabbir Ahmed Usmani's breakaway faction was based in Karachi.


I still wonder how Jamiat e ulema whose president was Azad ...somehow pro-league.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

1. You mean NWFP Governor Cunningham's diaries lie about paying off JUI in NWFP to start the NWFP Muslim League in 1937 and to support the British with anti-Congress pro-Pakistan propaganda during war years.

2. Now you are moving the time when ML-supporting JUI went extremist to 1949 when Mufti joined it. Please provide the proof that ML supporting JUI was not extremist (and disappeared in 1949) and only Congress-supporting JUI was extremist.

#275 Posted by Alphalpha on October 8, 2008 9:03:02 am


Setting the record straight for whom?


For the jihadis....duh...

When the jihadis realize what they're doing is, like, gandhian..they'll be, like, ewwwwww...gandhi..ewww..

and they'll stop blowing things up...

so there's a plan...just because YOU aren't smart enough to understand it...

#239 Posted by sadna and post#247
“Yeah which JUH faction was that, apart from Mufti Mahmood? After being pro-British and pro-Muslim League till 1947, how did JUI suddenly become pro-Congress in the 1960s when it first became a political party?�
#247 Posted by sadna
“I showed that until 1947 JUI in NWFP was in the pay of the British governor helping him with pro-Pakistan pro-Muslim League and anti-Congress/Khidmatgar propaganda. Also that the Khidmatgars were not allowed into the tribal areas only British-paid mullahs were. Neither of you even acknowledged this or the fact that Khidmatgars were not responsible for the JUI in NWFP, the British and ML were.�

JUI or JUH on British payroll… though I doubt Sadna has any proof of that but Mullahs historically are more comfortable having some relations with the local admins. That protects them from the feudal of the area. To be more realistic, imo, British controlled many top leaders of both Congress and ML before the partition excluding Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah and handful of other leaders. Throughout the struggle for Independence, both Congress and Muslim Leagues were frustrated by these pro-British leaders within their own parties.

JUH, as Yasser has stated many times, was never pro-Muslim league or Pro-Pakistan before or after the partition. In NWFP they were known as Congressi Mullah. Sometime in the mid 40s ML was able to manipulate a breakaway section which was called JUH Usmani group and after the Partition they just switched name to JUP where P was for Pakistan. Later on Maulana Shah Ahmed Noorni Meerutwala was its leader and was able to defeat JI in Karachi and Hyderabad on many NA seats. In pre-partition India they were mostly from UP and never exercised any influence in other parts of India. later the JUP morphed in to MQM minus the mullahs.

Mufti Mehmood was the regional leader of JUI led by Hussain Madni and Maulana Azad. They were part of the Dr. Khan sahib government in NWFP before the partition. I am not sure at this time what role they played in referendum.

Mufti Mehmood on many occasions in Pakistani politics played a positive role and was always pro democracy but as the mullahs go, he was not beyond accepting some favors from the government too.
He showed remarkable solidarity with NAP when Bhutto dismissed the Balochistan government and Mufti resigned the Chief Minister post in NWFP. He could have held on to it with the Muslim League Qayoom and PPP Support.

The NAP had a sort of unannounced alliance with Mufti Mehmood in NWFP. NAP was toxic in Pakistan for two reasons: 1) Ghaffar Khan couldn’t shake off the Congressi label and 2) the party was pretty much leftwing in other parts of Pakistan. In Punjab for a long time Mehmood Ali Qasoori was the President and when he left Kaswar Garedezi of Multan took over. They were both controlled by the leftists and communists. Mehmood Ali Qasoori was the father of Khurshhed Qasoori, Musharraf’s Forieng minister. Professor Amin Mughal was the Gen. Secretary of the Party in Punjab and he was a communist.


Where I disagree with Yasser is his portrayal of Faqir Ipi. He fought British and was more a nationalist than a religious leader. Since Ghaffar Khan who dominated the NWFP politics was also anti British, they naturally became allies. (He probably provided funding to Ghaffer Khan, when GK started out in politics.)

British hated Faqir Ipi and tried to capture him many times but failed. I have very serious doubts about his followers supporting the Taliban now. Otoh, he left no political legacy in FATA because of the tribal rivalries and strong pro-Pakistan sentiments in FATA after the partition.

Btw I still don't get how Jinnah and British are responsible for a party whose President till 1947 was Azad and whose main representative to the constituent assembly was Azad from NWFP ...

There was only one Jamiat e ulema in NWFP till 1949 and it was led by Azad till partition. It was anti-muslim league and pro-congress.

This is a fact.

Sadna,

Tsk tsk...

Little knowledge is dangerous.
There was no JUI in NWFP till 1949 when the remnants of JUH joined up with Usmani's smaller faction of JUI which was based in Karachi. It this this faction that split in 1954.

The Jamiat e Ulema in the NWFP who were broken by the League were NOT called JUI. They were Jamiat e Ulema Hind leaders who defected from Jamiat e Ulema Hind. Jamiat e Ulema Hind remained an ally of the Congress...

So if you were to say that some ex-JUH mullahs were used by the League it would be true but your statement that JUI was used against the KK is just blatantly wrong.

You are restating the same lie in new inventive ways when you know that Maulana Azad was the President of Jamiat e Ulema and Jamiat e Ulema as a group was firmly allied to the Congress every where including the Frontier where Maulana Azad won a seat from Jamiat e Ulema seat.


So your repetitive control freakery with "used JUI" is a lie for the only Jamiat e Ulema was JUH and the Congress used the JUH against the Muslim League.

Yeah the world believes in many delusions..like the delusion that Pakistan is actually fighting against terrorists....not helping them. Well I guess that delusion is over.

this is the problem with people who need messiahs for their salvation....they project their incompetence and delusions on the rest of the world.

The second question is that if Muslim League and Brits used JUI in NWFP against the Khidmatgars for many years, why are Khitmadgars responsible for JUI, not the British and Jinnah?

So you are saying
1. JUI in NWFP which was bribed by the British to start the NWFP Muslim League in 1937 and bribed during the war years by the British to spread anti-Khidmatgar pro-Pakistan propaganda AS EARLY AS 1942 were not extremists.

2. JUI in NWFP which was bribed by the British to start the NWFP Muslim League in 1937 and bribed during the war years by the British to spread anti-Khidmatgar pro-Pakistan propaganda AS EARLY AS 1942 were not extremists and existed till 1954.

3. In 1954, the pro-ML non-extremist JUI was taken over by pro-Congress JUI and ONLY THEN it became extremist.

The question here was, where is the proof that till 1954 when you say it ceased to exist, the pro-ML JUI was not extremist?

Yawn... These are all claims which don't stand the test of history.

The very fact that you Indians have to resort to abuse against Jinnah, is indicative of an inability to defend the racist casteist Hindu fascist fraud that Gandhi was on his own merit.

The world suffers from many delusions ... At one time everyone on the planet believed earth was flat and people like you abused people who said otherwise. Around 90 percent of the world believes in a god for which there is no rational evidence ... Prophets, sons of god, people walking on water, divine revelation, magical thinking, penis gods, reincarnation, afterlife etc etc are common delusions.

Slowly but surely all delusions are done away with. So will be the case with that fraud you call Gandhi.

Setting the record straight for whom? For pakis, who are just upset that their boy Jinnah is no where in the league of global personalities, whose megalomania created a basketcase of a country..where the awam only sought messiahs, just like him..to deliver salvation and still does to his day...whose quaid e azam was spun like a top by Lainlithgow and other brits to have a client state to counter the russians....who was resigned to obscurity while the leaders from NFWP, Punjab and Bengal...(bascially wht became pakistan) found common interest with Nehru than Jinnah?.......where until he used communalism with his "isalm khatrey mein hai" mantra (which we see as the rallying cry for pakistan promoting terrorism across the world) he was shunned by the masses.....where he was used a s condom by the brits (much like the tradition continuing to this day at the hands of america) and bascially squeezed into a truncated pakistan.

all your randi rona about setting the record straight cannot change the facts and the results of what he actually accomplished. there is a reason why Gandhi (tho a chucklehead) is revered the world over for his lasting legacy of non-violent protests....there is a reason why there are statues upon statues of gandhi across the world extolling this virtue.

You wetie about gandhi sleeping with yung women....didn't jinnah's wife leave him for non-performance? this trait has been passed down to the awam as well. No wonder everyone leaves pakistanis.

#268 Posted by MantoLives on October 8, 2008 5:34:38 am


I am merely interested in setting the record straight.


So gandhi is responsible for the current jihadi predicament pakiland finds itself in?


hmm...that might change my opinion of the naked old fart..I might even forget about the most boring movie ever...

I am not even going to go into the utter inaccuracy of that claim.

All I am going to say is why can't Gandhi be defended on grounds of what he did...

Gandhi brought the Mullahs into politics to undercut the liberal Muslim leadership like Jinnah because Jinnah asked for a piece of pie for his community whereas Mullahs were content with merely making muslims more backward and hence it suited Gandhi's grand plan just perfectly when his biggest mullah supporter maulana azad gave the fatwa that India had become darul harb and that it was the duty to every Muslim to move to Afghanistan.

As patwardhan (read post 169) gandhi deliberately released the forces of superstition to control the muslims through reactionary mullahs.

Look around Gandhi...there wasn't a single seriousminded successful Muslim around him. Azad was a religious scholar ... Bacha Khan a Pushtun sardar ... No sight of bourgeosie, modern muslims like Jinnah etc.

So gandhi was working with the religious groups and bringing them into a ployglotic set up under congress....and jinnah was simply using them with his "islam khatrey mein hai" tactic. So in the end Jinnah more communal than gandhi...debate over.

Once again ... Sadna you are merely tip toeing around the fact that you were caught lying about Jamiat e ulema hind which elected Azad from NWFP and whose President was Azad even in 1948.

No one denied that a small breakaway faction of Jamiat e Ulema Hind called Jamiat e ulema islam existed pre-partition. It is not the same as JUI-F which consists of erstwhile Jamiat e Ulema Hind.

No Thanvis or Usmanis fathered the taliban. Infact Ehteramul Haq thanvi is a member of PTI today...

Mufti Mahmood and his son Maulana Fazlu rahman did more to establish the Deobandi religious fascism in NWFP than anyone else and it is Fazlur rahman who is called "the father of the taliban" ...Mufti Mahmood was Congress' man. Madani was his leader and Madani's sons respect him and Fazloo like their own. All these people - including the breakaway faction under thanvis and usmani- but especially pro-Congress Mufti Mahmood types were the bequeath of Gandhi and the Congress party which made them a factor. Read post 169 and weep.

No doubt the League broke some Mullahs ... Why should Congress alone use them but for the real ideologues remained firmly in the Congress camp. And it was these ideologues and the Majls e Ahrar e Islam (another staunch Congress ally) and its mullah ata ullah shah bokhari (mufti mahmood's equivalent in Punjab) Shorish Kashmiri and Allama inayatullah mashriqi. Who provided ideological background for the kind of Islamism that has plagued both india and Pakistan but which got armed to the teeth under general Zia (whose family was active in Majlis e Ahrar the ally of the Congress once again).

It was Gandhi who brought this into politics, who encouraged Azad and others to make jamiat e ulema hind and who brought Mullahs to the forefront of politics.

And Jamiat e ulema hind remained committed to Congress. Even the ill-fated six month long alliance between jamiat e ulema hind and ML in 1937 was according to Azad because JUH thought the League would support the Congress after elections (read page 170 of India wins freedom).

So no matter how you look at it:

1: a great majority of deobandi islamists supported Gandhi and opposed Jinnah. Only a very small minority supported Jinnah.

2. Gandhi was their saviour, their enabler, their grand daddy because he made them a factor in Indian politics.

3. The main ideological support for taliban came from people like Fazlurrahman who owed his entire rise to Gandhi and the Congress' encouragement of JUH and who remained opposed to Pakistan and the Muslim League.


These are the facts.

I see, so now you admit that there was a ML-supporting JUI until 1954 at least. Anyone who was following your assertions wouldn't know that.

And now your new assertion is that the JUI became extremist only in 1954. Where is the evidence that the ML-supporting JUI was not extremist and only the Congress-supporting JUI was?

arjun:


manto is now on plan B...go on quixotic quest to prove that the current islamist predicament is somehow gandhi's fault...gandhi, who died more than 60 years ago...


that's right.. even though it is quixotic, let us offer good luck to Mantolives. :-)

PS to 265:

Not only is it clear that Mufti Mahmood remained ideologically aligned with the Congress,
It is clear that it was 1954 that the pro-ML elements in the JUI were overpowered and JUH remnants took control of it.


Arjunm,

I am merely interested in setting the record straight.

Majumder....
Caste system was reality in India. What is wrong in caste system, though it lost it's significant in current context? Much of the Indian society (including carpenter, farmer abduls, whose ancestors changed name to avoid paying jejya/protection money) is caste based and rely on traditional professions than modern industrial output.
Gandhi was against dalit oppression. The so called OBCs are economicaly at per with Brahmins and Kshatriyas in villages. Only Banias were little different.

Whatever Gandhi did was to keep India united. In current situation, it may look that creation of Pakistan and BD was boon for India. But, if you keep on fragmenting India -South, Indian West, Arab follower region in West, Arab follower East, North East, Ganga valley.... India would be vulnerable to any external threat again. Horrific experience of 700 years before Brits, must have haunted Gandhi...
Regarding dhimmitude, with seer number and professional skills, it was never possible for moslems to rule India...Unless and until, major political parties back it. The way F A Ahmed, A P J Abdul Kalam etc... had become president of India....

What happened in Bengal is really very sad (194x). But then Bengal local Congress leaders should be equaly blamed for that. Part of Kolkata based politicians supported S C Bose and its armed struggle against Brits. Bengalis never thought local Abduls could use arms to threaten to Mr. Bose etc...But unforunately it happened. Bengalis used to enjoy support from British Govt. in all spheres of life ( Industry, employment, education...). When they started shouting against British, the scenario changed....

#264 Posted by masanamuthu on October 8, 2008 4:48:44 am

Manto's problem is simple...he's not an islamist...in fact, he ahmedi..his only shot of survival in pureland is for pureland to magically go back to jinnah's supposed secular ideals...

now reality is quite different...the fact of the matter is that pakiland is an islamist state today..I'm sure manto would love to debate that over a up of coffee at the islamabad marriot..

manto is now on plan B...go on quixotic quest to prove that the current islamist predicament is somehow gandhi's fault...gandhi, who died more than 60 years ago...

being anti-gandhi is the only way he can prove his pakistaniyat to an increasingly islamist population who think ahmedis are fair game..

It's funny..the paki establishment that created, armed and continues to sustain the taliban - and getting hellfires in return - are not responsible for the taliban....but the boring movie guy who died 60 years ago is..

Mufti Mehmood's Career

1942

* The 'Leave India Campaign' targeting the British was started. Mufti Mahmood took part in the campaign on behalf of Jamiat ul Ulema Hind. He was not only elected as Member of Majlis e Amila of Jamiat ul Ulema Hind NWFP but also as Councillor of All India Jamiat ul Ulema Hind.

1943

* President of Jamiat ul Ulema Hind Sheikh ul Islam Maulana Hussein Ahmad Madni toured NWFP and Mufti Mahmood accompanied him during the tours.

1946

* All India Jamiat ul Ulema Hind conducted a historical conference at Saharanpur where Mufti Mahmood participated as representative of NWFP. He also stood for elections in India the same year and made Abdul Khel his permanent home.

1949

* Participated in the Jamiat ul Ulema Islam Central Convention at Multan.

1950

* Appointed for teaching job in Madrassa Qasim ul Uloom in Multan. Later on, he also served at positions of chief Mudaras, In charge of Education, Chief Mufti, Sheikh ul Hadith, and Muhtamim. As a Mufti, he passed on at least 25,000 Fatawas.

1953

* Participated in the Tehreek e Khatm e Naboowat and was arrested.

1954

* Leadership structure of Jamiat ul Ulema Islam was re-organized. Maulana Ihtesham ul Haq Thanvi separated from the party.

1956

* In October, he was elected as vice-president of Jamiat ul Ulema Islam Pakistan in the Multan Convention.
* Struggled against the One-Unit of Pakistan. He was arrested because of his demands for provincial autonomy and civil liberties.
* Heavily criticized the constitution and demanded amendments to it.

1958

* Ayub Khan declared Martial Law as a result of which all political parties were banned including that of Jamiat ul Ulema Islam
* Deeni Madaris throughout Pakistan decided to have a uniform syllabus for which Wifaq ul Madaris ul Islamia was established. Mufti Mahmood was elected as its first Secretary General.

1962

* In April, he stood for elections for the National Assembly Seat for the first time despite Ayub Khan's invoking of the Basic Democracy Program and defeated all opponents
* On 14th July, when law was passed to re-instate all the Political Parties, Mufti Mahmood took charge of Jamiat Ulema Islam as Qaim Maqam Ameer

1963

* Toured East Pakistan in January and reinforced the position of Jamiat Ulema Islam there as well.
* In March, he advocated against Family Planning policy making of the government in the National Assembly and started a massive campaign against it on national level.
* The Central Meeting of Jamiat Ulema Islam was held in Lahore on 28 October. Hazrat Maulana Abdullah Darkhwasti was appointed as Ameer, and Mufti Mahmood was appointed Naib Ameer.

1964

* In January, on the celebration of Al Azhar University Cairo's 1000 years, President Jamal Abdul Nasir invited Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Binori, Maulana Ghulam Ghaus Hazarvi, Maulana Taj ul Islam, and Maulana Mufti Mahmood to Egypt.
* A bill was proposed in Parliament for Islamic Amendments in the Constitution but due to the negative traits of the opposition and coalition parties, it was not seen through.

1965

* In May, Mufti Mahmood gave a talk at "Majlis Al Jaus Al Islamia" in Egypt and was widely appreciated by visiting scholars from throughout the world.

1966

* In January, The Tashkent Treaty was deeply criticized because of its secretive nature and that the nation was not aware of its salient points.
* A campaign was started against the anti-Islam teachings of the "Tehqeeqat e Islam" and its director Dr. Fazl ur Rahman

1967

* The Tehqeeqat e Islam issued a Fatwa which made it 'Halal' to eat meat which was slaughtered via the western method (i.e. Machine) to which Mufti Mahmood's started a campaign. With reasons from the Quran and Sunnah, he proved them wrong. Mufti e Azam Maulana Muhammad Shafi had given the approval of the Fatwa but after Mufti Mahmood's indulgence into the matter, it was taken back.
* In June, Israel attacked Egypt. Mufti Mahmood and his party voiced their support for Egypt and started a boycott of Israeli products.

1968

* In February, the International Islamic Conference was held in Rawalpindi in which Dr. Fazl ur Rahman, Janab Masood, and Jafar Shah submitted their highly erroneous and non-traditional research work in Islam. Mufti Mahmood vehemently opposed them and proved their research wrong with counter arguments. Visiting dignitaries and scholars from around the world highly appreciated Mufti Mahmood for his efforts.
* On 8 January, the Pakistan's political parties formed a coalition of "Jamhoori Majlis e Amal" in Dhaka and Mufti Mahmood was one of the Central Leadership of this party.

1969

* On 10 March, The Jamhoori Majlis e Amal and the Ayub Khan Regime held a round table conference in which Mufti Mahmood put forward his 22 points on behalf of all religious parties of Pakistan.

1970

* In May, Pakistan's 18 Religious and Political Parties formed a "Muttahida Deeni Mahaz" and Mufti Mahmood was appointed its President.
* In December, Elections were held and Mufti Mahmood had a landslide victory over Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in the Dera Ismail Khan constituency.

1971

* On 3rd March, the parliamentary group of the minority parties held a session at Lahore instead of the Parliament house because the Muslim League and the Peoples Party were in direct conflict with each other as a result of which the political scene was very unstable. The minority parties held this separate session to show their non-involvement in the affairs of the major parties. This was the last step to save the country from disintegration. Mufti Mahmood presided the session.
* In July, Mufti Mahmood toured the Middle East and was accompanied by Maulana Ghulam Ghaus Hazarvi Rahmatullah Alaihe
* In 4 December, an Ijtima was held in Lahore in which millions participated in retaliation for India's attack on Pakistan. Mufti Mahmood issued a Fatwa for Jehad on this occasion.
* On 24 December, a commission was formed to investigate the facts behind the fall of Dhaka. Mufti Mahmood voiced his opinion which was compiled under the supervision of Justice Hamood ur Rahman.
* Bhutto offered Mufti Mahmood minister ship in the centre but he did not accept it and instead demanded the approval of Islamic Laws by the Government.

1972

* On 26 March, the three main political parties of the country entered a coalition. The agreement was signed between Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto from Peoples Party, Abdul Wali Khan from National Awami Party, and Mufti Mahmood from Jamiat e Ulema Islam.
* On 1 May, Mufti Mahmood took oath as Chief Minister of the NWFP and on this occasion took the following steps:
o Forbidding Alcohol
o Urdu as Official Language in Government Circles
o Forbidding Western Dresses (Pants) in Government Departments
o Jahaiz Act
o Ban on Betting
o Educational Reforms (Quranic Knowledge a pre-requisite for admission in educational institutions)
o Enforcing Pardah
o Respect for Ramazan Ordinance
o Ban on Interest
o Friday as Holiday
o and formation of a Board for formalizing Islamic Laws

1973

* In February, a botched attempt was made to assassinate Mufti Mahmood.
* On 15 February, Mufti Mahmood resigned from chief minister position as protest for the unfair dismissal of the Balochistan Government.
* From 15 February to 21 February, the Government offered various incentives to Mufti Mahmood to lure him to take back his decision but he refused.
* In February, many political parties in Pakistan formed a coalition of the "Muttahida Jamhoori Mahaz" for which Mufti Mahmood was appointed as Vice-President.
* In August, a civil disobedience movement was started against the negative attitude of the government. Mufti Mahmood played a central role in it.

1974

* In April, Mufti Mahmood addressed a grand gathering of Jamiat Tuleba Islam at Karachi University.
* In May, Mufti Mahmood played a central role in the Tehreek Khatm e Naboowat along with Maulana Yusuf Binori.
* On 30 June, 137 members of the National Assembly proposed a resolution demanding the Qadianis as Kafirs and Mufti Mahmood's name was at the top of the list.
* On 1st July, the National Assembly approved the resolution for debate in the assembly. The Leader of the Qadianis, Mirza Nasir made an unprovoked aggressive attack on Mufti Mahmood in parliament as a result of which the rest of the members of the assembly came to know the real nature of the Qadianis.
* On 22 August, a sub-committee of the National Assembly was formed in which Maulana Mufti Mahmood, Professor Abdul Ghafoor, Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani, Chaudhry Zahoor Elahi, Ghulam Farooq, Sardar Maula Bakhsh Soomro, and Abdul Hafiz Pirzada played a part. The committee formalized a report by the 5th of September and as a result the final nail in the coffin was put on the 7 of December, in which Qadianis were termed a non-Muslim minority and the issue was resolved.

1975

* On 22 April, an assassination attempt was made on Mufti Mahmood in Sajawal in District Thattha, in Sindh.

1976

* In February, A bomb blast in Peshawar University resulted in the death of Hayat Muhammad Sherpao. Abdul Wali Khan was arrested and Mufti Mahmood was appointed as the Opposition Leader in the National Assembly.

1977

* On 11 January, All Political and National parties in Pakistan formed a coalition and appointed Mufti Mahmood as the leader of this coalition.
* On 7 March, Mufti Mahmood contested elections from Dera Ismail Khan constituency and won with a good margin. But due to large scale irregularities in the elections, Mufti Mahmood laid a crucial role in protests that erupted throughout the country.
* On 10 March, the provincial elections were boycotted and a protest campaign was started while acting as president of Pakistan Qaumi Ittehad
* Mufti Mahmood fell ill during the Tehreek Nizam e Mustapha. He was injured as well and despite his ill-health, he played a leading role and toured the length and breadth of Pakistan in his campaigns.
* According to the Defence of Pakistan Rules, Mufti Mahmood was arrested in Lahore. He was first held in Rawalpindi Jail and then shifted to Haripur Jail.
* On 13 March, Mufti Mahmood started negotiations with Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. He was representing the Pakistan Qaumi Ittehad.
* On 29 June, the Pakistan Qaumi Ittehad presented a set of demands to the Prime Minister
* On 1st of July, on Friday, and on 2nd of July, the negotiations with the government continued all night. Mufti Mahmood announced that unless a decision was reached, they will continue talks continuously.
* On 3 July, the Pakistan Qaumi Ittehad met the Prime Minister's team for the final meeting.
* On 5 July, General Muhammad Zia ul Haq enforced Martial Law in the country. Maulana Mufti Mahmood was arrested again.

1978

* Mufti Mahmood collaborated with the Government for enforcing Nizam e Mustapha. But later on, after sensing that the Military Regime was trying to impose themselves on the nation in pretext of Islamic Law, Mufti Mahmood criticized the army approach.

1979

* Afghanistan was attacked by Russians. Mufti Mahmood issued Fatwa for Jehad against the Russians and the puppet regime in Afghanistan. A military campaign was started for the Jehad which is still in existence after the eviction of the Russians in the form of the Taleban movement.

1980

* Issued vote of confidence in General Zia ul Haq's Islamization reforms and issued a Fatwa against the collection of Zakat Tax by the Government. He also established the MRD in the same year.
* On 13 October, Mufti Mahmood prepared for Hajj and arrived at Karachi.
* On 14 October, He was addressing Ulema Karam and various Mufti e Azams in Jamiat ul Uloom al Islamia Binori Town when all of a sudden his soul departed and like this instead of going to Allah's house in Makka, he went to meet Allah himself.
* On 15 October, his body was transferred from Karachi to Multan, and then via plane to Dera Ismail Khan where he was buried i

both Yasser and Majumdar bhai are being disingenuous by claiming Gandhi was a casteist all his life.

I can understand Mantolives' position of setting up shop in Pakistan on a anti-Gandhi agenda.

But can't figure out why Majumdar buys the Gandhi is 'casteist' line inspite of Gandhi's actions being the opposite, like supporting his son to marry outside of caste .

Majumdar,

I have sent you a time line of mufti mahmood's life - second email.

It shows that he remained a congressite supporter to the end ...

It also shows that he merged with JUI in 1949 and that in 1956 the pro-ML faction left the JUI leaving behind JUH remnants in charge of the new JUI.

Kindly post the timeline here and on unplugged on my behalf as "Life of Mufti Mahmood Congress ally and JUH and JUI-
F leader".

There you slip away again Majumdar bhai! Nevertheless, Happy Dusshera to you too!

Yeah so Mufti was the only extremist in JUI NWFP and the pro-ML pro-British JUI and other mullahs who were paid to propagate Pakistan and anti-Khidmatgar propaganda were secular moderate people. I see.

Guys,

I am off, happy Dushera/Vijay Dashmi to all of you in advance. Sadna, YLH it was nice to see you guys slug it out just like the good old days.

Regards

#252 by majumdar

He believed in something very noble but untrue (Hindoo-Muslim Unity) and saw the light too late. MKG believed in something very ignoble.

Majumdar bhai, now you're trying to spin this into something very different. I'm not arguing on the merits (or the lack of it) of their beliefs. Just tell me why is it okay when Jinnah "realizes the truth" when he was more than 70 and Gandhi not allowed the same when he was much younger?

No sadna ... Our contention is that JUI-F of today is the historic JUH of NWFP of which Azad was national president and elected representative.

The rest is your twisting and turning and nothing else.

Majumdar,

Even Adam Khan admits that Mufti Mahmood was a staunch Congress ally.

JUH elected Azad to the constituent assembly from NWFP

corr: I dunno about the Congress(which was not allowed in tribal areas) but Cunningham certainly tried to bribe Fakir of Ipi.

Yaar Masanamuthu, both Yasser and Majumdar bhai are being disingenuous by claiming Gandhi was a casteist all his life. I sent Majumdar bhai a link to a web page in which was documented Gandhi's evolving views on the caste system and by the end of his life, he had even lived the life of a Harijan by cleaning his own toilet, something I'm not sure many of the highly enlightened folks would do even today. Obviously, he didn't read it because if he did, he wouldn't repeat the same old falsities time and again.

majumdar
Everyone tried to bribe Fakir of Ipi, the British and ML too. Cunningham certainly tried.

Mantolives
Your assertion that the pro-British anti-Khidmatgar JUI in NWFP went out of existence in 1947 is just your assertion, nothing more.

Your implication that the pro-British anti-Khidmatgar JUI in NWFP which you assert went out of existence in 1947, was moderate/secular unlike JUH, is just your implication, nothing more.

Harishbhai,

He believed in something very noble but untrue (Hindoo-Muslim Unity) and saw the light too late. MKG believed in something very ignoble.

Regards

Sadna,

I think YLH has already said that JUI was not a KK creation but a minor pro-ML Deobandi outfit.

As far as KKs being not allowed into tribal areas is considered, it maybe true (although I am not an expert at NWFP history and geography) but Frontier Congress did support militants like Fakir of Ippi didnt it? These were the forerunners of todays Baitullahs. You can correct me if I am wrong on this.

Same ways, you can clarify on whether Mufti Mehmood remained a Cong ally till almost the very end and on whether his son cannot be considered the father of Taliban.

Regards

#227 by majumdar

MKG's comments on caste (in 1922 when he was a 53 year old) can hardly be called modernist.

There you go again Majumdar bhai! How old was Jinnah when he engineered the Partition? Last night you offered the lame excuse that Jinnah tried to be the "best ambassador" and all that and once he realized the truth, he chose to break India into two. If Jinnah is allowed to "realize the truth" when he was almost 70, why can't Gandhi be allowed that liberty?

When I asked you this, you disappeared and here you are today, offering the same excuses to absolve Jinnah of all blame. Sigh!

Sadna,

So are you denying that Mufti Mahmood was part of Azad led Jamiat e ulema Hind in 1947?

Those preaching hatred against the Americans and those responsible for the taliban are from Azad led JUH.

The "JUI" you are talking about is no where today ... The JUI-F is the historical JUH.

corr: You need to show some facts for example that the JUI which operated at say so of the British and Muslim League in NWFP had a moderate/secular ideology without Mufti and only when Mufti/JUH joined the NWFP JUI, only then NWFP JUI became extremist.

majumdar

I showed that until 1947 JUI in NWFP was in the pay of the British governor helping him with pro-Pakistan pro-Muslim League and anti-Congress/Khidmatgar propaganda. Also that the Khidmatgars were not allowed into the tribal areas only British-paid mullahs were. Neither of you even acknowledged this or the fact that Khidmatgars were not responsible for the JUI in NWFP, the British and ML were.

I have also seen no evidence from you that Mufti was not part of the JUI Usmani faction which broke off and supported Pakistan in 1945. You need to some facts for example that the JUI which operated at say so of the British and Muslim League in NWFP had a moderate/secular ideology without Mufti and only when Mufti/JUH joined the NWFP JUI, only then NWFP JUI became extremist.

Is Mantolives in fact saying that JUI preaching enmity against Hindus and Khidmatgars(as JUI did at ML and British say so before 1947 in NWFP) was secular moderation but preaching enmity against Americans(as the Taliban does) is extremist?

Majumdar

I can access chowk on only blackberry. May you would be kind enough to do so.

As for sadna ...I think what happened here today proves yet again that she is a crook and liar without parallel.

And you know who else was a leading member of Jamiat e ulema Hind in NWFP...

Maulana Abul al Kalam Azad !

He was the president of JUH in and an elected representative of the Party in 1947 from NWFP ...that's right.

Now if this JUH (JUI-F of today) was somehow pro pakistan in 1947 what was it doing electing Azad ?


The reason why they dropped Hind and adopted islam in 1948 was because it was no longer part of Hindustan.

Yet another faction became Jamiat e ulema pakistan as well.

Yasser mian,

You could post those articles you wrote on PTH on this thread and as I-logs for folks' reference.

Regards

Sadna

Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid?

Why don't you tell us the details of Khan sb ministry ... Was JUH not part of Khan ministry?

You keep saying JUI, but could you name one famous leader from this JUI?



Majumdar,

It was not even about hijacking. Mufti Mahmood's faction of JUI (ex JUH) was always against Pakistan and was the largest political party after Congress and the league.

Muthu,

MKG made JLN the head of INC (and effectively India) deliberately 'cos he knew that JLN would be far better at implementing the dhimmi agenda. Which JLN carried out to the best of his ability. Now if some guys are OK with dhimmitude there is nothing wrong with this.

Regards

majumdar:

'Cos he went out of his way to promote Jwahirullah over Patel, a better realist.

So why he did not do the same with Muslims laws overruling Muslim right wing

Are we talking about Gandhi or Nehru?.

Even assuming Gandhi played a role in Nehru's rule (years after his death), that does not sound like a strong enough reason to hate Gandhi. just my 2 cents.. :-)

I still see no reason for calling Gandhi the grandfather of Taliban.

Sadna,

Pls try to understand YLH's argument. His argument is that JUH types hijacked JUI and usurped their name post 1947. That the ideology of JUI was actually the same as that of JUH of undivided India. Maybe you can comment on whether YLH is correct on that or not.

Regards

Yeah which JUH faction was that, apart from Mufti Mahmood? After being pro-British and pro-Muslim League till 1947, how did JUI suddenly become pro-Congress in the 1960s when it first became a political party?

Muthu,

If Nehru screwed up why is that a problem of Gandhi?

'Cos he went out of his way to promote Jwahirullah over Patel, a better realist.

good things like Hindu law reforms/ women's rights etc

So why he did not do the same with Muslims laws overruling Muslim right wing

But Hindus have had plenty of experience being dhimmis

That was one reason why many Hindoos like Bankim welcome British Raj- that they wud never have to be dhimmis again and here we had MKG.

Regards

JUH NWFP was Pro congress, pro gandhi, pro kK and part of the NWFP govt.

If I am not mistaken Azad the congress president ran on a JUH ticket in the election from NWFP.

Pre-partition NWFP JUI was then merely breakaway fraction of a few mullahs who are not even known today.

Majumdar,

I am talking about JUH. The JUH of Mufti Mahmood ...which was the largest Jamiat e ulema group in NWFP and which joined JUI after partition.

Naturally Mufti Mahmood's JUH elements dominated the JUI... And the JUI-F is the exact replica of JUH NWFP which was part of the Frontier Congress goverbment.

Sadna is a crook who is inventing her own history when she knows what I am talking about exactly.

She will continue to lie no matter what one says.

MKG's comments on caste (in 1922 when he was a 53 year old) can hardly be called modernist.

I'd rather consider his actions, (blessing his son to marry out of caste in 1930s when he was in his 60s, his life long efforts in eradicating untouchability) than some translated words from a Gujarati magazine.

majumdar
Mantolives can wish it were so. He has provided no evidence for that storyline except one man Fazlur Rehman's father whose party entered politics only in the 1960s and whose party in NWFP before independence was in the pocket of Muslim League and the British.

MKG appointed Jwahirullah as India's PM and he went on to **** Indians/Hindoos royally and you think that is a weak reason to hate MKG?

If Nehru screwed up why is that a problem of Gandhi?. It's not all bad, in the social sector, I think Nehru/Ambedkar did some good things like Hindu law reforms/ women's rights etc.. against the objections of Hindu right wing nutcases..

What were these circumstances pre-Partition which made dhimmitude desirable?


Don't you know?. The story of the whole of India surviving as a country ruled by Hindus is only a dream prior to 1947. There was no precedence for the last 1000 years. But Hindus have had plenty of experience being dhimmis. :-)

JUI in NWFP was anti-Khimadtgar anti-Congress and anti-Pakistan Cunningham's diary shows. Mantolives has created a mythical JUI based on the persona of one man who was never to my knowledge sent to jail for sedition by the Pakistan govt like the Khidmatgars were, and yet Mantolives is blaming the Khidmatgars for his activities.

Sadna,

I guess what YLH means is that JUH elements joined JUI and later muscled their way into control over it much like Unionist feudals got control of the Punjab League. Then on, JUI's ideology was the original Deobandi-Congressi-JUH ideology. YLH can correct me if I am wrong.

Regards

Yeah Usmani was so insignificant he led Jinnah's funeral prayers by Jinnah's own request.

No we mean Jamiat e ulema hind was pro congress, pro kkk, pro bacha khan, part of the Congress government ...and today its present form JUI-F is led by Mufti Mahmood's son fazlur rahman who is held to be the father of the taliban.

We are talking of JUI NWFP for which Khidmatgars are being held responsible. Which other JUI was there? The JUI faction in Karachi was the one supported by the immigrants to Pakistan from UP. Was the Karachi JUI pro-Congress?

Muthu,

MKG's comments on caste (in 1922 when he was a 53 year old) can hardly be called modernist.

Regards

I can't believe that sadna is wasting time when she knows that we were talking of Jamiat e ulema Hind (present day jamiat e ulema islam fazloo group) and not Usmani's breakaway JUI.

Oh, you mean JUI was pro-Pakistan anti-Congress anti-Khidmatgar in NWFP till 1947. In 1947 Usmani was asked by Jinnah to raise the Pakistan flag for the first time. Then after that Usmani remained alive two more years but JUI became pro-Congress and purged all its pro-Pakistan members. Is that your story now?

All I am saying is that he promoted a anti-modernist religious attitude into national politics (which was hitherto dominated by moderate secularists like GKG and MAJ) which has mutated today into Taliban, SIMI and BD.


I think that anti-modernist religious attitude was restricted to Islam. He was much modern in regards to reforms in Hinduism. I think it is acceptable, because as a dhimmi he can't influence much anyways.

Sadna/YLH,

So do we finally agree now on the following:

That Mufti Mehmood was a INC ally till 1947.
That Mufti Mehmood was Fazloo's father.
That Fazloo was Taliban's founder.

Regards

I can't believe sadna's entire argument is based on a deliberate confusion of the names.

Atleast she has now admitted that Mufti Mahmood was a Congress ally till the end.

Muthu,

somehow this looks like a weak reason for any kind of hatred against Gandhi.

MKG appointed Jwahirullah as India's PM and he went on to **** Indians/Hindoos royally and you think that is a weak reason to hate MKG?

I don't think being a 'dhimmi' is that bad, especially given the circumstances that Gandhi was in prior to partition.

What were these circumstances pre-Partition which made dhimmitude desirable?

I agree that it has spread a wrong message of "dhimmitude".

Thanks for agreeing on this at least.

Regards

Sadna...

Electorally the Jamiat e ulema hind was part of Dr khan sb's government in NWFP...

Additionally Maulana Azad had been elected on a JUH ticket from NWFP ironically in 1945 elections ...

We are talking about this group which was led by Mufti Mahmood and which is called JUI-F today.

Just admit that you lied and got caught as usual.

Sadna,

I cant answer about YLH but for myself I have never held KKs responsible for Taliboon. I am not saying that the fedayeens read verses from "My Experiments..." before blowing themselves up or that MKG had a fling with Baitullah Mehsud's grandma. All I am saying is that he promoted a anti-modernist religious attitude into national politics (which was hitherto dominated by moderate secularists like GKG and MAJ) which has mutated today into Taliban, SIMI and BD. And Frontier Congress and its allies JUH did encourage Fakkir of Ippi types.

Regards

Sadna,

The present day JUI-F is JUH of Mufti Mahmood... Not the JUI breakaway faction you are talking about ...

Was Mufti Mahmood not a Congress ally? He was. His son is the father of the taliban.

Why are you going in circles? Why aren't you answering the question?

No one is holding KK responsible for JUI of shabbir ahmed usmani. we are talking about Jamiat e ulema hind of Mufti mahmood which is the jamiat e ulema islam fazl group today.

That incidentally is one of my main grouse against him and his appointee as PM, Jwahirullah imprinted dhimmitude on the whole country

Ok. somehow this looks like a weak reason for any kind of hatred against Gandhi.

I don't think being a 'dhimmi' is that bad, especially given the circumstances that Gandhi was in prior to partition.

I agree that it has spread a wrong message of "dhimmitude".

majumdar
Why worry about finding more facts of history to ignore or selectively 'de-emphasize' when you are only trying to construct a mythology? Fazlur Rehman's father might have been a hold out till 1947, but the JUI in NWFP had a tradition of British collaboration against Khidmatgars. Khidmatgars went to jail immediately after independence. Fazlur Rehman's father went on to form NWFP's government, correct me if I am wrong. Why were Khidmatgars responsible for Fazlur Rehman's dad when they were themselves banned and in jail?

How could Khidmatgars be responsible for JUI in NWFP when JUI in NWFP was paid for the entire length of the war to preach support for the British and Muslim League and ALSO preach in favor of Pakistan in NWFP as early as in 1942 and oppose the Congress/Khidmatgars?

Then suddenly in 1947 JUI in NWFP turned traitor to Pakistan and Khidmatgars became responsible for JUI?

And pls. note Khidmatgars were not allowed by the British to enter the tribal agencies, only mullahs paid by Cunningham(AND LISTED IN HIS DIARY) were allowed to enter the tribal agencies. Yet KHIDMATGARS are held responsible for the situation in tribal agencies.

Look at Sadna go ...

Sadna answer the question if you have any honest bone in your body left (though you don't).


On what side were Mufti Mahmood and his JUH NWFP (today's JUI-F) before partition?

Whose son is Fazlurrahman the father of taliban... Mufti Mahmood or these mullahs you are naming?

Sadna,

Thanks for JUI's history.

Now you can elborate on the following:

1. How influential was JUI vis-a-vis JUH factions.
2. Which of today's Talibs or even Islamist parties can be considered JUH elements or JUI elements. I wud presume that JUH elements who gravitated to JUI post 1946 shud be treated as JUH rathers than JUI-ites. Just as Unionists who defected to the League post 1946 shud be treated essentially as Unionists rather than Leaguers.

Regards

The JUI of Shabbir Ahmed Usmani was a minor entity ...

JUI in Pakistan became a national force after JUH remnants joined it after partition.

Mufti Mahmood was the tallest leader of the JUH in NWFP .. Staunchest Congress ally... And after 1947 the grandest figure of Deoband in Pakistan.

He was also head of the PNA of which Wali Khan's part was a member.

"It is significant that the Muslim League was founded in the Frontier in Abbottabad in September 1937, at the hands of mullahs. The President of Jaimat-ul-Ulema, Maulana Shakirullah of Nowshera, was the leading figure in the ceremony who also became the League�s first president, and the Jamiat�s Secretary, Maulana Mohammad Shuaib of Mardan, became its first secretary."

From Governor Cunningham's diarys of the late 1930 period on paying off mullahs:

"Kuli Khan at once arranged secret meetings with tribal mullahs and others who would not come out into the open. With some mullahs he had to establish relations through certain persons in Hyderabad state�Through Mullah Marwat, Kuli Khan established relations with the office bearers of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema Sarhad and their supporters in India.

These mullahs, many of whom had constantly been anti-British, began to speak and wail against the Russians and Germans on the platform and in the press. Subsidies were paid to all these mullahs through Mullah Marwat.

The recruits were briefed to tell the Muslims that on one side were the British, recognised by Islam as the People of the Book, and with whom Islam even permitted intermarriage; on the other were the Bolsheviks who were not only among the people of the Book but, according to the British line of propaganda, were rank atheists. It followed that the British and Islam were on the same side; the common task was to fight against this new anti-religious threat. The mullah�s were also required to keep emphasising to the Muslims that enlisting in the British army and fighting in support of the British was a great and noble service to Islam.

Cunningham writes that he had persuaded the leaders of Jamiat-ul-Ulema Sarhad to go to Faqir Ipi in Waziristan and tell him that his opposing Britain was no longer in the interest of Islam; now Britain was at war with Germany and Italy, and had taken up arms against kufr, which itself was a wholly Islamic objective.

This campaign of rallying Islam to Britain�s support through letters, speeches, personal lobbying, etc., was being carried out with extraordinary secrecy so that nobody got a hint that Britain itself was involved in it. Cunningham, however, remained in constant touch. He was told of every bit of progress. When Faqir Ipi�s aide, Mohammad Waris, wrote back to Jamiat-ul-Ulema Sarhad, he quickly learnt about it and was pleased. He noted the friendly tone and the lack of any sign of suspicion that the effort had been undertaken at British behest.

The outbreak of war in Europe led to differences within India between the British and the Congress. Congress ministries resigned in eight provinces and situation of confrontation began to develop.

The NWFP governor found it necessary that in addition to tribal areas and Afghanistan, mullahs� support in the province too should be organised. Since in the early years the war was only against Germany and Italy, the British thought it advisable to tone down their campaign here against the Soviet Union and to concentrate more on the two immediate enemies.

...
Cunningham then gives a detailed description of the performance of these mercenary mullahs, especially of Kuli Khan. It seems the Khan Bahadur had most of his work performed through Jamiat-ul-Ulema Sarhad.

The detail go into number of meetings held, resolutions passed, pamphlets printed, tours undertaken and contacts established. Cunningham also for the first time mentions the speeches made against the Congress: �Maulana Mohammad Shuaib toured Mardan district condemning Satyagraha�.Pamphlet by Maulana Madaullah on war situation, anti-Congress� �etc.


Cunningham records their doings in detail. For instance:
Jamiat-ul-Ulema toured in Kohat district in Jun�42 and in Peshawar and Mardan in July doing intensive propaganda-
a. Anti-Axis, on the Islamic theme generally, and
b. Anti-Congress, particularly on the Pakistan theme.
Mullah in Peshawar and Mardan intensified the anti-Congress propagand during July � August�42.

In other words the British had stimulated these mullahs in support of political work on behalf of the Muslim League. They were thus using this religious band exactly in accordance with the changing needs in the ebbs and tides of the War. They had so yoked the mullah to their subservience that whatever their requirement, the mullah was ready to deliver promptly finding a justification for it in Islam.

Thus when Britain felt reassured about the Russians, it diverted the mullahs to taking on the Khudai Khidmatgars. By August 1942 in Mardan alone the Swat Prime Minister had, according to Cunningham, employed 18 mullahs. Two were in the attendance of Pir Baba and were paid a monthly allowance of Rs. 30.

Cunningham also recalls:
Maulana Mohammad Shuaib and Maulana Madarullah came to see me at Nathigali on 26th August and produced a long draft in Urdu of their pamphlet which they propose to issue both in the district and in T.T. (Tribal territory) � all good anti-Congress, anti-Japanese and anti-Axis stuff. They are extremely friendly.

The English were careful about their own service to Islam by recording the names, addresses etc., of all these mullahs: 24 mullahs were from Peshawar tehsil, six of them from Peshawar city; 13 from Charsadda tehsil; three from Nowshera; 18 from Mardan and Swabi.

This process continued. Right until 1946, the names of every one of the mullahs that Cunningham hired is duly recorded in his diaries. "

Sadna,

If YLH is correct, JUI was a minor non entity sort. Maybe you can correct YLH on that.

Regards

Muthu,

i can understand if you are pained at the splitting up of Bengal and got personally affected and needed someone to blame.

I am by no means pained at the breakup of Bengal, although my father's family is from EB. Rather, I am pained that Bengali Hindoos did not show the same kind of foresight that Punjabi Hindoos and Sikhs showed thanks to local traitors like JNM and the national traitor Gaddar-e-Azam- MKG.

Gandhi as we know is a perfect dhimmi

That incidentally is one of my main grouse against him and his appointee as PM, Jwahirullah imprinted dhimmitude on the whole country.

Regards

No one is asking kk to be responsible for anyone but itself.

We are holding Congress responsible for its ally the Jamiat e ulema Hind ...the main NWFP faction of which goes under the name JUI-F these days.

Ok nautanki champion answer this:

Which side were Mufti Mahmood and his Jamiat e Ulema Hind NWFP on in 1945-1947 ?


When you will answer this your entire nautanki will unravel...

The answer is Congress.


Incidentally who is called the father of the taliban?

Mufti Mahmood's son Fazlur rahman.

Ok nautanki champion answer this:

Which side were Mufti Mahmood and his Jamiat e Ulema Hind NWFP on in 1945-1947 ?


When you will answer this your entire nautanki will unravel...

The answer is Congress.


Incidentally who is called the father of the taliban?

Mufti Mahmood's son Fazlur rahman.

Re: # 200

You forgot masadi's original contribution MFJ

Frankly I don't understand why sadna lies like she does about history.

Atleast be honest and don't try and confuse people.

Mantolives
Your calling something a lie doesn't make it so, because unfortunately for you the British kept records. In NWFP JUI was a British collaborationist set up which was on ML's side AGAINST the Khidmatgars. There is no way in which you can hold the Khidmatgars responsible for JUI in NWFP, you have to hold the British and Jinnah's joint anti-Congress efforts in the province for over a decade responsible.

#197 by majumdar

But maybe Jinnahite Pakis like YLH, Arifbhai and Tahmed sahib can confirm whether today's Pak is the Pak of Jinnah sahib's dreams or not. Whether it follows Jinnah's ideology or not?

No expert opinion is needed Majumdar bhai; just a little bit of commonsense is enough.

Majumdar,

There was Jamiat e ulema Hind the main deobandi party.

A small faction of this broke away and supported Jinnah. It began calling itself Jamiat ulema Islam under Usmani.


Mufti Mahmood and his Jamiat-e-ulema Hind NWFP supported Congress through out. After partition the remnants of this JUH who supported Gandhi joined Usmani's JUI ...and because they were larger group they soon dominated the JUI.

The Mufti Mahmood led Jamiat e ulema consisted mainly of JUH mullahs who had opposed Pakistan.

In the 1980s Mufti Mahmood JUI (which was entirely composed of Jamiat e ulema Hind remnants) broke into two:

Fazl group and sami ul haq group. Both were historically opposed to Pakistan.


All sadna is playing on is a similarity in the name. The only remnant of Usmani's JUI is Ehteram ul haq Thanvi who is a member of Imran Khan's Tehreek e insaaf.

majumdar:

My head is spinning with so many Jamaats being mentioned.


he..he.. same with me. Thank Allah for abbreviations.. JUI, JUF, JUI-S, NCM, YLH, MAJ, MKG etc..etc..

keep it going.

even i don't get your hatred against Gandhi. i can understand if you are pained at the splitting up of Bengal and got personally affected and needed someone to blame.

Gandhi as we know is a perfect dhimmi, but that doesn't make him a less nobler person.

All these childish charges at Gandhi, like him being a casteist et..al can be easily verified to be false. He blessed his son to marry outside caste, so how can he be against inter caste dining / marrying.

Re: # 188
Majumder...
" Why did he have to call off NCM after a violence against policemen at Chauri Chaura and not after the Mopah violence?..."

NCM and other agitation initiated by Gandhi was to see that people do not use violence as means to drive out British Govt. Chauri Chaura was such an incident where the Govt. machinery was targetted....

What Gandhi did was very much unfair to Indians. But that never imples, those islamists would have behaved like civilised person, if Gandhi would not have supported them...

Gandhi had very little say on moslems. It was these pamperings, which had kept some section of moslems out of the clutch of ML. As a leader of Congress whatever he had done, is quite justified....

Sadna

What kind of a liar are you?

Answer this question:

Did Mufti Mahmood and his party support Congress or the Muslim League?


They supported the Congress. They were part of Jamiat e ulema Hind. After 1948 they merged with JUI and later Mufti Mahmood made his own faction ie the JUI-F


Shabbir Ahmed usmani's small JUI pre-partition did not even feature in political campaign in NWFP.

Has it come to outright lying sadna?

Harishbhai,

Majumdar bhai, thanks for this Dusshera eve joke

Well, if I can make you smile, it is certainly worth it.

But maybe Jinnahite Pakis like YLH, Arifbhai and Tahmed sahib can confirm whether today's Pak is the Pak of Jinnah sahib's dreams or not. Whether it follows Jinnah's ideology or not?

Regards

#194 by majumdar

I think I have explained before that by 1946-47, thinsg were so bad that it was out of folks control.

So who was responsible for things getting out of control? Will you now blame MKG, the only man who at great personal risk to his life tried to bring the situation under control, unlike a certain gentleman who was preparing to be arrested (for inciting the violence) by sleeping on the floors?

Majumder....
Bringing Gandhi in current islamic terrorism is something very funny....
The Islamic Donation Boxes kept outside Karachi or Islamabad mosques are filled with money from middle class Pakistanis as donation to Kashmiri Jihad. Islamic barbarism is something different. It has nothing to do with Gandhi...

Gandhi allowed something just to see that moslems do not throw spanner in his movement..
Gandhi was not at all misogynist, the way Manto is projecting. There were large number of female freedom fighters, who were involved in his movement....Sarojini Naidu, Matangini Hazra.....

Sadna,

I think I have explained before that by 1946-47, thinsg were so bad that it was out of folks control. If MAJ (pbuh) is responsible for the bloodletting in West Pak in 1947, MKG and JLN are responsible for the same in East Punjab, parts of UP and Bihar. Incidentally I first made this point to YLH when he was blaming INC, MKG and JLN for the killings in 1946-47.

Regards

Sadna/YLH,

My head is spinning with so many Jamaats being mentioned.

Now can you guys clarify which were the various Jaamat factions and who supported what in what period and which of them enjoyed popularity with masses and which were mere paper tigers?

Regards

majumdar
You have to explain to yourself someday why you hold Gandhi always responsible for what Muslims inside and outside his party did, but you never hold Jinnah responsible for what Muslim Leaguers ever did.

#186 by majumdar

Pakistan of today is not the one that MAJ (pbuh) created, in fact ever since his death, Pakistan has negated everything that he stood for.

Hahahaha!! Majumdar bhai, thanks for this Dusshera eve joke; I can do with one.

So how is MAJ (pbuh) responsible for the Taliban/SIMI?

You do know that what SIMI's ideology is, don't you Majumdar bhai? If you still play ignorant, I feel it would be futile to discuss any further.

What Mantolives is explaining to the world is that JUI did support the creation of Pakistan in NWFP and opposed the Khidmatgars in NWFP, but the Khidmatgars and Gandhi are responsible for JUI which exists today in NWFP. It is well to note that JUI mullahs were paid money by the British government to SET UP the NWFP Muslim League and oppose the Khidmatgars in 1937-1939. Unfortunately the Khidmatgars won the 1937 elections(and the 1946 elections) despite NWFP JUI mullahs' and British governors' best efforts. YET it is Khidmatgars who are responsible for JUI today, according to a 'secular' Pakistani.

Majumdar,

These arguments by sadna based on lies and similarly inane arguments by Harish show that they don't have a leg to stand on.

Sadna,

Why did MKG have to keep silent on the atrocities of Moplahs and assorted fundoos against Hindoos? Why did he downplay that? Why did he have to call off NCM after a violence against policemen at Chauri Chaura and not after the Mopah violence?

Regards

PS: Sadna's deliberate dishonesty on this point has been exposed many times.

Jamiat e ulema hind NWFP was the predominant Jamiat e Ulema and it was quite active pro-Congress throughout the elections of 1945-1946 and it was carrying out anti-league propaganda in both the settled and tribal areas.

Shabbir Ahmed usmani's breakaway Jamiat-e-ulema was not even popular in NWFP.

The only time League ever came together with JUH was for a brief six month period in the Muslim unity board in UP in 1937.

Either sadna is really ignorant or she is trying to confuse people by lying out of her teeth.

Harishbhai,

Re: 184

How? Pakistan of today is not the one that MAJ (pbuh) created, in fact ever since his death, Pakistan has negated everything that he stood for. Even YLH admits that. So how is MAJ (pbuh) responsible for the Taliban/SIMI?

Regards

majumdar
Jinnah would have had to give up his lucrative practice if he had signed on to the NCM. Noncooperation meant giving up practice, not paying taxes, quitting govt jobs etc. Jinnah was never a non-cooperating politician, ever. He also had no problem working with any of the Muslim politicians who participated in the Khilafat movement and upheld the Khilafat cause, some of them were quite close to him.

Secondly, as adamkhan said earlier, you give too much credit to Gandhi for the Khilafat movement. The movement was in force before Gandhi even came to India, and at best his role was of a collaborater with the Khilafat movement(as tying it up with NCM), he was not the spearhead by any measure. Gandhi took an existing discontent and an existing movement and tied up with it. He was not the one who enabled the mullahs, the mullahs were enabled by his Muslim colleagues heading the movement. If Jinnah is not held responsible for any the excesses committed by ML leaders and members, why should Gandhi be held responsible for what his Muslim colleagues said or chose to do?

#182 by majumdar

Besides, neither YLH nor I are accusing MKG of creating the Taliban we are accusing him of promoting a strain of thought within the Muslim community which would mutate into the Taliban, among other things.

In which case Majumdar bhai, can we safely lay the blame for Islamic terrorism in India on Jinnah and his TNT? And for the Shia-Sunni divide in Pakistan, can we say Jinnah was the father of the Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi? And what about the persecution of Ahmadis?

Majumdar,

Sadna is lying again. The JUI-F faction of which Mufti Mahmood was the head was part of the Jamiat-e-ulema hind from 1945-1947. After partition JUH mullahs joined JUI-F of Shabbir Ahmed Usmani.

She is confusing Shabir Ahmed Usmani's JUI with Mufti Mahmood's JUH which is today JUI-F.

The JUI of Shabbir Ahmed Usmani does not exist anymore ... because the other JUI-S is also a breakaway faction of Mufti Mahmood's JUI.

Usmani's JUI was a small breakaway faction of the JUH.

Sadna,

1. MAJ (pbuh) quit INC over Khilafat not over the veto in UP/Bombay/CP legislatures.

2. To the best of my knowledge, the Muslim middle classes in Pakistan are not really aware of MKG's nefarious role in the creation of the Taliban. Besides, neither YLH nor I are accusing MKG of creating the Taliban we are accusing him of promoting a strain of thought within the Muslim community which would mutate into the Taliban, among other things.

Regards

PS: And if the said Muslim middle class supported Muslim fundamentalists to fight the Hindus back in 1937 and in 1947 and today even 60 years later, then Muslim middle class has to accept responsibility for that support and can't shout Gandhi Gandhi to escape responsibility.

majumdar
'Sidelining of Muslim middle class' is your term for Congress not surrendering its legislative majorities in UP, Bombay and other provinces to a Muslim League veto, not mine.

Sadna,

If ML had to be accepted as the Sole Spokespersons for Muslims, naturally they had to include all sections of Muslims- feudals, salariat and clergy- in it. That is why the inclusion of JUI etc.

Naturally, INC too had to include all shades of opinions within all communities if it was to sepak for all Indians. But you have question the sidelining of the emerging Muslim middle classes in favour of rank fundoos.

Regards

majumdar
If JUI lied in 1971 about its pro-Pakistan pro-League and anti-Khidmatgar mullah giri from 1945-1947, particularly in NWFP, how does that change the facts of history?

If JUI lied in 1971 about its pro-Pakistan mullah giri activities from 1945-1947, particularly in NWFP, why is that my problem?

And it is also worth understanding that Jinnah and ML wouldn't have won even as many seats as they did in UP in 1937 without Jinnah going out of his way to ally with Jamiat ul Ulema and putting up Jamiat ul Ulema candidates for the elections.

What the JUI could never accept about ML was their collaborationist tendency with British authorities. Those JUI factions who later collaborated with Jinnah and the British in 1945-1947 period had to split off from the parent JUI when they did so. If Gandhi made a compromise with Ali brothers, Ansari and Azad with the British as common enemy in 1920, then Jinnah made a compromise with the Ali brother surviving, other fundamentalists and the British with the Congress as common enemy from 1937 onwards. That is why even today Afghanistan must be laid waste by Pakistan-friendly Taliban(who will be shown to be adherents of Jinnah), Indians must be blamed for Pakistan's own homegrown Taliban(who will be called Gandhi's adherents), because the Indians are the common enemy and meanwhile the foreigner Americans can be compromised with.

Sadna,

Pakistan was almost inevitable by 1945 and if one factionm of JUH saw the writing on the wall, you cant blame them for it. But Pakistan was ML's creation, not JUH and after 1971 they did comments that they were not responsible for the sin of creating Pakistan, unless I am mistaken on the facts.

Regards

In fact in the 1945-1946 elections and the 1947 referendum in NWFP, Jamiat ul ulema was on Jinnah's side and campaigned for Pakistan in NWFP.

Yeah, and since Mantolives will never inform you, the Jamiat ul Ulema split on the question of Pakistan in 1945. This has been pointed out to Mantolives several times. To say that the Pakistan wing of the JUI opposed creation of Pakistan is a lie which Mantolives keeps repeating for some unknown reason.

Yasser,

MKG's role in encouraging Muslim fundoos in India is very well-known, that was the reason he got Comrade Jwahirullah to supersede Patel as India's first PM. The Nehru-Gandhi INC continues its pious role of appeasing vicious minority communalists while ensuring that Muslims remain among the poorest lot in the country very faithfully till date.

Regards

Hi Manto...:P

How're you...

The violence in NWFP caused by mullahs and ML Guards in the Dec1946-June 1947 period is well documented and only dishonest historians can claim ignorance. Bashing Gandhi by a Pakistani is one thing. Bashing Ghaffar Khan and a whole section of Pashtuns by a Pakistani completely falsifying history, is completely another thing. I sympathise deeply with adamkhan. He is having to go down with a ship sunk by ignorants and ignoramuses, and for no good reason. The only hope is that there are more adamkhans than Mantolives in Pakistan.

Here is an old post that is RELEVANT in this regard: Gandhi is the father of politicized religion mind you... not just Hinduism (read Farzana Versey's "Mahatma's Progeny") but also the deobandi Islam really which came into the forefront of South Asia's religious politics because of Gandhi:



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.

PS. Which brings me to my next question... If Adam Khan is fairminded why doesn't he first attack those who put up that twisted logic like Jayp and Bj before I respond with what he feels is equally twisted logic? Why does he try and put up the same twisted logic to show the alleged twist in my logic only after I have demolished the original twisted logic.

Indeed this is all very twisted on part of adam khan.

Adam is right when he says that it would be twisted logic to blame Jinnah ... Such twisted logic is deployed by the other side.

My contention is that there is a lot more evidence and supporting logic to blame Gandhi...

Gandhi did not merely "ally" himself with the islamists or give them shelter. He made them a major factor in Indian politics because he trusted them more than secular politicians.

My whole Gandhi thing has always been in reaction to people who wish to establish the idiotic connection between Pakistan's creation and islamist groups in NWFP.

The historic antecedents of the Islamist terrorists have nothing to do with Pakistan or its creation ... They were in bed with Gandhi.

Even the Manki sharifs and niazis who were marginal figures never resorted to militancy or supported militancy of any kind.

Meanwhile right from the Moplahs to Faqir of Ipi and majliseahrar types that Gandhi supported, encouraged and egged on directly or indirectly were violent. Gandhi even defended their violence ...

This is all I am saying.

Re: # 163
Manto...
"The people in Swat creating violence are Deobandi fundamentalists ... Deobandi Fundamentalists were brought into politics by Gandhi...as established earlier...."

There are number of Islamic political uprisings accross the world. The best (worst) example is Ayatollahs stepping into power in Iran. Even in Turkey, islamists are gaining power. Gandhi is not associated with any of these movements. There is something ugly in Islam, which incites people to create a gang to commit crime. Any person, knowing the nature of Islam, will try to take such advantage (use Islam to mobilise people). Taliban and Deobandis are essential problem of Islam, not Gandhi's. There are numerous Gandhi followers, who are doing good work. Vandana Shiva, Sunderlal Bahuguna.... Because Gandhi provided shelter to islamists, it does not make him criminal. It was his political compulsion, which was essential for India at that time. His message was clear. So, people were able to use it with success...
Couple of exceptions here and there do not make that real Gandhi (Elephant's eyes are very small, so elephant must be small animal!!!!).

Btw even Niazi was a Barelvi... (Ref: your excuse that Faqir of Ipi was allegedly barelvi).

The people in Swat creating violence are Deobandi fundamentalists ... Deobandi Fundamentalists were brought into politics by Gandhi...as established earlier.

So I am afraid that even that last bit is a stretch.

Adam khan,

Sorry no can do. You have now gone from lying to absurdities. I detect a deviousness which is clearly chowk-induced.

The way you are trying to make it about Jinnah is rather ironic. Abdus Sattar Niazi was a small time leader at Jinnah's time. Infact Jinnah had taken note of Niazi's Islamic state rhetoric and reprimanded him after which Niazi had remained distant from Jinnah. Jinnah's man was Sir Zafrullah Khan and there are clear statements by Jinnah that put people like Niazi firmly in their place when Jinnah clearly said that Ahmadis were Muslims and no one would be allowed to expel them from the League. . Did Gandhi ever make a straight statement like that against deobandi fundamentalism?

By 1960s Niazi joined Jamiat Ulema Pakistan ... It is like saying that all faults of Qayyum Khan including the so called Barbara massacre is Bacha Khan's fault because Qayyum had been Bacha's boy earlier.

In any event, I established a clear link between Deobandi Islamists wreaking havoc on NWFP and Gandhi... I also established support of Gandhi's boys for faqir of ipi. It is tad bit more than a mere claim that Niazi was once in the Muslim League. Niazi was given a shut up call by Jinnah and he did not dare open his mouth on the Ahmadi issue while Jinnah was alive. Bacha Khan and Faqir of Ipi were doing what they did during Gandhi's lifetime. Wahabi and Deobandi extremist supporters of the Congress did what they did during Gandhi's life time. Majlis-e-ahrar which called ahmadis kafir through out ...were allied to Gandhi till his death. Did Gandhi ever tell them to refrain from it? Never.


No matter how you put it, Gandhi's linkage to Islamists of NWFP is much more profound and long-standing than

Also I referred you to primary sources about Zalmay pakhtoon and how Dr. Khan sb gave them arms licences ...It was a terrorist organization that carried out bomb blasts and assassinations - including the famous Sherpao assassination.


But how long are you going to raise these tangential issues and jump from Manki to Niazi. Give credit where it is due ...Gandhi made Deobandi Islam a political force to reckon with ... Deobandi Islam today is giving both India and Pakistan nightmares.

Mantolives:

I never said Fakir of Ipi was a "liberal", what I said was that he belonged to a different school of thought than baitullah... you are the one lumping them together, but then you hold manki apart from Fazlullah because Jinnah promised him Shariah...

You did not answer my question, and reference to your articles is not a justified answer... copy paste them here I dont know which parts are you reffering to.

But in anycase, Jinnah's non-secular alliances didnt stop at Pir of Manki Sharif, there is another clown that was part of the "secular" league, one Maulana Abdul Sattar Khan Niazi, who was a staunch supporter of the Khattam a Nabouwat movement, so thus ONCE AGAIN... using YOUR logic, Jinnah is to blame for the excommunication of Ahmadis from Islam as well..

Zalmay Pakhtoon organized terrorist organization which was funded and financed by Dr. Khan sb then PM of NWFP and Ghani Khan Bacha Khan's son.

again no proof what so ever... so this claim of yours is a lie.

Unlike the so called "leaguer mobs",

Great, so now you are denying that there were no massacres of Pakistani non-muslims after 1947? or were the justified because of the killings on the other side..

Like I said, your twisted logic blames Jinnah for all the schools burnt in Swat... go figure!

Manto....
Do these talibans kill people in the name of Gandhi? Do any Gandhiwadi people resort to violence and destroy barber shop, girl's school, cinema hall etc...
The source is your holy book and prophet(7th century beduine raider). Gandhi encouraged them to lead barbaric life in return of loyalty. That is very common in politics (Indian).

Re: # 157

So when are you standing for elections?! It is about time somebody gave that old man Zardari a run for his money! And talking of money, I am sure a lot of checks are on their way -- what with those Dalits, those Sikhs, and those Christians all on your side!

Do you have any Pakistani Mussalmaans in there also?!

Actually the website is:

www.gandhism.net

Slight spelling mistake.

PS...eversince this morning, I have been bombarded with emails from Dalits, Sikhs, Indian christians and other people around the world congratulating me for writing part 1 of the Gandhi series in The News today


One of the emails forwarded me a website called www.gandhiism.net
even has a "gandhi kit" to educate people about the insidious nature of Gandhi and his true legacy.

It is quite remarkable really but a lot of people have begun to make a lot of noise.

It kind of affirms my faith in the saying ...truth does come out eventually.

Adam mian,

I have already discussed these issues in detail and have answered all these questions on several boards. I don't think I need to repeat myself.
The issue here is not Jinnah nor is saying "not in conflict with sharia" the same as promising sharia. You may revisit my articles on the issue.

As for Pir of Manki ...how ironic that for Faqir of Ipi you argue that he was a barelvi and therefore suddenly he was liberal. But Pir of Manki the arch Barelvi is suddenly conservative. Your double-speak is ironic.


Unlike Pir of Manki Sharif (who welcomed women out of Purdah and did not wage an insurgency war against Pakistan), Faqir of Ipi was the forerunner of the high intensity islamist insurgency that Behtullah Mehsud and taliban type fellows exhibit. He was supported by Bacha Khan, the Frontier Congress, Jamiat e ulema Hind etc.


So isn't it ironic that while Gandhi's own boys the Deobandis take the portion of the blame and his other boys the KK/ANP types were supporting Islamist insurgency in Waziristan ... And while it is the ANP that has imposed Sharia in Malakand ... you are attacking some letter which said that laws would not be in conflict with sharia to a barelvi leader like Manki who in any event was more liberal in his approach to Islam than both Faqir of Ipi and Gandhi's Deobandi boys.

You've yourself blamed radicalization of the tribal areas on Deobandis ... And the chief amongst these Deobandis is Fazlurrahman who is excessively proud of his father having opposed Pakistan and having supported Gandhi.

Unlike the so called "leaguer mobs", Zalmay Pakhtoon organized terrorist organization which was funded and financed by Dr. Khan sb then PM of NWFP and Ghani Khan Bacha Khan's son. I have already written in detail and quoted Primary sources in my NWFP series. You may visit that series... I have given unimpeachable sources in that.

Here let's stick to the issue of Gandhi. Which reminds me check out my article in The News today.

Mantolives:

1- First thing is first: Zalmay Pakhtoon was a violent organization which was involved in violence till the late 1990s.

Proof? some major news item? much like the exploits of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's army "the Federal Security Force" and their liaquat bagh massacre? anything of that sort? Or the ruthless killing done by leaguer mobs at the time of Partition?

Infact during the late 90s PSF (Pukhtoon Student Federation) was the youth wing of ANP, and in universities all over the NWFP its still considered the arch rival of Islami Jamiat a Talaba.

2-by telling Manki a true barelvi leader that Pakistan's laws shall not be in conflict with Sharia (and Jinnah did not think just laws and fair secular laws were in conflict with sharia) you wish to hold it against him?

first of all, why did Jinnah need to get someone as conservative as Pir of Manki Sharif on his side? Shouldnt the Pir be more "Gandhi Material" according to your line of reasoning? Or do you believe that the secular ideals of Jinnah could accomodate the pir given the substantial albeit conservative following that the pir had in dir and malakand?... If one is to follow your inaccurate line of reasoning (geneology and geography), Malakand being the birth place of the TNSM, places Sufi Mohammad and Fazlullah in the camp of Jinnah. So then it is Jinnah who is to be blamed for the insurgency in Swat if Gandhi jee is to be blamed for the insurgency in Waziristan.

and Jinnah did not think just laws and fair secular laws were in conflict with sharia

In his letter Jinnah was addressing the Pir of Manki Sharif, and thus the promising of Shariah was Manki's shariah, not Jinnah's Shariah. For that matter, Jinnah never had a shariah or did he? depending on Manki's definition of Shariah what Jinnah actually did promise in that letter were things such as, the abolition of interest rates, the ineligibility of non-muslims to rule Pakistan, mandatory purdah etc.

It is certainly not Jinnah who has imposed Sharia in Malakand it is ANP.

ANP is fulfilling a promise done by Benazir. It was the word of the government of Pakistan that is being fulfilled. And besides, according to your geographic/geneologic line of reasoning, the problem in Malakand is all Jinnah's fault.

Also Pir of Manki was Bacha Khan's good friend ... Bacha Khan even lowered Pir of Manki in the grave upon the latter's death. So this is a double-edged sword.

I think this is where you completely mis-understand political relations. If Manki never was Jinnah's ally, you would use this point to put him with Ghaffar Khan as well.

Here is the thing, Jinnah, Ghaffar Khan and Manki were seperate entities with separate ideologies. They would form political alliances of convenience but that would not mean that they are ideologically similar. That is where your theory about the Gandhi Deobandi alliance makes no sense at all. In order to be a follower of Gandhi one has to atleast admit that they believe in the ideology of Gandhi. Can you even for a moment imagine a Talib saying that he is carrying out the next suicide bombing in the name of Gandhi... i mean he would probably be beheaded before being allowed to strap a suicide belt on.

So Gandhi jee is as much responsible for Baitullah, as Jinnah is for Fazlullah.

Jazakallah!

Ama yaar Mohar,

Has it ever occured to you that Majumdar and Manto are one and the same individuals?!

Re: # 138

Ha ha... Even Mad-ani understands this better than Majumdar... Shame on you dada... :)

ahmedmadani:

Muzumdar , sorry for you. You have contacted disease of Gandhiphobiya and Jinnaholic disease. This is worst than liquor and its terminal,thousands hour will be gone in waste. This all discussusion is from nothing to nothing.


as usual, well said.

Re: # 113
Manto lives....

"And while Taliban don't get influenced by such historic continuity, the views of taliban and Gandhi are identical when it comes to Western civilization (satanic rule and ravana raj), modernity, modern medicine, the role of women in society, lying naked with 12 year olds etc...."

LOL...
Gandhi opposed use of chemical ingredients due to natural reason. Lead a life, which is harmonious with nature. It is traditional Indian way of life, which do not tax nature heavily. To equate that with Taliban is something very funny. That way, there are lot of Indian Talibans- Dr. Vandana Shiva, Sunderlal Bahuguna, Sri Sri Ravi Sankar....

Re: # 103
Majumder...
"Harishbhai,

MAJ (pbuh) began off as an ambassador for Hindu-Muslim unity. Only when he realised the bitter truth at a much later age, that he opted for Pakistan...."

The ML movement was something alive before Jinnah joined it and Jinnah had taken the leadership of it. I don't think, Jinnah has any contribution in raising the popularity of ML. So, action of MAJ in Congress, should not be treated as benchmark.

#125 #129

Arjun -

India and Pakistani economy both are now going down in drains. Indian inflation is very high now.


Ahmed...
India have no enemity with Pakistan, as per as economy is concerned. Pakistan enjoys MFN status in India....

Re: # 138
Ahmed...
What Jinnah had done is good for India. But same can not be said about Gandhi. Most of the present generation Indians will like to thank Jinnah for getting rid of a cancer. Only thing is, if Gandhi and Nehru had shed their ego, it would have been better for India.

Majumder, BJ, Harish....
Gandhi was very cunning fellow -much like today's Mullayams.

Gandhi knew very well that, majority of the Indians are peace loving and if Congress want to invovlve Indian mass, it need to adopt a path, which is acceptable to majority. Gandhi brought Indian mass into the elitist Congress. Gandhi was also aware of the violent nature of Islam. In fragmented Indian society, moslems had enough numerical strength to throw spanner in his movement (Quit India). So, he had to ignore Moplah and Khilafat. The way Mulayam Sing etc. support SIMI. Please remember that, disgusted with Indian call for FREEDOM (though most of the people did not knew the meaning of freedom. Those who knew, like Tagore or Vivekananda opposed the foolish movement), British Govt. had started doling out sops for moslems. Gandhi had no other option than compromise with islamists/terrorists. But anyhow, the consequence was quite dangerous....

Harish mian,

You are welcome to spar with anyone you want. However you are wrong that I dont want discuss anything with you...I would love an honest exchange of views. It is just that you've confessed already that you don't even wish to notice my posts etc so I don't see any point.

Yasser mian, I understand you're trying to get me off your back, so I'll leave it at that. But since Majumdar bhai would be around, maybe I can spar with him on this.

Harish mian,

I never accused adam of harboring hatred for me. I am glad that you too contend that you don't hate me.

:) ... Aur how is the weather in your neck of the woods.

#141 by MantoLives

Adam's questions have been answered in detail. No one has questioned his motives. Perhaps you can point out where I questioned his motives...

Yasser mian, perhaps you should see a new doctor immediately. Please read my post in full where part of your post is pasted in italics. If you could imagine our hatred for you in those posts, surely you could see some questions too?

Ps. Kindly desist from personal attacks if you can't argue on facts.

Harish mian,

Adam's questions have been answered in detail. No one has questioned his motives. Perhaps you can point out where I questioned his motives...

Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they haven't been answered.

Majumdar bhai, I'm expecting at least you to answer the questions that I (and Adam) asked. I hope at least you have more courage than your lawyer who chose the easy way out by questioning the questioner's motives.

#118 by MantoLives

Well neither Majumdar nor I can be termed as islamic or Hindu fundos.

You will have to excuse me if I tell you that (I don't know about Majumdar bhai,) you sir are worse than an Islamic (or a Hindu) fundo. One has to be incredibly heartless to be drooling over his newly installed window panes while a gunfight is raging as a mosque (full of women and young kids) is being stormed not too far way. At least the fundos have hearts, so what if it beats for their own kind?

And Sanatani is caustic but more honest than other crazies who are supporting you not out of any love for your cause but their hatred for me. Harish mian, mohar etc are case in point.

Whoa!! Once again, Yasser mian tries to evade talking about the issues and answering the questions raised, preferring instead to ascribe motives to posters' pointed questions. To your post, I only have only one thing to say: you sir aren't even worthy of my notice, let alone hatred. So please do not get carried away. If you can (and I doubt it very much), try answering the questions.

Muzumdar , sorry for you. You have contacted disease of Gandhiphobiya and Jinnaholic disease. This is worst than liquor and its terminal,thousands hour will be gone in waste. This all discussusion is from nothing to nothing.
Check with our friendly doctor from Australia he has any shots against this afflication.
Just I can consider this similar to some fish from America and Far East russia. They say he/ she is born in some stream
in river and travells down to sea and at end runs back to birthplace to go to havely abode.
How come yo attach dead gandhi and Jinnah to everything that goes today is amazing.
I have studied mathematical formulations for "memory material" , and memory/viscoelasticity elasticity and never met any such constitutive relationship.
Basic concept is what goes present depends on present situaion and past and mostly near past. All real materials fed memory fast expotentionally. Far past does not have much effect today.
Your behaviour is bordering on obsession of Gandi and Jinnah. If you enjoy all then fine . It is strange disease. You are looking at which happened 80 years back with telescope and magnifying it and looking at present situation with reversed telescope .

Good luck.
May be I am Mad , but behaviour is bordering on obsession.

PS: There is also a fourth one ;) ... Zia ul haq's own family was from the Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-islam - a fascist Mullah group that remained allied with the Congress till after Pakistan was created and which launched a movement against the Ahmadis in Karachi in 1953 under the name "majlis-e-Amal".

That also creates ideological affinity between MMA, Majlise Amal, ahrar, zia and Gandhi.

Later gentlemen.

Errata: Fazlurrahman's role in the creation of taliban ...

Tahmed,

The insurgency of Fakir of Ipi in question is not the one against the British.. But against the Pakistan government for being "irreligious" and "bastion of Qadiyaniism". It was supported by the Frontier Congress as well as Bacha Khan.


As for Gandhi's link to Taliban, I have established three clear links ...

1. Mufti Mahmood and ANP's role in the Nizam-e-mustafa movement which led to Zia's rise to power.

2. Fazlurrahman, who is the ideologue of taliban and also the only mullah politician who proudly says that his family sided with Gandhi and opposed Jinnah...and his role in the creation of taliban.


3. Bacha Khan's support of Fakir of Ipi's Islamist insurgency against the Pakistan govt.

Stukay,

You should ask Adam Khan why he stands against Talibanof today but not the ones who stood up against Ranjit Singh, Curzon and the Dominion of Pakistan ...they were the same Taliban and in Mullah Pawindah's time they were called Taliban as well. He calls them Pushtun heroes.

This game of the "kind of Muslim" that you fellas play is disgusting. I have standing up the taliban longer than other people on this website...so your point is neither here nor there. I oppose talibanism, Gandhiism and witchdoctorism in all its forms and manifestations.


Dear Adam,

First thing is first: Zalmay Pakhtoon was a violent organization which was involved in violence till the late 1990s.

Secondly as I have shown you Gandhi's friends and allies were involved in both 1977 and 1995-96 blunders ... 1977 where Mufti Mahmood and ANP were part of PNA's impose "nizam-e-mustafa" campaign which brought to power General Zia. In 1996 Fazlu mian was part of the government and played a pivotal role in the creation of taliban as a political force. I think it is quite clear that whatever the TNTists did, there is a direct link between Zia, Taliban and Gandhi's deobandi boys. Gandhi is the enabler and the grand daddy of the taliban and so far you haven't responded to a single one of my questions...


Third if we accept your contention that Pawindah did not want to impose his narrow minded version of Islam, it only weakens your case ...because Bacha Khan's Fakir of Ipi rallied people around himself by saying that the government of Pakistan was too irreligious to impose Sharia in NWFP ...it basically means that you are accepting a logical continuity between Ipi and Mehsud ... By taking Pawindah out you've already admitted that Fakir of Ipi started the Islamic insurgency. Now given that we've already established the unbroken continuity between Zia and Gandhi's erstwhile allies as well as taliban and Gandhi's erstwhile allies, this is the third part of the puzzle...which adequately proves a link between Gandhi and the Islamist insurgency in NWFP.


.Ironic that you c laim that Fakir of Ipi was barelvi as defence but when Jinnah counters propaganda from the Congress which sought to rile up Pushtuns through out by saying that Jinnah could not even pray and therefore would be against sharia, by telling Manki a true barelvi leader that Pakistan's laws shall not be in conflict with Sharia (and Jinnah did not think just laws and fair secular laws were in conflict with sharia) y ou wish to hold it against him? Similarly the story about that Muslim convert/sikh woman is partisan .. NWFP Muslim Leaguers claimed that the woman was a Muslim convert and Sikhs were trying to abduct her. And ofcourse it became one of the many rallying points but do you forget that the Jan 1947 movement had muslim women out of the Purdah for the first time in NWFP's history campaigning for Muslim League without a veil...so to take one incident, make it controversial and try to whitewash the facts might work for Sadna ...but why don't you show some honesty and integrity Bacha Khan/Jinnah style and stick to the topic.

It is certainly not Jinnah who has imposed Sharia in Malakand it is ANP. Let us not make this discussion about Jinnah. All these half-baked claims and allegations against him have already been made. Defend Gandhi on his own merit ... But then again the fascist crook Gandhi was indefensible. Also Pir of Manki was Bacha Khan's good friend ... Bacha Khan even lowered Pir of Manki in the grave upon the latter's death. So this is a double-edged sword.

2. Personally, I did not accuse Bacha Khan financial dishonesty, Azad claimed that Khan bros appropriated Congress funds according to their own sweet will. Frankly Maulana Azad's book is out there ... I merely quoted it.

mantolives #113 I t seems true what you say about Gandhi siding with what I would call "muslim traditionalists" rather than "muslim secularists" led by jinnah. btw, I use the word "traditionalist" because I think is a more accurate description of the mullahs, rather than "muslim fundamentalists" which is borrowed from the "christian fundamentalist" tradition of the US Bible belt and thus has misleading connotations.

A couple of points:

1. I think "muslim traditionalists" among pathans heavily influenced by pathan traditions that probably pre-date Islam (i.e. the free spirited horsemen of the central asia). That is the tradition the fakir of ippi staged his revolt against the british, not the context of "islamic idiotology" of the mullahs in the rest of india.

2. I think it is a stretch to say that Gandhi has something to do with the rise of the taliban. The taliban, it is no state secret, were the creation of our own generals. Let us give "credit" for the mess Pakistan is in where it belongs - our "own" short-sighted generals (as they themselves have come to realize the hard way over time), not with Gandhi (nor, I may add, with the US - despite what everyone in Pakistan would like to think).

stuka bhai... thanks for #121 :)

Mantolives:

Talking of the time when Jinnah was alive, what secular ideals did he show in the January 47 civil disobedience movement? when an abducted sikh woman confessed in front of the police that she was not a muslim and wanted to go back to her family. Dr. Khan Sahib's ministry stood up for her, while the league wanted her to be handed back to her abductors. The resulting fine imposed on the villages of Hazara, led to the stepping in of Pir of Manki sharif the "Fateh a Referendum" on behalf of the Muslim League. Jinnah had actually promised Pir of Manki sharif that the NWFP will have Shariah in it, that letter is part of the constituant assembly of Pakistan debates. look it up.

But in any case I appreciate you equating Ghaffar Baba with Jinnah in terms of honesty and moral integrity. This is a huge compliment as it is coming from you. This also is a huge improvement from the time when you were blaming Ghaffar Khan for financial dishonesty when it came the funds from congress as reported by Azad.

Regards,

Mantolives:

The concept of badal is that of revenge, and Ghaffar Khan proved that after the barbara massacre where he completely forgave the crime, whose perpetrator Qayyum Khan confessed in the NWFP assembly that if the police hadnt run out of bullets there would have been more dead. Firing on an un-armed crowd might appear as good administration to some, but its a crime in the civilized world.

But the point that I am making here is that the perpetrator of that crime, Qayyum Khan died of natural causes in Peshawar, during his last days going to the Shahi Bagh in Peshawar in the afternoon (without any armed escorts) was his daily routine. Zalmay Pukhtoon must be one lousy "terrorist" outfit to ignore an opportunity such as this one to exact a badal. And my friend I have seen badals being taken, not many forgive, but the hard core followers of Ghaffar Khan did forgive Qayyum Khan, and no amount of fact twisting can change that.

Moving on, you claim that Zalmay Pukhtoon was active since 1947 to 1987? do you have any proof of that? The wing was formed to "defend" against the mob of leaguers, like I asked you in my last post ... were the leaguers killing innocent civilians on this side of the border or not? or was jinnah disappointed with nothing? And were the KKs not saving non-muslim lives or are you going to disagree with that as well?

The beauty of non-violence was that it tied the British in its claims of humane behavior and moral superiority. It was easier for the british to deal with violent opposition which it could quash with force. But killing unarmed civilians was not that easy, and as the post- qissa khwani massacre report of Justice Niamat Chaudhry showed, there were legal consequences for killing unarmed civilians... but the leaguers were a different beast altogether, they didnt care about killing the armed or the unarmed as long as they could kill... and thats why defending against them was necessary.

anyways you are still juggling between titles for the Mahatma

Gandhi the enabler..

as against

... Gandhi was the grand daddy of the Taliban.

make up your mind.

Re: # 125 Arjun... Things are little unsettled.There is also little back stabbing pakistani economy going on by Indians.
Surprised no body noted the spokesman for SP rating agency who pontifacated against Pakistan economy and said pakistan Govt papaer bonds are junk, who was this spokesman ?
No surprise he is "indian with Hindu name".
Is not pure criminal of SP to allow major rating decided by Indians ?. In addition to many things east pakistan was lost due to large amount of "hindu Bengali teachers" who propagated "bhasha" problems and Bengali nationalism to defeat message of faith , unity and discpline.
Pakisn govt and muslim nations shuld contact SP to reassigen rating work to Nonhindus as there is conflit of interest.

(Address by Mr Jeff Radebe, MP, Minister of Transport, at the re-enactment of Mahatma Gandhi at the Pietermaritzburg Station)

24 September 2006

Mr Mewa Ramgobin, Chairperson of Phoenix Settlement Trust,
Mr Disuth Dasirudh,
Distinguished guests,
Ladies and gentlemen,

I feel greatly honoured to address this important occasion in remembrance of the great Mahatma Gandhi's ordeal here at the Pietermaritzburg Station. A hundred and thirteen years ago, in 1893, the history of the globe was to change forever because this great man showed the world that humility can be turned into the biggest strength possible.

As we celebrate Satyagraha '100', which also forms part of National Heritage Day in the Republic, it is clear beyond doubt that South Africa, India and indeed the globe are duty bound to give honour and pay homage to one of the greatest man to have graced this earth.

Heritage Day represents an opportunity to the many cultures, languages, traditions and divergence of inheritances that make up our national identity. There is no country around the world that has 11 official languages. It is a uniquely South African feature. It is a feature that sets us apart from the rest of the world, a unique feature that says we have realised and accepted but more importantly are practising that all of humanity is equal, regardless of race, gender, creed or social status.

On that extremely cold winter's morning in June 1893, this humble man knew he was never going to be the same again. A seed of humble strength, of determination, a seed of absolute resolve had been planted in him.

When Gandhi refused to remove himself to the van compartment of the train here in Pietermaritzburg, which was racially demarcated and meant for use by "people of colour", he planted a seed in the late Rosa Park, a seed in the late Steven Bantu Biko, a seed in the late Martin Luther King Junior, a seed in President Nelson Mandela, a seed in his Excellency, the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, the list does not end. Gandhi's protest at the time might have seemed like a small step for man but it became a giant leap for humankind.

Twelve years into our democracy the African National Congress (ANC) led government has ensured that all racially discriminative pieces of legislation belonging to the apartheid order are removed from our statutes.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to borrow from the words of President Mandela on the occasion of the Conferral of the Freedom of Pietermaritzburg on Mahatma Ghandi on 25 April 1997 and I quote:

"This station once one of the world's most notorious symbols of discrimination, intolerance and oppression, today proclaims a message of dignity restored. Gandhi's magnificent example of personal sacrifice and dedication in the face of oppression was one of his many legacies to our country and to the world. He showed that it was necessary to brave imprisonment if truth and justice were to triumph over evil. The values of tolerance, mutual respect and unity for which he stood and acted had a profound influence on our liberation movement."

Heritage Day is a celebration which demonstrates the extraordinary richness of the South African social fabric. All of us have a heritage, a place from where we come, ancestors, past history. But here in our fledging democracy we are creating a new heritage and re-contextualising the legacy of the past, a heritage in which we can all find meaning and expression and share together as South Africans.

The Satyagraha, 'a call to action on the basis of love and truth' was born throughout the world as a result of that incident here at Pietermaritzburg, where Gandhi took a resolve of non-violent resistance. The struggle for the dignity and self-respect of people of Indian origin in South Africa, most of who were indentured labourers became inevitable.

The events of that fateful day have become one of the inspirational moments in motivating our people to fight against injustice and prejudice from a transport system perspective. The public transport sector in South Africa has changed significantly and the use of rail services is no longer drawn along racial lines, but open to all. Government is hard at work to improve security in the rail sector and rail infrastructure to ensure the safety of commuters. We must, therefore, acknowledge the role of Mahatma Gandhi in the long journey to freedom not only for our country but for the down trodden of this world.

Gandhi became aware of racism and of the grave inequalities to which people are subjected on the grounds of colour and consequently was to embark on a journey that would take him far beyond Pretoria. That fateful train journey, initially aborted, from Durban to Pretoria was to be symbolic of the manner in which Gandhi would cause other transgressions in his endeavours to reach all his countrymen and women. Upon his permanent return to India in early 1915 Gandhi would use trains to travel the length and breadth of India and he always travelled by third class, humble heroism.

The story of Gandhi's travail at Pietermaritzburg Railway Station has now acquired another life.

In contrast to that shameful day of Gandhi's ordeal, Pietermaritzburg and South Africa as a whole is sending a message of hope, affirming the noble values espoused by Gandhi. His action adds force to the national drive to reconciliation, redress and reconstruction.

Mahatma Gandhi influenced permanently the methods of struggle and mobilisation for social change through non-violent resistance. South Africans of all nationalities have to continue working towards a common goal and purpose for us to keep the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi alive.

I am deeply honoured and humbled today to speak on the occasion of honouring a man declared by India as the "Father of the Nation". It is not by mistake therefore that Gandhi was nominated five times between 1937 and 1948 for the Nobel Peace Prize. His influence reverberates globally.

The historic passive resistance march in 1956 to the Union Buildings by South African women of all races against pass laws, non-violent marches in Memphis led by Martin Luther King Junior and other Afro-American political activists, the peaceful mass protests that led to the massacre of innocent lives in Sharpeville in 1960 all bear traces of the influence this great man had.

Let us today celebrate a Heritage Day that reminds us of our common purpose as South Africans who are diverse but unified. Let us renew "the call to action on the basis of love and truth" by recommitting to improving the quality of the lives of all our people in South Africa.

As our people were the agents of their own liberation, defying oppression and deprivation, they are now critical to the programme of reconstruction and development, both as beneficiary and driving force. Government and people can together build a better life on the foundations that the nation has laid since the beginning of democracy.

When national government, provincial governments, municipalities and communities form a partnership in the spirit of nation building when each sector of society joins hands with the police to fight crime and violence, when the private sector and organised labour work together to promote growth and job opportunities we all reap the benefits of the unity espoused by Gandhi.

The significance of the 100th anniversary celebration of Satyagraha in South Africa will be further strengthened by an official state visit in the person of the Indian Prime Minister, his Excellency Dr Manmohan Singh, to our republic in October. President Thabo Mbeki and his Excellency will also together celebrate and mark this anniversary, an indication of the relationship between India and South Africa. India has played a significant role in the liberation of South Africa.

India was the first country in the world that imposed economic sanctions against apartheid South Africa at the United Nations (UN) in 1946. It was the leading country in the world that had apartheid declared a crime against humanity.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to conclude by stressing that our heritage is all around us. It is a part of 'who we are'. Knowing our heritage helps us to understand the events of the past. We should respect and value those things that have been left behind by all South Africans. Our heritage is not just old buildings and stone monuments. It is the stories, dances, songs, folk and other music, rock paintings and sacred places of all our cultures. It even includes shipwrecks and historical treasures.

South Africa and Africa come from a history whose past was written and thoroughly distorted by colonialism. I therefore wish to express my personal gratitude and congratulations to the Phoenix Settlement Trust for doing their part in keeping the legacy and the fires burning. The responsibility to record our history and heritage correctly lies with no one else but ourselves.

And today as we unveil this remembrance, let us all join together in saying:

'Long may the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi live'!

I thank you!

Issued by: Department of Transport
24 September 2006
Source: Department of Transport (http://www.transport.gov.za/)

Gandhi's legacy of non-violent struggle vital in today's world - UN officials

Published on Oct 2, 2008 - 10:57:04 AM

By: UN News

Oct. 2, 2008 - The legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, whose non-violent struggle led to an independent India and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom around the globe, is vital in today's world where the rights of too many people are still violated, top United Nations officials said today.

Marking the second annual International Day of Non-violence, observed on 2 October in honour of Gandhi's birthday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted that this year's celebration falls during the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"There is a profound philosophical connection between the fundamental principles of human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration and those practised by Mahatma Gandhi," Mr. Ban told a ceremony at UN Headquarters in New York.

"The answer for Mahatma Gandhi was always found in actions. The rest of us can seek to emulate his spirit only by practising the tenets of non-violence, justice and peace."

Mr. Ban highlighted the need to ensure that the rights in the Declaration are a living reality, that they are known, understood and enjoyed by everyone, everywhere. However, it is often that those who most need their human rights protected also need to be informed that the Declaration exists - and that it exists for them, he said.

"The rights of too many people around the world are still violated. That is why the Mahatma's legacy is more important than ever," the Secretary-General stated.

General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto recalled that Martin Luther King, Jr. followed Gandhi's teachings during the civil rights struggle in the United States, revealing the power of non-violence "to begin to transform the course of even the most powerful nation in history."

Mr. D'Escoto suggested that today people around the world adopt the word Satyagraha - the Sanskrit word describing Gandhi's philosophy of non-violent resistance - and begin to reflect on its meaning.

"If we do so, we will have entered into the process of liberating humankind from its dependence on violence as a means to resolve differences," he stated.

Sanatani: Why are you praising the Sikh King Ranjit Singh? Since when did you become a royalist? A king should be judged by his legacy. Ranjit Singh's legacy was a whore of a queen, a son who became Christian and saluted foreign masters. This is someone we should respect?

I only choose to respect the millions of people who do an honest day's work. Leaderan tey rajey chadhey khotey dey ln tey.

Gandhi's fault..

Foreign debt soars after rupee’s plunge
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
By Mansoor Ahmad

LAHORE: A sharp fall of the rupee has played havoc with the economy, with foreign debt rising from Rs2,759 billion to Rs3,493 billion, size of the economy dropping below $150 billion and per capita income slipping to $780.

PS: And no, it's not "Faqir of Ipi", whoever that was, should get the major share of the blame for muslim fundoo-ism... So let's try again... :)

Re: # 110 YLH

MKG certainly shares a part of the blame for rise of muslim fundooism - we all know that...

Now that due abuse has been dished out on MKG, let's move on and put the big share of the blame where it belongs... Shall we? :)

stuka

People like Adam are few and far between - so we cannot realistically accept him as the "representation" or the "example" of muslims in general...

Believe me - we would like to... nothing would make us happier than to know that Adam is indeed the flag-bearer of muslim community... but the reality is different...

Adam is a good man and an exception and may his kind increase... until then, we will have to continue to criticize muslims in general, exceptions like him notwithstanding...

Oye Hindustanio, sharam karo. one one hand Adam Khan is being critcized for being pro-Gandhi. Otoh, U are criticizing him by criticizing all Muslims. WTF?

Regarldess of who Gandhi was, one can say that it is Adam Khan who has been vocally against the Taliban and openly expresses his fate for fanaticism. Why don't you take his example of Muslim rather than some Mullah whom you have never met?

And one last thing before I turn in:

The only thing I'll give you is that despite all his flaws, failures and horrendous mistakes etc, Bacha Khan was, like Jinnah, an honest and upright man of integrity.

This alone is the reason why I don't denigrate him like Gandhi despite the fact that I have no love lost for ANP and Bacha Khan's progeny.

The alliance my friend went beyond merely an alliance of convenience.

But PPP's opportunistic alliance with JUI-F was equally bad and let us not forget that Benazir Bhutto's govt which was allied JUI-F (once again Gandhi's old boys) ended up supporting the Taliban ...and making them a force. In this respect even BB is guilty.

Similarly Asghar Khan (and also Nasim Wali Khan and ANP) did the same thing with Mufti Mahmood ...all these raggle taggle lot raised the flag of Nizam-e-Mustafa leading to Zia's dictatorship.

In both cases you had Gandhi's ertswhile allies part and parcel... Mufti Mahmood and Bacha Khan's family in 1977 and mufti's son Fazlu in 1996. This is all I am saying - there is an unbroken continuity between Gandhi the enabler's enabling of darul uloom deoband and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in South Asia and especially Pakistan.

As for your point about Leaguers bringing Islam in the objectives resolution ...true but my friend objectives resolution happened after Jinnah's death, Gandhi made alliances with Deobandi fundamentalists in his lifetime.

Dear Adam,

Well neither Majumdar nor I can be termed as islamic or Hindu fundos. And Sanatani is caustic but more honest than other crazies who are supporting you not out of any love for your cause but their hatred for me. Harish mian, mohar etc are case in point.

Anyway good that you've atleast admitted that Zalmay Pakhtoon was not non-violent but was in fact a violent and militant (I daresay terrorist) organization. Infact Zalmay Pakhtoon carried out assassinations and organized violence for the first 30 years after independence and remnants of this organization still exist. Then you ask why Qayyum Khan the old comrade of Bacha Khan turned so violently against him.


1. Zalmay Pakhtoon showed that KK's non-violence was of convenience. This was a response to your claim about there being no badal. Zalmay Pakhtoon was supplied weapons by Dr. Khan sb and the Frontier Congress and to say that it was created in response is merely a partisan point of view. The police reports from the time show indiscriminate violence by KK activists long before frontier leaguers. In any event it showed that KK was neither non-violent nor defensive.

2. Bacha Khan's support (and his son's meeting on Bacha khan's behest with the fakir) for Fakir of Ipi has been documented already in my article on Fakir of Ipi which you've read. Bacha Khan's famous "Pakhtoonistan based on Islamic ideals and Pakhtoon nationalism" coincided with Fakir of Ipi's declaration of jehad against Pakistan, the British and Qadiyani-infested Muslim League ... I am glad you've mentioned the British newspapers that tried to pain Bacha Khan as a jehadi. If you read Howard Donovan's dispatches to George Marshall which I have quoted with archive numbers in the NWFP series ... they all viewed Bacha Khan's activities with concern ...so it wasn't just those damn brits my friend.

3. The similarity between Mehsud and Faqir of Ipi is that both declared war on Pakistan, both wanted to enforce their extremist brand of sharia by force and both resorted to violence.


4. Of those who supported Gandhi and Congress against the Muslim League (the third jamaat e islami opposed ML but did not support the Congress) there are only two left in Pakistan... ie Bacha Khan's progeny ... and Mufti Mahmood's progeny. Both have never made any bones about their hatred for Pakistan, Jinnah etc etc ... Historically Bacha Khan supported Faqir of Ipi and his islamist insurgency. Mufti Mahmood's progeny support Faqir of Ipi's ideological successors and deobandi Islamists.

I therefore firmly believe that Gandhi was the grand daddy of the Taliban.

Mantolives:

An alliance DOES NOT mean common ideology. Did the PPP share a similar ideology with JUI F because they were in a political alliance? Was Asghar Khan ideologically similar to Maudaudi because they were both part of the PNA?

These are political alliances and are for political goals. This has NOTHING to do with the ideological principals behind a particular party. I think this is the point where we dont agree. Although you do seperate Jinnah from the muslim leaguers that followed him, the ones responsible for including islam in the constitution.

So If you are exonerating Jinnah from something that "Muslim Leaguers" after him did, then WHY in the name of God are your implicating Gandhi for something that his one time political ALLIES did!?! Judge Gandhi's influence by the deeds of the KKs. except for self defence through Pukhtoon Zalmay, what else do you have against them?

mantolives:

I was merely pointing out majumdars change of title from "grand daddy" to "enabler". This is a marked improvement from his post in which he was presenting satyagraha as a jihadi ideology.

I do not for a moment consider Gandhi jee an enabler of Jihadis, for that matter he equally lights the chadis of both Jihadis in Pakistan as well as the Hindu Fundos in India. This could be a litmus test for his ideology and personality, which is equally hated by the haters on both side.

I see why you wish to argue on chowk. Enough crazies from across the border are ready to prop you up .. instead of calling a spade a spade.

Speaking of "crazies" from the other side check out posts #72 to #80 and see who has the crazies on his side. I wish to argue on chowk because this argument was started on chowk. why would you want to take this discussion to completely different website? if you dont like someone, ignore him/her, which as I have seen you do on this board.


in any case, Ghaffar Khan's approval of Pakistan came after Jinnah renounced the two nation theory, just four days before the creation of Pakistan. But although Jinnah had renounced TNT, his followers did not, and they showed that in their subsequent behavior.

Zalmay Pukhtoon was created in response to the killing spree that muslim leaguers were on, an action which Jinnah also denounced. It was an organization that was for the defence of non-muslim and khudai khidmatgars, because the leaguers proved to be more ruthless than the British.

This is a fact of history, either you claim that there was no threat to the KKs and the non-muslims from the leaguers post 1947, or you must admit that Zalmay Pukhtoon was created to defend against the outright massacres of Pakistanis of which Jinnah himself was critical and was unable to stop even with all the state machinery at his disposal.

Even after the massacre of barbara there was no violent response from the districts that Ghaffar Khan was strong in. Once again you fail to see the lack of correlation between the two and blame Ghaffar Khan for being ideologically at par with Faqir of Ipi. This particular line of reasoning was adopted by many British newspapers at that time who wanted to paint Ghaffar Khan as a violent jihadi. IF Ghaffar Khan was of a jihadi mindset he would have opened another front for that fledgling Pakistan army that needed tribals to do its bidding. It is here that the Gandhian influence on Ghaffar Khan stops him from initiating a civil war.

He was supported by the Frontier Congress, Bacha Khan and the Khudai Khidmatgars. I think the lineage to Gandhi becomes clearer ...no? Behtullah Mehsud and Faqir of Ipi then belong to the same genealogy, same region and had the same kin and clansmen.

How exactly did he get the support of Bacha Khan and KKs? any joint declarations of war on Pakistan? any mass protests in mardan or charsadda held to raise the banner of the faqir? or just secret correspondence that is mere he said and she said. and once again you quote "genealogy" as a factor, how and why? just because baitullah is a mehsud he is more likely to be a jihadi? and just because you are a hamdani you are not? bullshit! come up with something solid.

About Powindah I have a book in Pushto but that wont be of any use to you. I will see if I could find anything in english or urdu... will let you know.

PS.

And even if we ignore for the sake of argument inconsistencies of Bacha Khan and KK for a second and forget their support of Faqir of Ipi (or the fact that the frontier Congress was active in the tribal areas) and that the KKK are somehow banned from the tribal areas ... despite which Bacha Khan took Nehru on that fateful trip of the frontier ... other bachas in NWFP consisted of Jamiat-e-ulema hind faction led by Mufti Mahmood which was quite active in the tribal areas on behalf of the Congress party all throughout the 1940s. This faction became JUI-F ...the biggest pro-taliban faction of the party.

Infact Jamiat-e-ulema Hind remained a stauncher ally of Gandhi than even Bacha Khan. With the exception of the six months that UP faction of JUH was part of the Muslim Unity board in 1937 before ditching it at Congress' command, JUH's history for the last 84 years has been of complete loyalty to Congress and Gandhi's ideals. JUI-F alone openly and proudly states that "it never participated in the 'sin' of Pakistan" and that Jinnah was not a hero ...Gandhi was. The same JUI-F is an ideological support base for the Taliban.

Tahmed,

What I said is significantly different from what has been attacked by Adam Khan. I have explained it below...and no one can deny Gandhi's crucial role in the rise of Deobandi fundamentalists as a political force ...whether one wants to call it "enabling" or as we call it spawning ;).

I hope I have made myself clear.

Adam,

That was a significantly better post though I don't know if your assessment of Pawinda is accurate. I'd like to read more about this. Maybe you can refer me to something.
Fakir of Ipi wanted to establish Sharia. His entire angle against Pakistan was that its rulers were too secular and westernized to allow Islamic Sharia. He was supported by the Frontier Congress, Bacha Khan and the Khudai Khidmatgars. I think the lineage to Gandhi becomes clearer ...no? Behtullah Mehsud and Faqir of Ipi then belong to the same genealogy, same region and had the same kin and clansmen.

As for Gandhi's influence on taliban ... You call him the enabler ...we call him grand daddy. It is merely a difference of vocabulary. The contention is that Gandhi was actually one of the ancestors of the taliban and since we didn't mean actually blood ancestor, there is room for semantics ...

And while Taliban don't get influenced by such historic continuity, the views of taliban and Gandhi are identical when it comes to Western civilization (satanic rule and ravana raj), modernity, modern medicine, the role of women in society, lying naked with 12 year olds etc.

Ofcourse the taliban are two or three steps ahead but that is exactly what grand children do.

Majumdar bhai,

I am your biggest fan. The way you've lit a big one in many metaphorical chaddiz with nothing but facts and facts alone...is something I couldn't do in nine years. Our hero - the greatest Indian of the last century- Mr Jinnah (PBUH) would be proud.

I raise my glass albeit a lemon twist wali cranberry absolut vodka ie sex on the beach- to a great and prosperous subcontinent free of Gandhiism, witch-doctorism of the kind that celebrates Gandhiism, Islamic and other fundamentalisms and
communism type crap.

Pakistan Zindabad, Jai Hind.

Pakiland is the father of the taliban
According to manto, Gandhi is the grand daddy of the talipakis..

so gandhi is the father of pakiland?

Mohar mian,

Nice try but Adam khan has done no such thing. He has merely argued against something completely different than Majumdar and me.

My contention was that there is an unbroken connection between Gandhi "enabled" Islamists and the Islamists of NWFP than TNTists that some people here want to blame desperately.

Contrary to your claim here Adam Khan has admitted as much. His "gandhi is not wholly to blame" is not much of an argument as neither Majumdar nor I ever claimed that Gandhi was wholly to blame ...it is merely a strawman fallacy.

I think it is a great improvement from Adam Khan's outright denial of the facts earlier.

We called Gandhi "a granddaddy of the taliban" others being the Faqir of Ipi. Adam Khan has admitted that Gandhi was at the very least an enabler of the taliban. I think he is beginning to see the light.


Adam bhai,

If you recall I have written an entire series on NWFP's history ... in which I have exposed the true ugly face of the Khudai Khidmatgars and their militant terrorist wing the Zalmai Pakhtoon.
The cycle of assassination and violence NWFP's nationalist circles have been involved in for the last 60 years shows that non-violence of KK is in name only. You may revisit parts 2, 3 and 4 to see it for yourself. Or you may read old ANP comrade Juma Khan Sufi's writings and confessions (oh wait you had some story about his personal vendetta against ANP...but that only explains why Sufi chose to tell the truth about Bacha Khan and his family).

Anyway this repetitive. I see why you wish to argue on chowk. Enough crazies from across the border are ready to prop you up .. instead of calling a spade a spade. Good for you ... But I hope you know deep down that you are being utterly dishonest.

majumdar and YLH

Give it up fellas - Adam Khan has pretty much destroyed your lame-a## theories and childish gandhi-bashing... not that anybody ever bought your cr@p anyway... :)

Even if gandhi were the "grand-daddy" of taliban movement way-back in the days, you still can't blame it on him... he played J-man like a flute and made sure muslas will never progress in anything and never be at peace with themsleves...

that's the power of the great bania and the "great soul" that ever walked the earth... Live with it... Ha ha...

#107 by adamkhan

For the enabler part, let me ask you why is it that the followers of Gandhi i.e. the Khudai Khidmatgars forgave the massacre of Barbara and did not initiate a jihad in its reaction? why is it that this islamic fundamentalism drive is only strong in areas where Ghaffar Khan and his followers were banned and are still banned?

Adam yaar in Yasser mian's (and Majumdar bhai's too) world, Gandhi MUST be held accountable even for the violence taking place in an area where his party held no sway and is today part of a different country, yet the man whose followers who issued direct threats of violence and bloodshed on Hindus must be completely absolved of any role in the Direct Action Day massacres because he himself did not directly make the call (even while making absolutely no attempt to stop his cohorts from doing so).

But please don't expect any coherent answers to your questions. If anything, expect more of some very novel and creative explanations heaping more blame on Gandhi for the mess in FATA.

majumdar:

there is a difference between an "enabler" and a "grand daddy". What you and mantolives are trying to do here is to blame everything on Gandhi jee, which is completely ridiculous.

For the enabler part, let me ask you why is it that the followers of Gandhi i.e. the Khudai Khidmatgars forgave the massacre of Barbara and did not initiate a jihad in its reaction? why is it that this islamic fundamentalism drive is only strong in areas where Ghaffar Khan and his followers were banned and are still banned?

masanamuthu
It is not a contradiction - the Congress stance was that it would not declare any opinion on the Communal Award and one of Jinnah's conditions post 1937 was that Congress must stop calling the Communal Award a negation of nationalism(that was Gandhi's statement which he wanted repudiated by the Congress).

Gandhi was called a bania by his former Khilafat ally Mohammed Ali because of his implicit and explicit support for no extra quotas for Muslims. The Hindu-Muslim tussle in pre-independence era was over how much extra Muslims could get over and above their population, NOT over their basic rights as is projected by propagandists. Because Gandhi was not in favor of quotas he had absolutely no standing left among Muslims(except the nationalist Muslims).

This is what he said in 1931 at the Round Table Conference:

Gandhiji on the stalemate in communal settlement, Second Round Table Conference, 13 November 1931

I have not been able to read, with the care and attention that it deserves, the memorandum sent to the delegates on behalf of certain Minorities and received this morning. Before I offer a few remarks on that memorandum, with your permission and with all the deference and respect that are your due, I would express my dissent from the view that you put before this Committee-that the inability to solve the communal question was hampering the progress of Constitution-building, and that it was an indispensable condition prior to the building of any such Constitutions. I did not share that view.

The experience that I have since gained has confirmed me in that view and, if you will pardon me for saying so, it was because of the emphasis that was laid last year and repeated this year upon this difficulty, that the different communities were encouraged to press with all the vehemence at their command their own respective views. It would have been against human nature if they had done otherwise. All of them thought that this was the time to press forward their claims for all they were worth, and I venture to suggest again that this very emphasis has defeated the purpose which I have no doubt it had in view. This is the reason why we have failed to arrive at an agreement.

As representing the predominant political organization in India, I have no hesitation in saying to His Majesty's Government and to those friends who seek to represent the Minorities mentioned against their names, and indeed to the whole world, that this scheme is not one designed to achieve responsible government, though undoubtedly, it is designed to share power with the bureaucracy.

If that is the intention- and it is the intention running through the whole of that document-I wish them well, and Congress is entirely out of it. The Congress will wander, no matter how many years, in the wilderness rather than lend itself to a proposal under which the hardy tree of freedom and responsible government can never grow.

I am astonished that Sir Hubert Carr should tell us that they have evolved a scheme which, being designed only for a temporary period, would not damage the cause of nationalism, but at the end of ten years we would all find ourselves hugging one another and throwing ourselves into one another's laps. My political experience teaches me a wholly different lesson. If this responsible government whenever it comes, is to be inaugurated under happy auspices, the nation should not undergo the process of vivisection to which this scheme subjects it: it is a strain which no national Government can easily bear.
...

In my humble opinion the proposition enunciated by Sir Hubert Carr is the very negation of responsible government, the very negation of nationalism. If he says that if you want a live European on the Legislature then he must be elected by the Europeans themselves, well, heaven help India if India has to have representatives elected by these several, special, cut-up groups. That European will serve India as a whole, and that European only, who commands the approval of the common electorate and not the mere Europeans.

This very idea suggests that the responsible government will always have to contend against these interests which will always be in conflict against the national spirit-against this body of 85 per cent of agricultural population. To me it is an unthinkable thing. If we are going to bring into being responsible government and if we are going to get real freedom, then I venture to suggest that it should be the proud privilege and the duty of every one of these so-called special classes to seek entry into the Legislatures through this open door, through the election and approval of the common body of electorates. You know that Congress is wedded to adult suffrage, and under adult suffrage it will be open to all to be placed on the voters' list. More than that nobody can ask.

One word more as to the so-called Untouchables.
I can understand the claims advanced by other Minorities, but the claims advanced on behalf of the Untouchables, that to me is the 'unkindest cut of all'. It means the perpetual bar sinister. I would not sell the vital interests of the Untouchables even for the sake of winning the freedom of India. I claim myself in my own person to represent the vast mass of the Untouchables.

Let this Committee and let the whole world know that today there is a body of Hindu reformers who are pledged to remove this blot of Untouchability. We do not want on our register and our census Untouchables classified as a separate class. Sikhs may remains such in perpetuity, so may Muhammadans, so may Europeans. Will Untouchables remain in perpetuity? I would rather that Hinduism died than that Untouchability lived...I am speaking with a due sense of responsibility, and I say that it is not a proper claim which is registered by Dr. Ambedkar when he seeks to speak for the whole of the Untouchables of India. It will create a division in Hinduism which I cannot possible look forward to with any satisfaction whatsoever.

I do not mind Untouchables, if they so desire, being converted to Islam or Christianity. I should tolerate that, but I cannot possibly tolerate what is in store for Hinduism if there are two political divisions set forth in the villages. Those who speak of the political rights of Untouchables do not know their India, do not know how Indian society is today constructed, and therefore I want to say with all the emphasis that I can command that if I was the only person to resist this thing I would resist it with my life.

In fact Gandhi and Congress didn't accept these, from 1928 onward, that is why there was partition. The reason why India is a parliamentary democracy is because Gandhi and rest of Congress refused to surrender one man one vote even to avert Partition.

In 1935, Congress were willing to accept some version of Communal Award plus(which had the weightages etc)but Jinnah pushed too hard by refusing even that compromise.


What you are saying in the first paragraph contradicts with what you are saying in the second. :-)

Anyways, all that has happened is good. We need to learn from history and make sure the bad parts does not happen again.

It is TRUE that Gandhi lived the life of a dhimmi and died as one. That does not make him a less nobler soul. He is a great man, but failed to realise that he lived in the real world.

#103 by majumdar

Only when he realised the bitter truth at a much later age, that he opted for Pakistan.

OK, so only Jinnah is allowed to realize the truth while Gandhi must of course be subject to the harshest possible scrutiny?

Harishbhai,

MAJ (pbuh) began off as an ambassador for Hindu-Muslim unity. Only when he realised the bitter truth at a much later age, that he opted for Pakistan.

Regards

AK sb,

btw where exactly is majumdar?

Here I am.

Mullah Powindah like Mohd Ali Jinnah used the muslim identity as a rallying cry, the goal in both cases was to rid the land of British intruders.

I am glad that you mentioned that MAJ (pbuh) was trying to get rid of Brits.

But in anycase, neither syed ahmad nor baitullah mehsud have anything common with Mahatama Gandhi jee.

I am not saying that MKG was spraying around people with machine gun shots. All I am saying is that he injected an anti-modernist religion based approach to national politics. And like the GOP he used jihad as a tool for political means, for instance his washing over Moplah violence as a means of rallying Muslim support for NCM. He was an enabler.

Regards

#100 by majumdar

His views on Africans came in 1908 when he was 39 years old. His views on the caste system in 1922 when he was 53 years old- no spring chicken. Besides, it wasn't like he had come from the middle of nowhere. He was a qualified lawyer and he had spent time in London and had been exposed to the works of the likes of Ruskin and Tolstoy.

How old was Jinnah when he engineered the partition?

Harishbhai,

His views on Africans came in 1908 when he was 39 years old. His views on the caste system in 1922 when he was 53 years old- no spring chicken. Besides, it wasn't like he had come from the middle of nowhere. He was a qualified lawyer and he had spent time in London and had been exposed to the works of the likes of Ruskin and Tolstoy.

Someone like Dayanand Saraswati had rejected caste at an younger age and much before Gandhi made these pious statements.

Regards

#98 by majumdar

A few isolated words like Gandhi's disdain for black people continues were Yassers. The pious sentiments were all Bapuji's.

How is it different from Jinnah's own barely concealed feelings of Muslim superiority? At least Gandhi's transgressions were in the early part of his life when he was a commoner and harbored the same prejudices as any ordinary Hindu of those times. Jinnah OTOH continued to believe that right till he died vomitting blood.

Besides, I said that YLH had provided a link to his old posts.

That is AFTER I said it was Yasser's.

Harishbhai,

A few isolated words like Gandhi's disdain for black people continues were Yassers. The pious sentiments were all Bapuji's.

Besides, I said that YLH had provided a link to his old posts.

Regards

#96 by majumdar

These are Bapuji's own words, not Yasser mian's.\

Majumdar bhai, please read that post carefully. They DO CONTAIN Yasser's mian's words.

Harishbhai,

do you disagree that it is Yasser's word for word

I presume you are referring to post #11. These are Bapuji's own words, not Yasser mian's.

Regards

#93 by majumdar

This is not true. I posted it very much on my own volition. I requested YLH to reproduce the old links and he obliged, that is all.

Majumdar bhai, be that as it may, do you disagree that it is Yasser's word for word? If you don't, for him to thank you like it was the first time he ever read it is quite amusing.

masanamuthu
"
Exactly, in order to avert VIOLENCE people like Mahathma Gandhi could have gone to any depths of dhimmitude, like offering Jinnah the PM, accepting communal quotas in electorates / army / jobs etc.. etc.. much higher in proportion to their respective population."

In fact Gandhi and Congress didn't accept these, from 1928 onward, that is why there was partition. The reason why India is a parliamentary democracy is because Gandhi and rest of Congress refused to surrender one man one vote even to avert Partition.

In 1935, Congress were willing to accept some version of Communal Award plus(which had the weightages etc)but Jinnah pushed too hard by refusing even that compromise.

Jinnah's refusal to accept Congress legislative majorities in 1937 even with Communal Award in place was the final straw on camel's back where Congress was concerned. They never offered him anything except talks after that.

Harishbhai,

First Yasser mian has Majumdar bhai post it again on this board

This is not true. I posted it very much on my own volition. I requested YLH to reproduce the old links and he obliged, that is all.

Regards

#88 by adamkhan

... but what began this discussion was majumdar's completely baseless statement that it was Gandhi and not Syed Qutb or for that matter syed ahmad who were the ideological ante cedes of the current taliban...

Adam yaar, Majumdar bhai's very first post on this board was a post Yasser mian previously posted at least a few dozen times on various boards dating back to the past 4-5 years. First Yasser mian (perhaps because of the monotony of having to post the same thing over and over again) has Majumdar bhai post it again on this board; next, he innocently thanks him for doing it..LOL!

I'm saying this because for any meaningful argument to take place, you need to understand thy opponent first.

YLH/Sadna/Sanatani/Muthu et al,

Will return later. But here is my summing up, MKG tried to be the leader of all of India, Hindoos and Muslims alike but ended up shooting everyone in the foot.

He made Jihadi fundamentalism fashionable and mainstream.

He blinded Hindoos to the reality of TNT and never allowed the decisive break in 1947 (the contours of which I have discussed with Sadna on several UP threads lately) which would have set both India and Pakistan free. He tied INC to a policy of dhimmitude which is faithfully followed till date.

As a Hindoo, I can possibly overlook the former, but never forgive the latter.

Regards

#88 adam khan: i agree with you. I dont know why mantolives wants to wrap every dead albatross around poor Gandhi's neck!!

Masanamuthu, Sanatani and other misguided creatures:

Gandhiji did not think of himself as limited to being a Hindu – he thought more like a simple insaan – and even more than that, he tried to put himself in the position of the poorest of the poor insaans and tried to see things from their perspective.

Jinnah was a highly defective creature who was in love with himself and with his sense of superiority over the average folks. He could only love himself – not his wife, not his daughter, and certainly not his country!

Jinnah was a divider. Gandhiji was a uniter.

Accordingly, India stayed united and Pakistan kept dividing (and keeps on dividing). Division, after all, starts at the most basic level – that of the heart. And it is impossible to stop it from propagating to lower levels once you have accepted it at a higher level.

The world is full of dividers. There have been countless such creatures around – Hitler being one of them. (We see them in contemporary times also.)

There are very few uniters. That is why Gandhiji is so precious. The world understands this simple fact and accordingly, Gandhiji is highly regarded – to the point of being revered.

On the other hand, Jinnah – the second-rate divider, has been duly relegated to the trash-dump of history – sharing the fate of most other dividers. He can be only liked by the other smaller dividers of the world!

India needs to work harder to overcome its religious divide. There are strong economic and social factors which cause such divide to remain and to even get strengthened over time. When one condones the process of division along religious lines, one automatically condones discrimination among human beings – then one automatically condones racism and one automatically condones bigotry. When bigotry is condoned it is only a matter of time that coercion comes in to sustain it. In the USA, the Ku Klux Klan became most powerful when the whites in the American south were trying to enforce their own bigotry.

However, in the long run, all bigots will be discarded unceremoniously – just the way the Jinnah was discarded.

Dear Mantolives:

Yet again the question remains, did Gandhi have an ideological influence upon the modern day Taliban or not? you mention political alliances and this and that... but what began this discussion was majumdar's completely baseless statement that it was Gandhi and not Syed Qutb or for that matter syed ahmad who were the ideological ante cedes of the current taliban... btw where exactly is majumdar?

Speaking of past pushtoon influences, one guy whom we havent mentioned is Pir i Roshan, a wazir from the 16th century, who was propagating gender equality in 1525!? go figure...

As for Baitullah,as well as OBL the ideological influence comes from syed qutb, and is different from people like Mullah powindah.

Powindah was more a freedom fighter than an enforcer of Sharia. you have to understand that there is a difference between using Islam or the muslim identity as a rallying cry and working for the implementation of sharia....

Mullah Powindah like Mohd Ali Jinnah used the muslim identity as a rallying cry, although one fought with guns and the other through political means, the goal in both cases was to rid the land of British intruders.

Baitullah Mehsud however is seeking to impose sharia and working for an ideology that is alien to this land, and in that he is closer to what syed ahmad tried to do and failed miserably. But in anycase, neither syed ahmad nor baitullah mehsud have anything common with Mahatama Gandhi jee.

as for past kings of the sub-continent I think no one comes close the post-kalinga Ashoka... we should swap the star and crescent in our flag for the Ashoka Chakra... although the back ground can be green and white.... lets celebrate our buddhist past a little...

Ranjit singh was just another king... too full of himself... and curzon was too British to be ruling our part of the world...

sadna:

It was not dhimmitude zactly, it was trying to avert partition and end the violence.

Exactly, in order to avert VIOLENCE people like Mahathma Gandhi could have gone to any depths of dhimmitude, like offering Jinnah the PM, accepting communal quotas in electorates / army / jobs etc.. etc.. much higher in proportion to their respective population.

All that has been avoided (or actually temporarily postponed, I'm assuming we'd see the same drama when the Muslim population reaches a critical point in India) because of partition, for which a few of us are thankful to Jinnah.

What is this with name-changing ... Some idiot has changed the name of Dadabhoy Naoroji Road (one of the roads which pass by Jinnah's mazar) according to Cowasjee. Jinnah's burial there was both symbolic and appropriate given that Jinnah's earliest mentor was Dadabhoy.


Lord Curzon was one of the finest viceroys ...and Maharaja Ranjit Singh one of the greatest kings of this subcontinent.

I would pick the Maharaja over the Mahatma anyday.

Also Behtullah is not ideologically closer to Syed Qutb because Syed Qutb's Islamism was urban ...like Maududi. There are I am sure within the ranks of the tribal warriors Qutbites from the Islamic world as a whole.

Behtullah is the continuation of the insurgency of Syed Ahmad, Mullah Pawinda and Faqir of Ipi ... with the added teeth of Deobandi Islam.
And just to be clear ...my comment about Asfandyar didn't have anything to do with Gandhi's support of Islamic fundamentalists from Deoband but Bacha Khan's own eleventh hour attempt to find a third option to India and Pakistan in 1947 through the Afghan govt and Faqir of Ipi.

Like I pointed out ...my only contention vis a vis Gandhi is that there is more unbroken continuity between Deobandi militants and the Deobandi Islamic fundamentalists Gandhi supported as opposed to the tenuous artificial link people like jayp and bj want to fool the world with.

Adam,

The Chaikhana has picked up due to the efforts of yours truly here.

I have already given my reasons for why Majumdar is right and why I can't agree with you. So I'll now to retire to the chai khana with an open invitation to you to join us for spot of tea or garam garam chai...with either biscuits or baqarkhani ;).

sanatani, agreed. From a religious point of view, Gandhi seems to have sold Hindus and all other non-Muslims down the big river.

But sadna argues that he was doing his best in a very difficult situation. Don't know enough history nor follow it closely enough to contradict her.

It is only to make her realise what Gandhism did to our womenfolk. Whether in Kerela or Batwara

Easy sanatani guru ji, easy. Sadna does not take kindly to any sexist remarks, even an indirect one. She also has a rather different view of Gandhi which if you had time to learn you might find useful, even if disagree with.

Re: # 68

Where did you get this gem from?????

It is trash and lies and you know it.

Sanatani

Adam Khan sorry for the language. But when you Pathans get a taste of your own medicine you whine.

Apologies once more.

Sanatni

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 63

Sadna as a woman you must study more about the baster more before u spk. Read what happened in Parchinar to the Hindu and Sikh women and what was this MF reaction.

Sanatani

Re: # 65

Manto what was formerly Curzon Road is now called Kasturba Gandhi marg. One of my great aunts a passionate Gandhian was put a question by me that whose legacy is greater Kasturba's or Lord C's. She then showed her true face and started abusing me in choicest Punjabi Gaalis and caught me from the scruff of the neck and slapped me. Her husband then slapped her hard 6 times and told me "Puttar ede daaj jedi kamti se tu aj puri kar ditti" Son whatever was less in her dowry you have fulfilled the same. Later I got to know she stopped sleeping with the grand unlce after the 8th child was born (she was 30 only and he 32) saying that Gandhijee has said one must control oneslf and sex is only to have children this from a man who was effing his wife since age 14 whom he later killed by denying her modern medicine.

Sanatani

Re: # 62

Bravo well said. These guys are all a bunch of basters. We owe J man more than we can think or agree.

Sanatani

Re: # 36

One shall forgive you thinking you are drunk.

That part of Islam was well known. But Gandhi in his megalomania to be leader of the Muslims also fkd us Hindus also. Partition would have been right if these fkrs had been kicked out of India.

Sanatani

Re: # 34

Gandhi was actually ONLY a dishonest crook, a fraud and a megalomaniac. The rest religio-fascist medievalist bigot was part of his cloak to appear a Mahatma.

Sanatani

You are right there is no comparison between Shri J and that dirtbag

Re: # 32

You are being cute. While Gandhi did make them mainstream during Khilafat they were always there in 1 form or the other.

The problem dear Manto is the book and the message of the peadophile murderer.

Sanatani

Dear Mantolives:

lets stick to chowk, its much more colorful than that empty chai khana...

The mullahs always had "teeth" and they showed em in one situation after another, starting with Syed Ahmad. Its good that you are making a distinction between Salafi and Deobandi, the two might be close but there exists a wedge between the two.

Baitullah et al are ideologically more akin to Syed Qutub than they would ever be to the deobandis or for that matter Gandhi!. but you are right about the Moudoudi-ites cheer leading for the taliban cause. Qazi Hussain's statement yesterday showed how sincere that lot is about tackling this issue.

But coming back to Majumdar's allegation which you termed (on the dot), the ideology of the present day taliban has nothing to do the message preached by Gandhi jee. Ghaffar khan was a person who considered Hindus as Ahl-i-Kitab, and Gita a sacred text. And that is where one can say that he was ideologically a follower of Gandhi jee, who used to read from the Quran as well as the Gita.

But Mufti Mahmood, (ideologically speaking) is the other end of the spectrum, and the salafis as represented by Syed Qutub and OBL are even further to the right than this lot.

Even in the southern settled districts where JUI F is more entrenched you see more fundamentalist norms than the northern settled districts which have been more akin to Ghaffar Khan. Mind you the popularity of Ghaffar Khan and the ANP was curtailed officially by bans on their activities into FATA first by the British and then by the likes of Qayyum Khan, Ayub Khan, Bhutto, Zia ul haq, and finally Musharaf. and the result is evident.


So your contention that gandhi gave these fundos the ideological grounds on which they built up the whole jihad structure is completely false. and calling the current attack on Asfandyar as an arjun style "reap as you shall sow" event is also ridiculous. Using the same logic one can justify the death of BB by saying that she reaped what her father sowed by excommunicating the Ahmadis... which off course would be a stupid thing to say.

and i am not saying that angraiz is a kutta or whatever... i am speaking against colonizations, we cant defend the killing of hundreds by a mention of "good administrative skills"... an occupier is an occupier, whether sikh, angraiz or pathan... it does not matter.

Masanamuthu,

Gandhi's offer of premiership was a masterly PR move ... By offering Jinnah and the ML something that they would reject (a toothless minority PMship) Gandhi was merely playing to the global gallery where he had to maintain his saintliness...


Adam My friend, I suggest you revisit your own barbs that elicited those responses before you accuse me of anything. I have always been civil with you despite my utter disagreement with you. But still good to see rational sense return to whoever.

Ali brothers are not the issue. I suggest you read in detail Gandhi's close cooperation with the Darul uloom deoband, his encouragement of the establishment of their own political party. I think no one would disagree that Gandhi's encouragement of the mullahs within the khilafat cause (which I have documented in detail in an earlier post and in my ilog "gandhi the progressive" I think) despite being told by many Congressmen but especially Jinnah who called it "false religious frenzy" that by bringing the Mullahs they would destroy not just the khilafat cause but the Congress' move for self rule... Khilafat movement, as carried out by Gandhi, was what gave the Islamists teeth. It was this movement that ultimately made communal identities non-negotiable for at the heart of the movement was not the desire for freedom but an pan-islamist cause. The failure of the movement thanks to Ataturk mainly discredited the khilafat leadership though the only good thing that came out of it.

Secondly as I wrote in my NWFP series ... the about turn by Bacha Khan at the eleventh hour, the encouragement of Gandhi along the lines of Pakhtoonistan and the encouragement of Fakir of Ipi's Islamist insurgency by the Frontier Congress forever put the Durand line in dispute. It created conditions in NWFP/pakhtoonkhwa which have now come to bite everyone in the ass...and by no means are the ISI, Americans and Saudis blameless.

Still..I have always felt that Bacha Khan was perhaps much more committed to the ideals that are associated to Gandhi world wide ... But not only is ANP (and NAP and pakhtoon nationalists) itself dubious ...but you also have to contend with people like Mufti Mahmood ... Mufti Mahmood you must be aware was a lifelong ally of the Congress as well as NAP and Bacha Khan...he was also the chief of PNA's "nizam-e-mustafa" campaign which brought down Bhutto. Mufti Mahmood's opposition to Pakistan is legendary ...as Jamiat-e-ulema hind's main guy in NWFP. He was also the strongest ally of the Congress in NWFP's religious classes and a Deobandi. And he considered Gandhi his political guru. His son - Maulana Fazlur rahman - is widely hailed as the father of the taliban in west ...and today their own faction of JUI is part of the coalition ironically. Philosophically and morally, barring the small Usmani faction as well the short lived Jamiat-e-ulama allaince with ML for six months in 1937 in UP as part of the Muslim unity board, the Deobandi school has always consistently sided with the Congress party for the last 80 odd years ... In return Deoband has claimed its pound of flesh ... You should read Darul-itfa website of Darululoom Deoband ...these people are the most reactionary and bigoted people anywhere in the world... It is our misfortune in Pakistan however that Zia saw these guys as the only doctinairre jehadis who could be used to indoctrinate Afghan mujahideen and this gave Deobandi Islam a militant wing which is now creating problems for all and sundry. But to answer your question ...without the khilafat movement and Gandhi's encouragement, I am sure there would be no JUI-F today at the very least. As for Jamaat e islami (and Muslim brotherhood) even though Maududi was originally a congressman I don't blame Maududiism on Gandhi. Maududi and Qutb are middle class reaction to modernity and represent revival and indigenization trend of Muslim bourgeoisie.

It just so happened that Maududi opposed the Pakistan movement, otherwise this could have happened anywhere. Maududi however doesnot represent the forces that are at war in the tribal areas though Maududians are clearly sympathizers of the taliban.

In my view you yourself answered your question and I have quoted your answer. I am afraid it is not useful to assume that only an answer acceptable to you will amount to an answer because that is a dangerous assumption not conducive to dialogue and leads to kind of talking at each other that is so prevalent on this website.

Finally I don't ascribe to this "angrez kuta hai hai" sentiment. Mughals, Turks, Arabs, Huns, Greeks, Aryans were all colonists ...so to me this is merely a reaction. As for Ranjit Singh...he was one of the greatest men to ever rule Punjab and Pakhtoonkhwa and many many many Pakhtoons fought and died for him. I suggest you reconsider your view of the great Ranjit Singh by reading more about him.


On Gandhi let us agree to disagree ...the more I read about him the more my view of him gets fortified. Still Gandhi should be no reason for otherwise likeminded Pakistanis.

Now come back to Pakteahouse because I find people here insufferable.

-YLH

Dear Mantolives

My friend, now that you have adopted a more civil tone one that sans "irrational mohammadzais", "caves of charsadda", bharaks, and name calling for Ghaffar baba, you should get a similar response from me.

My objection was on the magnitude of importance you attach to a political alliance that Gandhi jee had with the fundamentalists. By so doing you aim to discredit the influence of these mullahs on the muslims of pre partition india. and as the term used so far, call Gandhi the "grand daddy" of all Jihadis.

The only ideological influence that Gandhi jee had in the present day NWFP, was on the Khudai Khidmatgars, and the areas that have had the active presence of Khudai Khidmatgars are today less prone to Islamic extremism. And no your sentences in bold DO NOT answer my question, the people who were the real allies of Gandhi are in contention for the same Pukhtoon vote as the Deobandis. It is not a nationalist excuse it is a fact that is observable everyday in the killing of ANP leaders and workers in Swat and Malakand at the hands of the Taliban. You can not explain these incidents with that fleeting alliance that Gandhi had with the ali brothers.

The other evident flaw in your reasoning is that you consider conservative muslims as incapable of forming political parties to put forward their political agendas.

Islam is a political religion and can be leveraged very effectively to gain votes. If extremist Islam is completely incapable of political organization, then how do you explain the formation of the "Muslim Brotherhood" (1928 Egypt), "Hizbul muslimin" (1947 Malaysia), "Hizb ul Nahda" (1998 Tunisia)... did they all need Gandhi Jee's asheerbad to step into politics?... was it Gandhi jee who whispered into syed qutb's ear that he should relinquish a secular agenda and become a hardline fundo?

No, muslims from across the world formed a religious right in their respective countries as these countries transitioned from colonial domains to independent states. The muslims of south asia are as human as the rest, why do you think that they did it ONLY because of Gandhi and were incapable of doing it on their own? You seriously belive that there would have been no JUI-F and Jamaat i Islami today if the Ali Brothers did not have their alliance with Gandhi?

Plus the radicalization of the tribal areas was not done under a democratic setup. It was done under a dictatorship and was done through the mosque and the madrassa. The people who spoke out against it were Ghaffar Khan and Wali Khan, and suffered the most politically as well as personally from this time period. Their warnings about the danger of this experiment got them exiles and house arrests.

If anything Gandhi's influence in this current mess as represented by the current leadership of ANP and the late Ghaffar Khan and Wali Khan is to counter the jihadis rather than to facilitate their poisoning of the pukhtoons.

As for Lord Curzon, well he was a colonial administrator who was responsible for creation of the "settled" and "tribal" divide amongst pushtoons that is still to this day used by the Pakistan army for their "strategic depth" initiative.

Mullah Powindahs clash with him was for freedom from the British, correct me if I am wrong but you did pay homage to Bhagat Singh once, well Mullah Powindah too was leading a violent struggle against the British. The Red coats are different from the Jawans of Pak army, that is because Pak army is our OWN army and the jawans are the sons of this soil. The gora however was an intruder who was fought by different people through different methods, some through violence others through non-violence... baitullah mehsud is defying an elected assembly that represents the will of the people of Pakistan.

So unless you think that the independence of Pakistan and our right to vote means nothing... you may shower as much praise on lord curzon as possible but if you consider him the representative of a colonial overlord, you will understand the apathy of the pushtoon towards him. Same goes for Ranjit Singh, who represented an occupying force on these lands and just like abdali ruled by the sword.

Respectfully submitted

masanamuthu
Gandhi had a lot of conditions attached to Jinnah being offered prime ministership which are usually not mentioned - Jinnah accepting a Congress majority legislature (something Jinnah had not done since 1937) for one. Mountbatten was to personally decide any issue when Jinnah's hypothetical govt and Congress majority legislature disagreed. Another condition was that Jinnah would end all the ongoing violent campaigns, and yet another was that the British would the same offer of assuming power to Congress if Jinnah refused this offer.

It was not dhimmitude zactly, it was trying to avert partition and end the violence.

I don't think so. Gandhi learnt his lesson in the Khilafat movement.


sadna:

I don't think he learnt any lesson. He was still the perfect dhimmi in 1946 when he suggested Jinnah to be the Prime Minister / take over the government much to the dismay of Nehru / Patel.

Than not then.

Adam khan,

My friend I have been answering that question but looks like you don't want to read it. It has been the contention of the pushtun nationalists that it was the Afghan war that radicalized the tribal areas ... Isn't it? Then your question which I have answered before as well but you kindly put again in bold this time becomes rather redundant doesn't it? I mean you yourself answered it: HERE is the ANSWER you gave me yourself to your own question: Deobandis radicalized the tribal areas through American and Saudi funding and who brought Deobandis in politics? You've already admitted that Gandhi brought Deobandis into politics.


My contention has been that there is a much stronger case for historic continuity between the islamic militants of deobandi school and Gandhi's support of Deobandi fundamentalists during the independence movement then the pathetic attempt by our Indian friends who wish to find a link to TNT. So those who read history can see that clearly.

Khaled Ahmed's article is excellent because it shows that despite propaganda by people like Sadna and others, the violence in this region predates Pakistan. In a way it overturns the claims of ANP type Pushtoons that the Afghan war radicalized the tribal areas.

Re: your abuse against maharaja Ranjit Singh

I don't care if some Pushtuns think Ranjit Singh was a villain.

Ranjit Singh was one of the greatest heroes of this region. I admire him for creating a strong and largely secular state. In his armies fought Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus... Pathans, Punjabis and even English and frenchmen. I am surprised that while you champion a manipulative medievalist machiavellian fascist like Gandhi just because your Bacha Khan liked him... you want us to disown Ranjit Singh one of the finest indigenous rulers this region had and who is a model for all Pakistanis ...

As for Lord Curzon...history written by fair minded people untainted by ideology and notions of "angrez kuta hai" will give Curzon his due as one of the ablest and finest administrator to preside over British India.

You want us to champion instead the rag tag Taliban of Mullah Pawinda? Why then do you have a problem with the taliban of today if you champion Pawinda and Faqir of Ipi?

You can't argue both sides of the argument as a matter of convenience my friend.

I have humbly requested that you refrain from personal attacks my friend ... Your latest accusation of "social acceptance" sounds better from one of these crazies from across the border. You are a Pakistani who I share a desire to build a strong and prosperous federation with equal rights and guarantees for all its citizens. We might differ on history etc but we do not differ on the final destination...so I am going to ask you one more time to stop resorting to such personal attacks simply because I don't share your point of view which is completely historically inaccurate.

PS: I'll also point out that Gandhiji never ever supported violence even during NCM - the violence was why he eventually called it off. I don't see Samajwadi Party eshewing violence ever.

masanamuthu
I don't think so. Gandhi learnt his lesson in the Khilafat movement.

sadna:

When Gandhi supported the fight against jihadis in Kashmir, partition has already happened. That's not the hypothetical scenario that arjun and I were discussing.

Clearly extrapolating the logic of Gandhi in preaching Khilafat to garner Muslim support, it is quite conceivable that someone like him would be preaching non-Muslims to support jihad in modern times in case of non-partitioned India. The closer equivalent is the Mulayam/Amar singh's support of SIMI these days as they depend on the Muslim vote bank.

Except the Khidmatgars of course, who were even more determinedly nonviolent than Congress Hindus ever were.

Yeah the Khilafat movement taught Gandhi that nonviolence was not a useful tool where Muslims were concerned, rather Muslims took it as a Hindu weakness if they(Hindus) chose to refrain from violence.

Mantolives:

Here is some more sycophancy from someone who i am seriously considering as a retard

Mohmadzai tribe produced the leadership of ANP. That makes me more civilized than Mohmadzai...though I must say that the tribe made up for its blunder by also producing the great Fasi Zaka-

what exactly are you trying to say in this statement?

and here comes your pushtoon hatred once again

first it was Syed Ahmed against our great Maharaja Ranjit Singh... then Mullah Pawinda and his taliban against our great Viceroy Curzon..

so now Ranjit Singh and Viceroy curzon, two of the biggest villains in Pushtoon history are "yours"? nice, just to remind you, syed ahmad was killed by his own Afridi followers after he started doling out wahabi "Sharia". These followers were not pro-ranjit singh, who to Pathans is similar to what Abdali is to Punjabis. And you must know what baba buleh shah said about abdali and his atrocities.

Why Khalid Ahmad's article is "excellent"(your words) is because it makes no mention of Gandhi jee in the overall evolution of Jihadism in Pukhtoon society, further more what it did was is that it made you spell out a more suitable grand daddy of modern day taliban i.e. "Syed Ahmad of Rai Baraily" and not Mahatma Gandhi.

I completely agree with you that ZAB made a "blunder"(your words) from which his party and leaders like Eatzaz Ahsan have still not distanced themselves. The Mahatma also made a similar blunder by siding with these guys, which was against his divine teaching of Satyagraha... this not even in the remotest sense make him the "grand daddy" of modern jihad in south asia.

Also neither you nor majumdar have answered my question "Why is it that fundamentalism is so strong in the Tribal areas from which the followers of Gandhi jee have been barred from entering since the time of the British?"

To continue your education about the pushtoons, a lashkar is supposed to defend its "own area". What the salarzai lashkar will not do is to go into mohmand area to clean out the militants. Qayyum Khan made them go to Kashmir!, it had nothing to do with the "Qaom" as such, it was a job for the Pakistani military not the tribals. The current lashkars have the responsibility of cleaning up their areas because it is these exact lashkars who were in charge of FATA before the Taliban took over. The state wasnt calling the shots before the Taliban.

Now we are fighting to drive Gandhi's buddies out of NWFP.

lol... your ignorance cracks me up... just look at the number of assassinated ANP leaders before the recent election and you will know that it was the buddies of Gandhi jee who were putting themselves on the line, just as they did in Barbara and before that in Qissa Khawani Bazar. These are the followers who spell their history out with pride and do not abuse dead men to gain social acceptance.

Yeah the hypocrisy of Gandhian "non-violence" of convenience deserves a whole article by itself.

Gandhi was a manipulative machiavellian politician with no regard for sense of justice, fair play or any scruples whatsoever.

I wonder if someone will write a Richard Dawkins type book on "Gandhi delusion" that humanity at large suffers from.

PS: And Gandhi wrote on 28 Jan 1948 "I have not the slightest doubt that if we show the least bit of slackness over Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagadh are going to meet with the same fate."

masanamuthu
Gandhi supported dispatching Indian troops to fight jihadi and Pak Army raiders in J&K in 47-48.

Islamic Emirate of Waziristan/pakhtoonistan ...not Afghanistan. Sorry for the error.

Sadna

An excellent article by Khaled Ahmed.


Adam khan,

Bacha Khan's favorite Fakir of Ipi would have been a proud foot soldier of Syed Ahmed ..

It is one continuous battle as the fine article that Sadna has posted ... first it was Syed Ahmed against our great Maharaja Ranjit Singh... then Mullah Pawinda and his taliban against our great Viceroy Curzon...then Bacha Khan's buddy Fakir of Ipi against the Dominion of Pakistan ...and now the Islamic militants against our Republic ...all trying establish Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan ...all supported by Deobandi strain of Islam (which Gandhi also promoted in the Khilafat movement and which he brought into mainstream of the independence movement to undercut and destroy liberal Muslims).


Now we must fight and put an end to this menace which has threatened Pakistan for the last 60 years ...and which forced even Bacha Khan's own grandson to flee "pukhtoonkhwa" and seek refuge in Islamabad the federal capital of Pakistan.

MKG was not a 'cunning' bania-

he was first a Dhimmi.

He wore all those English suits and acted like he is an English man amongst brown people until he got thrown out of trains.

He remained dhimmi all his life - thinking Allah and God and Hindu Ishwara are same same.

He is responsible for the rise of dhimmized thinking within Congress.

Even till date Congress remains the hot bed of Dhimmized thinking and that is why it is under the control of Christian Evangelists.

If it weren't for jinnah, i wouldn't be able to call the hellfires pakiwhackers..indiwhackers doesn't have the same ring to it..


That's right.

come to think of it, without pakiland and pakis, there wouldn't have been hellfires dropping there..


maybe not. there would be someone like Mahathma Gandhi who would want non-Muslims to fight the jihad for Muslims as he wanted non-Muslims to fight for Khilafat. and the hellfires would have fallen all over India.

adamkhan
Did you see this:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C05%5C18%5Cstory_18-5 -2008_pg3_4

BOOK REVIEW: Mullahs and wars in Tribal Areas by Khaled Ahmed

Frontier of Faith: Islam in the Indo-Afghan Borderland;
By Sana Haroon; Hurst & Company London 2007;
Pp254; Price £25;
Special Price £15.95;
Available at bookstores in Pakistan

Syed Ahmad Shaheed of Rai Bareilly has finally won his battle in 2008, albeit at the cost of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embraced the Deobandis in the hope of making itself acceptable but to no avail

Sana Haroon has written an excellent book that will help us understand the killing fields of the Tribal Areas of Pakistan today. This month (April 2008) the local Al Qaeda warlord and alleged killer of Ms Benazir Bhutto, Baitullah Mehsud of Wana, convened a big conference of the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in Aurakzai Agency near the tomb of Haji Turangzai to proclaim that his emirate had come to stay. He was himself not there for fear of being killed by an American drone but his deputy representing Bajaur was there as were warriors from all other tribal areas including Malakand in the NWFP.

The book explains the role of the local mullah in Pakhtun society and traces his journey from mystical faith to the hardline Deobandi one which was actually more suited to the stark highlander’s life of challenges rather than the quietism of the sufi from the plains. Haji Turangzai actually stands at the axis of change in the spirituality of the Tribal Areas and his war against British Raj fits him for the homage of those who are fighting the global hegemony of America and punishing with suicide-bombing such American allies as Pakistan.

Historically the Pakhtun of the Tribal Areas were ruled by their tribal code Pakhtunwali intertwined with faith through the agency of their mullahs. The mullahs were mostly a part of the chain (silsila) of mystics — mostly Qadiriya — who decided the matters of sharia in the light of their jurisprudence and in deference to the tribal code. Gradually the mullahs all changed to the Mujaddadiya chain of mysticism, which meant they became militant rather than quiescent in the qadiri tradition. We at least have one evidence about when the change actually began.

Ahmed Shah Abdali had induced descendants of Mujaddid Alf Sani to move to Kabul after his raid of Delhi in 1748. On their arrival, and with patronage from the court of Ahmed Shah, and later Timur Shah (1772-93) and Shah Zama (1793-1800), they gained pre-eminence at the Afghan court. The were also granted lands in Kabul, Kohistan, Jalalabad, Kandahar and Herat where the influence of the Naqshbandiya-Mujaddidiya line grew to its strongest (p.41). It is Alf Sani’s majuddadi militancy that informs the Pakhtun personality.

The piri-muridi tradition was strong among the Pakhtuns till another great man in the tradition of Naqshbandiya-Mujaddadiya chain became their patron in chief, Shah Waliullah. The big tradition of the warlord mullah in the Tribal Areas must begin with Abdul Ghafur (1793-1878) of upper Swat who got his early education at Hazrat Ji of the Mujaddadiya silsila in Peshawar who found him in violation of the tariqa, after which he joined a Qadiri-Suhrawardiya-Chistiya teacher of a multiple order. Ghafur became the akhund whose line was to be the owners of Swat because he fought on the side of Amir Dost of Afghanistan against Ranjit Singh and won for his Yusufzai followers the lands of Swat and Mardan. The ‘Miangul’ descendants of Ghafur were first known as akhund but were later called wali.

Akhund Ghafur set up the throne of Swat and in 1849 put Syed Akbar Shah on it as Amir of Swat, the Syed being a former secretary of Syed Ahmad of Rai Bareilly, but after his death took the throne himself. He kept his line with the Mujaddadi chief mullah of Kabul open and derived a lot of power from the Kabul throne through the mystic silsila. His military might was respected in the region surrounding Swat, but his authority spread far and wide when he accepted, as murid, Mullah Najmuddin of Hadda, a khalifa or appointed deputy of Syed Ahmad of Rai Bareilly. (Syed Ahmad of Rai Bareilly had come to the Frontier from Delhi to defeat the Sikhs and establish an Islamic state, but was killed at Balakot in today’s Hazara district in 1831.)

The new Mujaddadi wave rolled back the earlier maverick mysticism fitfully represented by such ‘heretic’ saints as Pir Roshan Bayazid Ansari (1525-1560) who united the Pakhtuns against the Mughals and remained true to the reputation of warrior mystics. The Mujaddadis rejected Pir Roshan’s cutting down of the namaz and other central tenets in the tradition of Mansur Hallaj. (Former cricket captain Majid Khan’s son cricketer Bazid Khan is named after the Pir-e-Roshan.) The great tradition that came to Swat was given in the hands of the Hadda Mullah of Mohmand. He came to Swat and proclaimed an eclectic silsila led by the Mujaddadi school.

Hadda Mullah fought Amir Abdur Rehman Khan of Kabul on the one hand and battled the British on the other. As a pupil of Syed Ahmad Shaheed of Rai Bareilly who fought South India’s most immaculate jihad in the Frontier, Hadda Mullah created a stronghold in 1897 when he saw his follower from Kabul Sadullah Khan Sartor Faqir fighting the British at Malakand. The Miangul line of Akhund Ghafur was soon disenchanted by the politically suicidal but heroic strategies of Hadda Mullah and broke from their family silsila to go to the less warlike school of Manki Sharif.

But the Akhund Ghafur-Hadda Mullah legacy was moved forward by one Fazl Wahid Haji Sahib of Turangzai (1842-1937), which was really the teachings of Mujaddid Alf Sani and Shah Waliullah. Turangzai is supposed to have gone to Deoband in India’s Saharanpur to learn the Quran where he saw the most militant of all clerics Maulana Mahmudul Hasan preparing a group of pupils to go to Hijaz in Saudi Arabia. He insisted on going to haj with Maulana Mahmudul Hasan and seemed to have repeated the experience of Shah Waliullah himself when he came under the Wahabi influence of Haji Imdadullah in Makka. Haji Turangzai’s first bayt was with Imdadullah, the one he took at the hand of Hadda Mullah was his second.

Although the descendants of Akhund Ghafur like Miangul Aurangzeb the Wali of Swat greatly revered the great Mujaddadi tradition their rule in Swat was less stringent than in Mohmand and Bajaur where Haji Turangzai left behind a strong Deobandi-Wahhabi influence that was to coalesce with the Arabs who arrived in the region with Al Qaeda. Baitullah Mehsud is claiming from the Mianguls the legacy of Akhund Ghafur while the family of the Wali is keen to take the governance of Swat away from Peshawar and reactivate the soft shariat of the Wali. The Pakistan army could therefore be facing the tradition of the Wali and the larger challenge of Haji Turangzai legacy represented by Baitullah Mehsud.

But if the Pakistan army loses, the next rout will be that of the representatives of the Wali who are in the habit of quickly leaving Swat after indirectly supporting Maulana Fazlullah of TNSM. The legacy of Haji Turangzai is in the ascendant. Syed Ahmad Shaheed of Rai Bareilly has finally won his battle in 2008, albeit at the cost of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embraced the Deobandis in the hope of making itself acceptable but to no avail. *

Adam khan,

Something is very wrong with you.

1. I did not 'threaten' you with a ban. I merely said that since you were resorting to abuse and personal attacks instead of arguments, I might ask the moderators to remove you. But I didn't and your posts are there and they will be there as they do the most disservice to your own argument as they are high on personal attacks and low on substance. So be honest for once.


2. Not everyone who points out the opportunistic politics of ANP is pro-Punjabi. Your inability to accept that a counterpoint may exist without it being agenda driven is clearly indicative of a narrowmindedness, a myopia even that is common to the crooks that make up ANP. Once again ANP does not equal Pushtuns many of whom are the finest people I have had the honor of knowing.

3. I am not sure how or when I said anything about Khilafat movement not weakening the Ottoman Empire. Infact I have no idea what brand of niswar you are eating (now don't start with racist racist). Mohmadzai tribe produced the leadership of ANP. That makes me more civilized than Mohmadzai...though I must say that the tribe made up for its blunder by also producing the great Fasi Zaka- Pakistan's greatest social commentator at the moment. Btw did you read Fasi Zaka's article on Gandhi's hypocrisy ... extraordinary work.


4. ZAB's blunder in 1974 ought to be criticized in the same way ...he left the door for Mullahs and Gandhians to take over the Pakistani state by putting in the state religion clause in 1973 but by bowing down to the establishment conpiracy just to save his government, ZAB literally left the door wide open for such discrimination. He sold out Pakistan to the same people who had opposed the creation of this country and Majumdar is on the dot with his criticism of ZAB.

In so far as I am concerned I have always criticized Bhutto despite being a PPP supporter. And I think Bhutto was fell victim to his own politics of takfir when the PNA (including your precious ANP wallahs) used Islam against him.


5. Your sudden love for Faqir of Ipi is aweinspiring. However you are wrong ... Faqir of Ipi was not only in bed with Jamiat-e-ulema Hind and Bacha Khan, I have documented his war cries and his jehad slogans. He had called for the death of inter alia the British, the Hindus, the Muslim League (which was considered the bastion of Qadianism by Faqir of Ipi) ...
Faqir of Ipi represented the historic continuity between Mullah Pawinda's taliban (who were subdued by Lord Curzon and were called Taliban) and Behtullah Mehsud and Mangal Bagh.

Whether you demand intercession from graves or not does not matter when you consider the ultimate nature of Faqir of Ipi's militancy... had he been alive 100 years earlier he would have been a proud general of Syed Ahmed ...today he would be fighting against the Pakistan Army and the Americans and threatening to blow up Asfandyar Wali for "selling out to the Americans" ... This is the irony of ANP's politics...today even their old comrades don't like them.

And don't fool people. A Qaumi Lashkar is a Qaumi Lashkar. The indoctrinated militants of Zia regime had nothing to do with Qaumi Lashkar that Qayyum used in Kashmir. It is the same Lashkar fighting the taliban today. Your distinction of offensive and defensive shows us that you are blissfully ignorant of your own Pushtun traditions.

It was the American and Saudi funding that brought Deobandis ie gandhi's old buddies into the heartland of the tribal belt as you will admit yourself. Now we are fighting to drive Gandhi's buddies out of NWFP.

All this makes much more sense if one considers that Ziaul Haq himself came from a family that was once in Majlis-e-Ahrar ...yeah the Islamist Party which had an electoral alliance with Gandhi till the very end of British India.

Re: # 32

Thanks YLH. I do know now that the books followed in the paki madrassas are my experimenst with truth. Osama always concludes his video tapes with Jai Gandhi...and always teh paki terrorists last act is to shout Jai Gandhi before exploding the suicide belt.

They all in reality quote from one book...YLH can you guess which book???

Mantolives:

If you are man enough you will return to NWFP 5...

man enough?! lol... didnt they teach you anything about the political incorrectness of sexist bharaks?... you saying that me not interacting there makes me a woman and thus weak!?... nice... so much for the liberal brown sahib....

but in anycase on that board you threatened me with a ban because my replies were not in agreement with yours, and you called in one chamcha of yours to create another diversion. I have discussed this issue with you many times and everytime it doesnt take you long to stoop low.

For instance on this board, you began by labeling the whole of mohamadzai tribe as irrational and uncivilized

So this "attack the messenger" bullshit might work amongst the mohamadzai tribe of NWFP but in civilized parts of the world it doesn't pass for a good argument.

And then you accuse me of resorting to personal attacks? what makes you more civilized than the mohammadzai? or for that matter any sur name? I think you should apologize for this blatantly racist statement which goes exactly against another of your narcissist conclusion

I am more opposed to the Punjabi establishment than anyone else here ...

errr? okay.. first of all mr messenger, do you have any way to measure the "anti punjabi establishmentness" of individuals here, or do you just belive that because you "feel" it is like that...

I cant figure out these jumps of positions from one to another, is it dishonesty or plain schizophrenia?

the lashkars are raised for military purposes, if these are for defense then obviously there is a moral ground for that... but Qayyum Khan's egging on resulted in a lashkar that fought outside of the Tribal areas, much like the lashkars raised under Zia ul haq's regime.

I am glad you've pointed out that Deobandis not Braelvis (and remember League was supported by Braelvis) that are responsible for violence in NWFP ...you might want to point that out to jayp and bj type crooks. Now Majumdar has already pointed out that Deobandis were Gandhi's boys brought into politics by Gandhi.

To say that the weakening of the Ottomon Caliphete had nothing to do with the Khilafat movement is ridiculous. Ages before Gandhi, Syed Ahmad of Rai Baraily who was a disciple of abdul wahab himself had established a Wahabi state in and around peshawar. There was a political presence of the mullah and the muslims did listen to him. Gandhi aligned himself with the deobandis true, but what I dont understand is that how are you guys giving him the credit of being the "grand daddy" of all deobandis and wahabis. If that is true then ZAB is the ideological guru of all Ahmadi haters out there, and all the killings of ahmadis in Pakistan are because of the fact that ZAB joined politics, do you agree with that?

To continue your education of this whole scenario, let me say this if Faqir of ipi was alive today, and if he practiced his same beliefs, he would have been beheaded by the Taliban and the video distributed on the net. The war between Ansar ul Islam and Lashkar i Islam is a war between Barelvis and Wahabis. Faqir of Ipi was a barelvi, his teachings are not the basis for Baitullah Mehsud's ideology. So to think of this as a "continuation" of the politics of 1947 is absurd... just because you spent a lot of time studying about things in 1947 and before... does not mean that you should seek answers for everything in that period... update your knowledge....

Furthermore, I ask both you and majumdar, why is it the case that these fundamentalists are mostly concentrated in areas where the followers of Gandhi were never allowed to practice politics? why is it that this movement is mostly concentrated amongst the tribals?

#46 Posted by masanamuthu on October 4, 2008 12:32:59 pm


I think we should not ignore the contributions of Jinnah either.


If it weren't for jinnah, i wouldn't be able to call the hellfires pakiwhackers..indiwhackers doesn't have the same ring to it..

come to think of it, without pakiland and pakis, there wouldn't have been hellfires dropping there..

more you think about this, more you would be amazed at the far-sight of the great man and his understanding of people and politics as they existed in his time...


Exactly.

I think we should not ignore the contributions of Jinnah either. :-)

"Punjabi v pathan"

Now this is downright ridiculous. I am more opposed to the Punjabi establishment than anyone else here ... Your inability to accept any counter argument or dissenting point of view without trying to make it a Punjabi v pathan thing is indicative of a crazed ANP mentality that is incurable.

Anyway ...like Aitzaz and Zardari I too support the renaming of NWFP to Pakhtunkhwa if the people of NWFP want it. At the very least it will take the wind out of the opportunists who didn't once raise this demand when they were in power under British rule ...

ANP does not equal the Pushtoons ...not by a long shot.

Bj,

Yawn. I don't have time for your nonsense.


Adam khan, your personal attacks and abuse notwithstanding, I responded to your ignorant claims and lies on several occasions and you did not have the decency to come up with a factual argument.

If you are man enough you will return to NWFP 5 where you resorted to personal attacks instead of counter arguments and then beat a hasty retreat as is the wont of all Gandhians and their toadies.

Btw... I didn't say that Americans and Saudis didn't fund the mullahs etc ...they did. However the ingredients were there in the time of Mullah Pawinda and his taliban (who you would be well advised to inform your masters here pre-date the independence movement). Also Faqir of Ipi is the forerunner of Behtullah Mehsud whether you like it or
not. The oft quoted example of tribal lashkar is the equivalent of the Qaumi lashkar that is hunting the taliban down ...thus that takes the wind out of any. analogies you might wanna draw with Qayyum's famous pushtun lashkar that invaded Kashmir...if you know what I mean.


I am glad you've pointed out that Deobandis not Braelvis (and remember League was supported by Braelvis) that are responsible for violence in NWFP ...you might want to point that out to jayp and bj type crooks. Now Majumdar has already pointed out that Deobandis were Gandhi's boys brought into politics by Gandhi.

Thanks for proving our point. It proves that what Majumdar is saying is on the dot.

Now coming to the issue of Faqir of Ipi's faith ... if you read NWFP-4 which is about Faqir of Ipi you will discover the close links between Jamiat-e-ulema Hind and Faqir of Ipi and the frontier Congress. So even if what you say is true, the Deobandi connection is all too apparent.

So what a verdict of history, asfandyar fleeing his own grandfather's comrades to ...not Jalalabad... not Kabul ...but Islamabad. How pathetic. Time is a great leveller.

Bj,

Yawn. I don't have time for your nonsense.


Adam khan, your personal attacks and abuse notwithstanding, I responded to your ignorant claims and lies on several occasions and you did not have the decency to come up with a factual argument.

If you are man enough you will return to NWFP 5 where you resorted to personal attacks instead of counter arguments and then beat a hasty retreat as is the wont of all Gandhians and their toadies.

Btw... I didn't say that Americans and Saudis didn't fund the mullahs etc ...they did. However the ingredients were there in the time of Mullah Pawinda and his taliban (who you would be well advised to inform your masters here pre-date the independence movement). Also Faqir of Ipi is the forerunner of Behtullah Mehsud whether you like it or
not. The oft quoted example of tribal lashkar is the equivalent of the Qaumi lashkar that is hunting the taliban down ...thus that takes the wind out of any. analogies you might wanna draw with Qayyum's famous pushtun lashkar that invaded Kashmir...if you know what I mean.


I am glad you've pointed out that Deobandis not Braelvis (and remember League was supported by Braelvis) that are responsible for violence in NWFP ...you might want to point that out to jayp and bj type crooks. Now Majumdar has already pointed out that Deobandis were Gandhi's boys brought into politics by Gandhi.

Thanks for proving our point. It proves that what Majumdar is saying is on the dot.

Now coming to the issue of Faqir of Ipi's faith ... if you read NWFP-4 which is about Faqir of Ipi you will discover the close links between Jamiat-e-ulema Hind and Faqir of Ipi and the frontier Congress. So even if what you say is true, the Deobandi connection is all too apparent.

So what a verdict of history, asfandyar fleeing his own grandfather's comrades to ...not Jalalabad... not Kabul ...but Islamabad. How pathetic. Time is a great leveller.

Mantolives,

The soul of the vamp burns in hell and your whole country is doing prayashchit for his sins and it will be a long while before it comes anywhere close to meeting a fraction of the amount needed to overcome the burden of his sins.

Adamkhan,

As a child, I have had the privilege of listening to a speech made in person by the Frontier Gandhi when he visited my small town. He was a nek-insaan, IMHO!

Sincerely,
BJ Kumar

Re: # 31

JayP, that's most enlightening!

Now I really understand why Pakistanis look so clueless every time I tell one - "Hey Pakistani, go fly a kite!"

Majumdar:

by the same token, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutton should be blamed for the killings of Ahmadis in Pakistan, and all over the world. That would be absurd, wouldnt it? Judge Gandhi by the followers who claim to be his followers not by the people whom your lawyer(liar?)says were his followers. Read about Syed Qutub, he is the ideological grand daddy of these people.

Mantolives;

Once again, completely ignorant statements. The current wave of tribalism is concentrated in FATA, the same area from which the British Colonialists and then the Pakistani Government barred Ghaffar Khan and his party to enter. It is also the area where under the auspices of Qayyum Khan, Ghaffar Khan and Nehru were pelted at by the crowd. Ghaffar Khan never had a solid following in the tribal areas and what we are reaping today is ironically the policies of the British carried out proudly today by our brown sahibs.

Let me educate you some more, the current onslaught is brought about by Wahabis, while Faqir of Ipi was a Barelvi. Saying that this onslaught is a continuation of the politics of partition is to exonerate the Americans and Saudis of their involvement of the 80s. They wouldnt teach you that in American universities now would they?

But in anycase, this pathan vs punjabi thing that you are trying to champion is very retro. People like Chaudhry Aitzaz and Zardari have used Pukhtunkhwa as a title when referring to the NWFP. So go harp another tune to get some acceptance from your neighbors, it is sad that they still judge you by the religious affiliation of your kin.

Re: # 37 masan

more you think about this, more you would be amazed at the far-sight of the great man and his understanding of people and politics as they existed in his time...

it didn't really took much for "moderate" muslims to discard their masks... even a learned man like jinnah... his transformation from secularism to jihadism was almost overnight....all it took was a slight provocation...

gandhi, in one fine stroke, proved the fact people knew all along - when the push come to a even slight jab, a muslim will always be a muslim... he would more likely to identify with his faith rather than his nation.... even a barely-muslim like jinnah...

It was a master-stroke...

In the matter of TNT, MKG has been completely mis-understood... he was far-sighted and wise, and as the events have unfolded, he has been proven right again and again... muslims are a species apart, TNT was good, partition was awesome... if only Godse had understood this.... he unnecessarily killed a great man, a great thinker and the great hindoo that ever walked the earth...


That's my reading too.. :-)

Majumdar
[...MKG offered an explanation that the Moplahs were acting in a manner which they thought behoved their faith. This is the same argument which some Talib apologists adopt.
...]

I guess, that's the great paradox - pakis hate gandhi, and yet adopted his policy of supporting islamic fundoo-ness...

May be that was the plan all along... MKG the cunning bania that he was, knew more than anybody else, the necessity of TNT... MKG, more than anybody else has understood muslim mindset, their in-built big0try and bedouin-stupidity, he understood that there was no way accomdate such people in a workable political/social framework...

So MKG was absolutely right in his explanation on what happened in Moplah... muslims there acting exactly per their religion, jihad is their faith, murder of kafir was their path to salvation...

All that he had to do a light the match... and muslim mindset will do the rest... even a educated person like jinnah couldn't resist his inner jihadi, he fell for it hook, line and sinker... he discarded all his acquired moderate principle to become what BJ terms as the first jihadi in the region...

Which is what I have always said - there is no such beast as a moderate muslim - scratch the surface, you will find a jihadi...

+++

In the matter of TNT, MKG has been completely mis-understood... he was far-sighted and wise, and as the events have unfolded, he has been proven right again and again... muslims are a species apart, TNT was good, partition was awesome... if only Godse had understood this.... he unnecessarily killed a great man, a great thinker and the great hindoo that ever walked the earth...

Long live Gandhi, Long live his Hindoo-land.... Let pure muslims enjoy in the fiery comfort of their taliban hell... Ha ha....

Majumdar,

Thanks for quoting those statements from Gandhi's collected works.

It proves that Gandhi was a racist, casteist, Hindu fascist bigot and I am glad more and more people can now read history and see it for themselves.

PS... We will not get into whose wife did what ... But we know that Gandhi the religio-fascist creep did not allow penicilin injections or malarial medicine for his wife who died. Poor Kasturba. Gandhi murdered her like Mahatma Simpson.

Ofcourse the hypocrite Mahatma Gandhi gladly accepted the same treatment for himself ...a few years later.

Gandhi was a dishonest crook, a fraud and a religio-fascist medievalist bigot. It is time humanity saw the creep for what he was.

I find it ironic that instead of defending Gandhi, losers here abuse Jinnah...as if gandi naali ka keera Gandhi could come close to honesty, integrity. Modernity and incorruptibility that was the hallmark of Jinnah.

So stop it. Defend Gandhi. Don't insult Jinnah by trying to elevate that creep Gandhi to Jinnah's level.

Btw I saw OJ Simpson practising Gandhian style of politics and going to jail.

I am guessing now we can start calling him Mahatma Simpson instead. ;)

Yawn. BJ and Jayp will you keep repeating your lies or would you ever come up with something remotely true or factual.


The real terrorist was Gandhi- the hindu fascist, misogynist, racist and bigoted witchdoctor. and the people responsible for violence in NWFP- the Mehsuds+other Islamic militants are his followers.

There is UNBROKEN continuity between Gandhi's encouragement of deoband to this day in NWFP.

So there you have it. Pakistan must renouce gandhiism and terrorism and re-visit the fine secular ideology of its founding father.

It is time to crush witchdoctors, the gandhis, the mullahs and others once and for all in NWFP and the US is doing a great job helping us out.

Re: # 29
BJ2,

An islamic country, like pakistan, where the PM takes oath to uphold Koran and sharia, there can be no concept of a nation state or any notion of cultural values or any sense of non-islamic history.

That is why flying of kites is banned in pakistan as it is linked pre-islamic harvest festival, that is teh very reason that the paki educated taliban idealists had to blow up the bhumian budhas, that is why so many hindu temples were destroyed in "reaction to the " masjid attack in india, a majid that remained unoccupied for nearly a centuary.

Hence because islam cannot recognise a nation state, there can be no option other than fragmentation of [pakistyan, simply because people value the cultural links more than the religious ones. NWFP is gone, next to go will be sindh.

The only way to prevent it is to smash those photos in the govt offices of pakistan, denounce TNT. That will de-link in a political sense, pakistan from islam, and then and then only the world will let pakistan prosper.

Now what we have is a jihadic state with nuclear weapons and that state has to be managed and controlled by external forces simply because of the risk it poses.

Pakistanis will slowly learn that the bomb is the mill stone on their neck, prompting them to bow to all others, americans to the chinese. Pakistanis will never be allowed to walk straingt, because of the bomb. They will be constantly enslaved, though the pakis would prefer to call their chinese masters, all weather friends. The same used to be said about the yanks.

Jinnah, the murderer of the subcontinent and its first Islamic terrorist, got away scot-free.

The kambakhat died!

Lucky bloke!

At least OJ Simpson will not get away with his deeds!
---------------------------------------------
O. J. Simpson Found Guilty in Robbery Trial

By STEVE FRIESS
Published: October 4, 2008

LAS VEGAS — O.J. Simpson was found guilty late Friday on all 12 counts stemming from a confrontation in a hotel room last year, including armed robbery and kidnapping.

O.J. Simpson was handcuffed after receiving a guilty verdict in Las Vegas.

The verdict, which comes 13 years to the day after Mr. Simpson was acquitted in the highly publicized murders of his ex-wife and her friend, concluded a four-week trial that many have seen as a proxy for those unsatisfied by that 1995 outcome.

Pakistan was meant to fragment because fragmentation is the essence of Jinnahism.

That's why Bangladesh went its separate way.

If it were not for a strong Pakistani army, so would its other components. The Pakistanis are therefore destined to either enjoy khaki "patronage" for a long time or cease to remain "Pakistanis".

It will be interesting for somebody to explain what is "Paak" about Pakistan.

Is it the ethnic cleansing of Hindus?!

Funny thing is, every Pakistani swears by Jinnah.

Then, in the true spirit of the Jinnah, they turn on each other and kill each other!

Mohammad Ali Jinnah was the Indian subcontinent’s first Muslim terrorist. He was a Muslim bigot except that he loved to eat pork and slurp alcohol.

He organized the “Direct Action Day� – a day of killing of Hindus to gain political advantages in the name of Mussalmaans.

He was the formulator of the theme that it is impossible for Mussalmaans to leave peacefully with other communities.

He said – “Pakistan was born the moment the first Mussalmaan landed in India.�

By that logic, there is a Pakistan waiting to be born in every Western country.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was also a lousy husband – even his wife likely saw him for the cruel and heartless creep that he was and dumped him like a stinking, rotten tomato.

TNT was born in reaction to Gandhi's encouragement of the Mullahs.

The terrorists are ideological successors of Gandhi's favorite mullahs of deoband not TNTists.

No amount of whitewashing of history will break the continuity between Gandhi and the extremists in NWFP.

Eklavya,

I have written a five part series on Bacha Khan, his family and their insidious role in creating Islamist insurgency in form of Fakir of Ipi ...search it on PakTeahouse.wordpress.com.

I think it is an appropriate verdict of history that the "great" leader of Pushtuns Asfandyar Wali Khan had to escape on a helicopter and seek refuge in Islamabad- the federal capital of Pakistan- to save his life.

What Bacha Khan started with Fakir of Ipi on the prodding of the Afghan govt in 1947 has come to haunt his grandson.

An article that ignores Gandhi's racism against black people altogether ...is as one sided as those who only concentrate on that.

This is a bad article and everyone here knows it.

Adam mian,

Your logic never makes sense I am afraid. I was never exposed to Pakistani textbooks in my life (though I have examined them recently and found no "hate-gandhi" material in them unfortunately) but I think the fellow was a charlatan and a fraud to the core ...or simply very stupid.


I happened to read a substantial portion of the 90 volumes of Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi at College and was also exposed to Nirad Chaudhry's "thy hand great anarch" ... Which opened my eyes to Gandhi who I had considered a great leader till about 1999-2000. My enlightenment came at a US university's library. You should try using those things once in a while.

Simply because someone has a different point of view doesn't make them "moron". Your inability to tolerate a point of view thatcounters your deeply held beliefs makes me think that old habits die hard.


And if Harish Hyd is an honest man he will affirm that Sabyasachi Majumdar is indeed a Bengali Indian Hindu. So this "attack the messenger" bullshit might work amongst the mohamadzai tribe of NWFP but in civilized parts of the world it doesn't pass for a good argument.

Go ahead accuse me of being prejudiced blah blah...but facts are sacred.

AK sb,

Few other similarities you may ponder on.

When a Punjabi author wrote a blasphemous article on the Prophet, he was murdered by some Muslim fanatic. Now while I dont approve of blasphemy this is no way of settlin matter in a civilised country. But if I am not mistaken MKG went out of the way to justify the act (correct me if I am wrong), this is the same mindset which has prompted today's Blasphemy Laws.

When Moplahs went on a rampage murdering, raping, converting, plundering and abducting Hindoos, MKG rather tamely offered an explanation that the Moplahs were acting in a manner which they thought behoved their faith. This is the same argument which some Talib apologists adopt.

In a curious irony Pakistan in its Objective Resolution unwittingly adopted MKG's philosophy "That those who want to separate religion and politics know nothing about either". Wherein began the slide towards a sectarian state. While the Constt of India without mentioning the secular word effectively separated the state and church, much as MAJ (pbuh) in his 8/11 showed the pathway of separating faith and citizenship without mentioning the s-word.

Now you decide who is the ideological grand dady of Taliban in the sub-continent.

Regards

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Majumdar:

My objection was on your assertion that Gandhi and the Pakistani Taliban are similar on ideological ground. What you have presented now are a set of political maneuvering, alliances of convenience. Just like Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's excommunication of Ahmadis does not make him a fundamentalist Jihadi, Gandhi too means nothing in the history of jihadist islam in South Asia.

And also if you agree that fundoos were dime a dozen, then who or how could one have stopped them from gaining political momentum? The mullah was and still is a central figure in muslim communities, when communication means were still not that developed (compared to now), the Jumma sermon acted as a source of information on current affairs. For this reason these mullahs always had an audience.

what mobilized them into collective action was not the insinuations of Gandhi but the potential demise of the Ottomon Caliphate, and what killed the Khilafat movement was not the break up of its alliance with congress but the policy of Ata Turk in pursuing a secular turkey.

Adam Khan sb,

whats your excuse?

Truth.

Fundoos of both Hindoo and Momin variety were dime a dozen in India but it was MKG who brought fundoos into the national political mainstream which till then was dominated by secular politicians like MAJ (pbuh), GK Gokhale and MLN.

Gotta go but will explain in details later. But in a short sentence, he made Islamic fundooism mainstream thru his espousal of Moplah and Khilafat and later his unilateral suspension of NCM caused a feeling of betrayal among Muslims which ultiamtely led to parting of ways.

Regards