Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

re: nakhok

You missed out a few facts in your discussion of Fazal-e-Haq. For example, you said that Fazal-e-Haq was not officially a member of Muslim League. That`s incorrect.

A.K.Fazal-e-Haq was not only a member of All India Muslim League, he even served as its President from 1916 to 1921. Later he formed his own party, the Krishak Praja Party. At the AIML Convention at Lahore in 1940, Maulvi A.K. Fazal-e-Haq presented the plan for partition of Muslim majority Bengal from India to form a new state.

See: http://www.sylhet-online.co.uk/G-Poli-Personalities.htm

All India Muslim League (AIML) membership rules did not prevent its members from joining other parties as well. It is common knowledge the M.A. Jinnah was the member of Congress as well as AIML during the early parts of his political career.

You also missed out the role played by Liaqat Ali Khan in the Jinnah-Fazl e Haq and Jinnah-Suharwardy friction. Unlike Congress, the All India Muslim League lacked second tier leadership. The only man who enjoyed popular support of Punjabis, Sindhis, Baluchis, Pathans, Kashmirs and Bengalis was Jinnah himself.

Fazal-ul-Haq and Suharwardy (Bengal), Sir Abdullah Haroon (Sindh), Liaqat Ali Khan (UP) and Qazi Issa (Baloch) did not have the political finesse to lead the Pakistan movement, simply because their charisma didn`t extend all over India. Fazl-ul-Haq`s concept of partition was also rather different from that of Jinnah. He wanted separate states, not one Muslim state.

Liaqat Ali Khan used his influence on Jinnah to propel himself to power within AIML through hand-picked pliable leaders such as Nazimuddin. First he created misgivings between Jinnah and Fazl-ul-Haq by portraying Fazl-ul-Haq as an unreliable parochial leader. With Fazl-ul-Haq out of his way, Liaqat concentrated on Suharwardy. No political heavy weights could be allowed to block his ascent to power after Jinnah`s eventual demise.

After independence, Liaqat advised Jinnah to declare Urdu as the official language. Since Liaqat was himself Urdu speaking, this would propel his constituency (the Urdu-speaking Mohajirs) into the Pakistani civil bureaucracy. Already dying of cancer, the 71-year old Jinnah was being manipulated by Liaqat Ali Khan crop and nail.

Why was Liaqat doing all this? To create a constituency for himself in post-independence West Pakistan. He felt threatened by the landed Punjabi, Sindhi and Bengali political elite i.e. Mumtaz Daultana, Iftikhar Khan Mamdot, Ayub Khuhro, Fazl-ul-Haq and Suhurwardy. They had a power base, and a vote bank. Liaqat didn`t. A conflict between Bengali and Punjabi heavy weights suited him.

Because of his political insecurity, Liaqat Ali Khan deliberatley delayed the framing of a constitution from 1949 till 1951. Delaying a constitution, he believed, was the best way of delaying general elections.

http://sindhlink.net/saeen/nation/book5-chap3.html

# 237

HisExcellency first wrote:
+++
``Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir).``
+++

When challenged, His Excellency shifted the onus with the advice that readers should complain to Stanley Wolpert if they have any objection.

Whe HisExcellency was challenged to cite the edition and page number for this claim, he lamely explained:

+++
````Read that post (#230) again. Wolpert`s quote ends two paragraphs before this one. The last 2 paragraphs are not a direct quote, these are my comments on Wolpert`s quote.``
+++

Yes, they are HisExcellency`s comments, but they are certainly not comments on Wolpert`s quote. HisExcellency can credit on one but himself when he turned the quack psychologist to flourish his very own diagnosis:

``Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir).`` Can HisExcellency cite the edition and page number for this claim?``

That, no doubt, was HisExcellency`s way of proving the manhood of the Kakul kleptocrats from the ``martial races`` !!

# 237

HisExcellency first wrote:
+++
``Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir).``
+++

When challenged, His Excellency shifted the onus with the advice that readers should complain to Stanley Wolpert if they have any objection.

Whe HisExcellency was challenged to cite the edition and page number for this claim, he lamely explained:

+++
````Read that post (#230) again. Wolpert`s quote ends two paragraphs before this one. The last 2 paragraphs are not a direct quote, these are my comments on Wolpert`s quote.``
+++

Yes, they are HisExcellency`s comments, but they are certainly not comments on Wolpert`s quote. HisExcellency can credit on one but himself when he turned the quack psychologist to flourish his very own diagnosis:

``Nehru`s homosexual tendencies explain why he wasn`t man enough to face a plebiscite in his own ancestral state (Kashmir).``

That, no doubt, was HisExcellency`s way of proving the manhood of the Kakul kleptocrats from the ``martial races`` !!

# 237

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
Mian Chunnu is in Punjab. Rs 250 million of the Rs 700 million were already spent between 1997 and 1999 on building a 96-acre housing complex at Mian Chunnu for Biharis. This tells us that atleast 36% of that money was well-spent.
+++

His Excellency might want to find out who were the beneficiaries of the Rs 250 million already spent - it wasn`t the ``Biharis``. This is what Professor Ahmar writes in a recent article:

+++
Plight of stranded Pakistanis
by Dr Moonis Ahmar
amoonis@hotmail.com

[The writer is Associate Professor, Department of International
Relations, University of Karachi]

``On July 9, 1988 a Deed of Agreement was signed between the Government of Pakistan and Rabita al-Alam Islami, in Islamabad, which established a trust to bear the expenses related to the repatriation of stranded Pakistanis. Around 350 million dollars were raised for that purpose but the issue of repatriation remained unresolved. In March 1992, Pakistan High Commission with the joint cooperation of Rabita and the SPGRC conducted a comprehensive survey of stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh but out of only 238,414 people who were listed in that survey only 325 persons were repatriated to Pakistan on January 10, 1993. Since then not a single stranded Pakistani from Bangladesh has been repatriated to Pakistan and the issue has not only become a victim of vested political interests but it also reflect total apathy of the all the
Pakistani governments right from 1972 to the present to that grave
humanitarian issue.``

``Leave the task to me.`` This is what Pakistan`s President Pervez
Musharraf said to a five-member delegation of Stranded Pakistanis
General Repatriation Committee (SPGRC) led by its leader M Nasim Khan
when it met him in Dhaka on July 30. The delegation had apprised
President Musharraf of the plight of more than 200,000 stranded
Pakistanis holed up in 66 camps all over Bangladesh since the last 31
years and appealed him to at least ensure an early repatriation of
6,000 poor and oppressed stranded Pakistanis living in Adamjee Nagar
Camp, Naraynjang.``

``Mr. M. Nasim Khan, leader of SPGRC says that, ``the role of Pakistan has always been lamentable. They had always evaded and avoided to resolve the issue on humanitarian ground rather they have put forward lame excuses like financial, political unrest and natural calamity.````

# 236

HisExcellency in trying to explain why General Pervez Musharraf is doing nothing for the ``Biharis`` wrote:
+++
``Now Musharraf is not touching this issue (as well as Kalabagh Dam issue) simply because he doesn`t want to tackle too many problems at the same time. It`s just bad politics to start a new controversy when you already have your hands full in previous ones. (i.e. LFO, Afghan turnaround, referendum). ``
+++

Now, that in a nutshell is the problem. To General Pervez Musharraf and the military, ``Biharis`` are are nothing more than just another unpleasant fact like the LFO, Afghan turnaround or the rigged referundum. The military thinks it has only to ignore the ``Biharis``, and they will go away, at least from its conscience, if it has any.

Professor Moonis Ahmar of University of Karachi had written of the delegation of Stranded Pakistanis General Repatriation Committee (SPGRC) led by its leader M Nasim Khan when it met General Pervez Musharraf in Dhaka. Mr. M. Nasim Khan, leader of SPGRC lamneted that, ``the role of Pakistan has always been lamentable. They had always evaded and avoided to resolve the issue on humanitarian ground rather they have put forward lame excuses like financial, political unrest and natural calamity.``

Brigadier Aftab Siddiqui (Bilal Musharraf`s father-in-law) was hired at 2% profit for 25 years as ``consultant`` for Pindi-Peshawar Motorway (M-3) Project. He was also sold 12 sick units over 3 years!

http://www.satribune.com/archives/sep30_oct06_02/P1_bilalmusharraf.htm

``leading newspaper Dawn published portions of the incriminating statement on Sept 26 in a very subdued manner, hiding the disclosures under a positive statement by the National Highway Authority Chairman, Major General Farrukh Javed``

+++
http://www.dawn.com/2002/09/26/top17.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
26 September 2002 Thursday 18 Rajab 1423

More motorways to be constructed: Tenders being issued
By Our Staff Reporter

.....Sheikh Yousaf, owner of Husnain Construction, which is the
contractor for M-3, explained the phases for which his company passed
for converting the M-3 project from the Built, Operate and Transfer
(BOT) plan to the government funded project.

When asked as to how much his company had been helped by Brig Aftab
Siddiqui (Rtd), father-in-law of Bilal Musharraf, he said the
gentleman had worked with his company as a consultant.

Mr Yousaf said it was originally agreed that he would get two per cent
of the profit from the project for 25 years, but since the project had
been converted to a government funded plan, Aftab Siddiqui was no
longer with his company. The cost of M-3 is Rs7 billion.

He, however, said Mr Siddiqui had been paid for the `services` which
he rendered, but refused to give more details.

Everything was documented, and the payments to Mr Siddiqui had been
made through cheques the copies of which had been provided to `` a
number of government departments,`` he said. Then his son rushed to the
stage and asked Mr Yousaf not to answer more queries on the subject.

Mr Yousaf said the company was heading the consortium of the Pakistani
construction companies called PAMIC, and added that they were
completing the project to show that the country had the expertise to
construct the motorway.

He said it was the first contract of its kind which had no escalation
clause.

When asked as to how many projects his company had fetched in the
period of military government, he avoided giving straight answer, and
said that whatever his company had got was on merit. He admitted that
he had purchased about a dozen sick industrial units......
+++

# 257

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``I would rather trust the opinion of millions of people than just one bitter pathan who lost his power after independence due to Jinnah`s popularity wave. No wonder he despises Jinnah. ``
+++

HisExcellency thinks highly of Jinnah because of his ``popularity wave`` in the Muslim Constituencies in a single election (1945). So judging from HisExcellency`s reaction to ``one bitter Pathan`` and ``his party``, unsuspected readers can be excused if they came to the erroneous conclusion that Wali Khan or ``his party`` has never won any election.

``Facts are Sacred`` by Khan Abdul Wali Khan (son of Frontier Gandhi) shows how Jinnah had been secretly communicating with Lord Linlithgow, the Viceroy, and Lord Zetland, the secretary of state for India, over the 1930s to come to an understanding that would be mutually beneficial for Jinnah and the British rulers against their common enemy.

Wali Khan`s source is declassified documents from India Office Library in London. The tenure of secrecy for most such documents is 50 years. Jinnah`s letters to the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India were written in the 1930s and were declassified over the 1980s. Right now, the 1947 documents are in the process of getting declassified.

Wali Khan has been criticised in Pakistan for the book. But no one, not even the government, has dared to sue him for libel or to prosecute him for blasphemy. This gives credence to his book. After all, Pakistan is a nation where an Ahmadiya may be sent to jail merely for calling himself a Muslim and his place of worship can be demolished if he calls it a masjid, all in accordance with the laws of the land!! Wali Khan would have been in very deep trouble if it could be shown that his book is not factual.

re:nakhok various
bravo! what a fund of knowledge. what an eloquent writing.

[Punjab was brought into the Empire with the help of Purbaiya troops. ]

Incorrect. The final push into Punjab happened at Chillianwallah after the British won an unlikely victory on January 13, 1849.

The Sikhs led by Sher Singh routed the Purbaiya troops of British Army. The battle had been won, and the British were retreating. Suddenly one of the scouts reported that a quarrel had broken out among the victorious Sikh army.

Sher Singh`s cousins started quarreling over the share of loot. One of them claimed a bigger share because he had brought more men to the battlefield. The other one claimed a bigger share because his men belonged to the Chillianwala area. Yet another group raised another claim. As a result of this quarreling and indiscipline, the victorious Sikh army started fighting with each other at the battlefield. Soon one of the parties got infuriated and left the battlefield with their men.

Instead of securing the battlefield and advancing towards the British, the victorious Sikh army simply dispersed. The British attacked back and won the battle.

You can read a book titled ``History of the Sikhs`` by Hari Ram Gupta to get the details.

In short, the Sikhs lost the war after winning it; the British didn`t win it with its Pubaiya troops.

re
[Indians believe that the British left because of Gandhi`s pressure. This a great delusion.`` ]

Much of the world believes that too!!
**************

Economic historians and political commentators do not believe with this assessment. They believe that Gandhi could have continued with his satyagarh and nonviolent noncooperation for another 20 years, and the British would still not have left.

The British left of their own will because of an economic necessity. Nelson Mandela was one of the pupils of Gandhi`s nonviolent noncooperation, yet he deviated from it considerable in the mid-1960s. He was jailed for plotting a bomb blast in 1968. In his book ``The Long Road to Freedom``, he discusses the shortcomings of noncooperation at length. Civil disobedience does not always result in achieving your goals.

Most people believe that Gandhi drove British out of India because of movies, films and media. Gandhi`s movement played a major role, yet there were some significant historical errors made by the British, that facilitated the end-game

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was one such error. The British lost their moral high ground after this error. Had they not committed this mistake, Gandhi would have had a tough time convincing the rest of India that the British were an evil, blood thirsty nation. British kept law and order under control and cultivated fauji-landlord class in Punjab. There was considerable religious freedom as well. As a result, the people of Punjab and Sindh were not as bitterly opposed to British rule, as people in rest of India were.

World War II was a major factor in the British departure. An empire rules through economic might. After WW2, the British were no longer the economic superpower that they once were. They couldn`t afford outposts in India, Singapore and Burma any more. They didn`t just leave India.. They left a lot of other colonies as a result of WW2. There were no Civil Disobedience movements in those colonies.

[The repatriation issue is a ping pong because the military doesn`t care a damn for the ``Biharis``. It had used them like the cat`s paw and once it decided that the ``Biharis`` were no longer useful, it discarded them like the rind of a squeezed lemon]

Once again you are demonstrating a closed mind, that wants to believe what it wants to believe... without any evidence or arguments. You are making assertions of military hatred for Biharis, despite the fact that Sindhi politicians are bitterly opposed to Bihari repatriation.

Repeating your prejudices against Pakistani Army a 100 times will not make them true. Do some research outside the confines of your brain, for once in a while :)

The Bengal Presidency and the United Provinces, for example, provided contrasting models in British India. In Bengal, the Hindus formed the bulk of the middle class and the upper middle class, while in the United Provinces, it was primarily the Muslims who filled that role.

The role reversal between the Hindus and Muslims in the two provinces resulted in an interesting contrast in their response to the two-nation theory. It was the wealthy Muslims of the United Provinces who championed the partitioning of India. In Bengal, it was the well-to-do Hindus who insisted on vivisecting their province in 1947. However, it is understandable why a Hindu Bengali, be he rich or poor, would have reservations about an Islamic State in Bengal ruled by the dictatorial Jinnah. But the Muslim aristocrats in the United Provinces were guided by
greed alone when they rejected a secular and democratic state for the subcontinent to embrace the two-nation theory.

It is interesting to note that while the poorer Muslims of UP were misled into voting for Jinnah in 1946, they stayed back in the land of their birth after partition when they realized that they had merely been the cat`s paw for the well-to-do coreligionists with their own agenda. The upper class and middle class Muslims of UP had known all along what they really wanted. It was the hapless lower class Muslims who were left behind to bear the stigma of having voted for Jinnah at a critical juncture of India`s history.

In pre-partition Bengal, not every Hindu was a zamindar nor was every Muslim a share-cropper. The 1937 election can illustrate the anomaly. Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq dramatized this perspective by contesting Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin in the elections in a constituency that was basically the latter`s zamindari. Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin was a leading zamindar, a polished politician, first cousin to the Nawab of Dhaka and an Executive Member. Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq told the voters that ``he came from a
family having no resources.`` He declared that ``by the grace of God,`` he would abolish zamindari ``within the shortest possible time,`` and that the ``peasantry of Bengal were dearest to his heart.`` Needless to say, Shere-e-Bangla of Krishak Praja Party handily defeated Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin of the Muslim League in a constituency that more or less comprised of the the latter`s zamindari.

While there is truth to the assertion that the Muslim Bengali`s vote for the Muslim League in 1946 was a vote against the zamindars of East Bengal many of whom were Hindus, it is indeed ironic that there was no tribute to, or role for, Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq when Pakistan was born in August of 1947. Even Surhawardy had been marginalized by that time. The man who was given to lead East Pakistan at its birth by Pakistan`s ruling establishment was Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin who was more at
home in the drawing rooms of aristocrats of UP than in the field with the peasants of Bengal or in the factory with the workers of Bengal.

The polarization in views of Indian and Pakistan chowkies is largely due to incorrect, biased media reports about Kashmir. Hindustan Times prints one thing, Frontier Post reports some other version of the same incident. Doordarshans presents its side of the story, PTV contradicts it or sometimes blacks it out. Pakistani population in general believes that:

a) India is torturing Kashmiris in custody, humiliating their women
b) Kashmiris are overwhelmingly pro-Pakistan and would always vote for Pakistan in a plebiscite.
c) Muslims in India are a tortured community and are cursing themselves for not migrating to Pakistan in 1947.

Because of these widely held beliefs, Pakistanis are very emotional about the Kashmir issue. The jihadis who line up for recruitment, believe they are fighting for justice and liberation. To the Indians, they appear as murderers and Hindu-haters. This is because Indian have been programmed by their media to believe that:

a) Pakistan Army wants to conquer all of India and suppress Pakistan citizens.
b) Kashmiris love India but Pakistan is sending in terrorists to create the impression of an insurgency
c) People in Pakistan are dying to get rid of their army and become Indian citizens.

How can we test the veracity of these perceptions when the media in both countries pounds us with propaganda? Essentially both nations are working from different scripts. It is impossible to come to the same conclusion when you are working from different scripts.

To bridge the gap in perceptions between Indian and Pakistani chowkies, we need to introduce foreign media into Kashmir. With CNN, BBC, MSNBC ABC, CBS, Al-Jazeera, WSJ, Radio Moscow and every other news agency in Kashmir, we will uncover the truth. This will go a long way in dispelling all misconceptions.

But governments in India and Pakistan will not like this. Because this prevents them from perpetuating the official story and performing cover-ups.

Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq became the first Premier of united Bengal in 1937 as the leader of Krishak Praja Party. The Muslim League hadn`t fared well in that elections and it started to woo Fazlul Huq. It succeeded to the point that Fazlul Huq was the one who moved the so-called Pakistan Resolution at the Lahore session of the Muslim League in 1940.

However, soon enough Shere-e-Bangla and the Qaid-e-Azam fell out and for understandable reasons. Fazlul Huq was willing and able to give voice to the toiling sharecroppers and small farmers. The All India Muslim League establishment, on the other hand, was dominated by the aristocrats of United Provinces and the mercantile community of the Bombay Presidency. Land Reform or social justice in Bengal was just not in the top of its agenda.

Inevitably, within months of the Pakistan resolution of 1940, irreconciliabel differences surfaced between Huq and Jinnah. Sher-e-Bangla was just not willing to take orders from the Qaid-e-Azam. Jinnah had Huq expelled from the Muslim League. It is quite another matter that Huq claimed that such expulsion was meaningless because Huq had never oficially been a member of the Muslim League. Fazlul Huq remained estranged from the Muslim League for the remaining two decades of his life.

Fazlul Huq`s departure from the Muslim League looks all the more significant if we recall that he was the Premier of undivided Bengal (the largest province in British India) at the time of his divorce with the party. Fazlul Huq was the Premier for six years from 1937 till 1943.

In 1943, at the time of his fall from power, Fazlul Huq was the Premier of Bengal as the head of a non-Muslim League coalition. The Muslim League was the main opposition in the Bengal Legislature. It was in February of 1943 that Fazlul Huq promised an enquiry into the excesses of the British Raj during the suppression of the Quit India Movement in Midnapore. He did so on the floor of the Legislature. Bengal Governor, Herbert, was livid with rage. He forced Fazlul Huq`s resignation. And finally in April of 1943 he had Khwaja Nazimuddin of Muslim League sworn in as the Premier of Bengal.

Suhrawardy became the Premier of Bengal after the 1945 elections. But Suhrawardy proved to be too independent for Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan who engineered a coup to install Nazimuddin as the leader of the Bengal Muslim league on the eve of independence. In August of 1947, Hussein Shahid Surhawardy, the last Premier of united Bengal, handed over power to Khwaja Nazimuddin in Dhaka and to Prafulla Chandra Ghosh in Calcutta.

1954 saw the first elections (only for the provinicial government) in East Pakistan. Muslim League was comprehensively beaten by a coalition (Jukto Front) headed by Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq. Fazlul Huq`s Krishak Praja SHRAMIK Party was an important constituent of the Jukto Front. The word SHRAMIK had been added to the old name of Fazlul Huq`s party to broaden its appeal to the labor in the industrial sector.

The Muslim League of Nazimuddin, Nuril Amin and Monem Khan bit the dust in that election. But Fazlul Huq`s days in power didn`t extend beyond a couple of months in spite of his landslide election victory. He was accused of being an Indian agent (much as Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would be a decade later at the infamous Agartala Conspiracy Case). He was accused of treason and unceremoniously kicked out by the Muslim League establishment. Sher-e-Bangla complained bitterly, after that humiliation, that even the Britsh Governor, Herbert, had
treated him with more dignity in 1943.

``Field Mrashal`` Ayub Khan had openly written of his disdain for Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq in his ghost-written autobiography. The ``Field Marshal`` would later have him ``EBDO``ed that not only barred him from running for office but even took away his voting rights. Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq died a broken-hearted man in Ayub Khan`s Pakistan.

# 238

Because of his anti-Jinnah prejudices, Wali Khan is more popular in India than in his own province :) The people of NWFP rejected his party`s pro-India stance at the 1947 Jirga. If the people believed Jinnah was bogus, they wouldn`t have voted in such overwhelming numbers for him.. therefore the verdict of history is greater than the verdict of one man.

I would rather trust the opinion of millions of people than just one bitter pathan who lost his power after independence due to Jinnah`s popularity wave. No wonder he despises Jinnah.