A Movement in Religious Nationalism: Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Hind

Manto if you want some `lavish praise` from me I would be glad to give it to you -- my point in stating the reality of religious politics involved in prepartition days on the Muslims side was the one I described --

Jameatis were all those you describe they were BUT -- strange as it may sound -- during that historic moment in the history of the subcontinent -- the religious forces of reactionary Islam were on the side of Hindu Muslim amity and were full partners with Hindus in the fight for Independence -- and totally opposed to the creation of Pakistan -- whereas the so called enlightened ones -- had no intention to take on the British -- were sitting on the fence -- some were even helping the Britsh to quel the rebellion --

and most darkly were using Islam and the Hindu Hatred to the hilt for political purposes -- this is what I saw 56 years ago and tried to point out the strange dichotomy of Muslim politics... from my point of view...

you can do all the Monday morning quarterbacking you want -- attribute all the precious secular qualities to Jinnah and the Muslim League -- in adoration of the father of your country --

but as we the secular non-religious Muslims of India knew and saw to our toatl dismay at that time -- that the sword of Islam that was unsheathed by the Muslim League to divide the country and carve out two quarters of a loaf -- of a country -- under so much bitterness rancor and hatred -- will be first raised against your own head --

and the result is right there -- before us -- how Islam the bane of politics in Pakistan tore up Pakistan into pieces...despite such an `enlightened leadership` under Jinnah.....:-)

re: vertex # 89

Vertex, I will make the same point to you that I made to Godot elsewhere. Hindu response to Muslim rule is much more complex than you appear to understand, at least from your posts here.

Hindus know very well that not all Muslims were genocidal. Which Hindu would have anything but the highest regard for Dara Shikoh? for Rahim? and many other Muslims who worked with Hindus, shoulder to shoulder, sharing their sorrows and dreams as neighbors? Because we understand and appreciate that, large majorities of Hindus do not support extremist agendas that paint all Muslims as villains.

But as you acknowledged (I have to congratulate you for being open to history that stares us in the face - mostly we run into bigots who shut their eyes firm to anything that may break their delusions), genocide of Hindus - as we understand the word today - most probably did occur. As did large-scale destruction of temples and Hindu culture.

If you see Hindu wrath, it is because we find many of the same criminals who were party to the most heinous atrocities against Hindus being idolized as heros by some people. Hindus are willing to put history behind them but are not willing to forget history. Least of all forgive and tolerate those who still dream of Ghoris and Gaznavis.

It is not enough to dismiss such behavior and mindset as `stupid.` The way Hindus interpret it, such behaviors and ideologies do not arise from stupidity, but something very different, very despicable, and very dangerous to everybody.

Since you appear to acknowledge reality, you would accept that for a very long period of time, Hindus were helpless and powerless, relative to their numbers. They had little choice but to put up with whatever others said or, sometimes even, did, including tolerating loss of life, property, and honor.

That situation does not exist anymore. And it is never going to come back. We Hindus are determined to see to that.

Therefore, it is time to acknowledge and respect the role of Hindus and Hinduism. Then it becomes possible to build as progressive and fair a society as our common abilities will allow us.

The good news is that secularism is not antithetical to Hinduism and vice versa. For Hindus that religion-secularism debate has been settled long ago. As ordinary a Hindu as me is deeply committed to secularism, at least in the form of non-discrimination against other communities. So everyone has something good to look forward to.

vertex

Just to continue the previous thought, I have been seeing so many Muslims on Chowk who IMO deserve and would get the respect of any Hindu (leaving out some fringe elements). So Hindu view of Muslims is not all black. If both Hindus and Muslims focus on the positives, and concentrate on what brings them together, almost all our problems can be solved. Even the animosity between India and Pakistan will melt away over time.

Dear PM,

Thankyou as always for your lavish praise ;)

By the way daily times published my letter about the fatso...

-YLH

Great going, Manto!
As always, it`s good to know that we can rely on you to clear up the facts about history-- and in doing so, often expose the prejudices and hidden agendas of others.
So, thank you for gracing chowk.

PS Another acceptable litmus test for `Progressiveness` is the role of women in the movement... Muslim League, and the Pakistan Movement was replete with Muslim women and their role in mass mobilization of 1946 was second to none.

The central working committee of the League had such power figures as Raana Liaqat Ali, Jahanara Shahnawaz, Begum Tassadaq (these women later on were the ones who initiated the legislation on the famous family laws ordinance, which is still the cornerstone of the struggle of every feminist in Pakistan)... Women`s role in the League`s civil disobedience in the early months of 1947 is notable, and their agitation was no less than the men...


How many strong women leaders did the `progressive` Jamiat-e-ulema-Hind have in their `secular` struggle... zilch... The `Progressive` Jamiat-e-ulema-hind believed in keeping women in doors as per the deobandi aqeeda....

This was in sharp contrast to the (as per Nasah `backward`) `brown sahibs` and `sherwani sardars` of the Muslim League who were openly declaring:

``No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you. We are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of their houses as prisoners. There is no sanction anywhere for the deplorable conditions in which our women have to live. You should take your women along with you as comrades in every sphere of life.``

(M.A. Jinnah Lahore 1944 in the hey day of the Pakistan Movement)

BTW it will interest everyone to know that Maulana Diesel Fazlurrahman (the grand-propagator of Shariat and daddy of the taliban) and his equally Islamist father Maulana Mufti Mehmood were part of the Jamiat-e-ulema-Hind and anti Muslim league and not the faction that had joined the league under Shabbir Ahmed Usmani. They had openly proclaimed that `thank God we were not part of the sin of making this country`.... after 1971`s ignonimous defeat.


This simplistic logic that simply because some muslim group supported the Congress it was progressive can`t have any serious takers... these were the same people who agitated against modern education, against sir syed ahmed khan, called Jinnah a kafir for marrying a parsi, agitated against Kemalist Turkey for having destroyed the Khilafat, opposed the Child Marriage bill, after Pakistan they were part of the agitation in Karachi to make Pakistan an Islamic state...


Like Stuka says in one of his earlier posts.... the greatest mistake that the Congress Party made was to co-opt these reactionary religious elements instead of working with the mainstream political forces of the muslims like Jinnah and then the league who had the same aims and objectives as the Congress Party... you made this mistake then, and after the rousing welcome the prodigal son of the `JUH` Fazlurrahman got from the Indians, and this sort of typical camouflaging of facts as is obvious from Nasah`s attempt, I am tempted to say that you still haven`t learnt that valuable lesson.

PS: Dost Mittar... Sir Syed`s MAO college Aligarh was restricted to Muslims... till the independence of South Asia.

Dost Mittar,

Azad went through a metamorphisis... at one time he had also advocated the `Hijrat` of Muslims from India because it was darulharb and an enemy country. So let us not say that he was always the secular Indian nationalists you want to make out of him.

I think the quotes from the article prove it beyond a doubt that ... Jamiat`s ulema wanted to keep Muslims traditional and orthodox... they were reactionary and against Modern education... to this end they hated the Muslim League and its leadership most of which was western educated or Aligarh educated and was clearly inspired by Turkey`s example. To call them progressive is like calling the Ottoman Empire progressive just because Ottoman Empire was more multicultural and diverse than the almost homogenously Muslim... Turkish Republic.


Dear Nasah,

Instead of putting up emotional nonsense which has no roots in reality ... why don`t you prove your assertions with some facts, some sources, some reliable authors, some historians. You keep repeating the same old same old, but you haven`t bothered to back it up with any sources.

The charter of JUH, the speeches of its leaders including the famous Maulana Madni, and the role of its successors... is infront of you. This article wasn`t written by a Pakistani... it was written by an Indian... and I remember having read a article by Kuldip Nayyar ...

``to me it is the same delusion -- that in order to modernize you have to follow TRUE ISLAM -``

Where did the League say this? Jinnah had shot down the idea of an Islamic state many times,... this true Islam nonsense is directly from the charter of JUH and its leader Maulana Madni... why don`t you use some logic, instead of this useless debate?

The whole Pakistan idea as given by Iqbal in his famous khutba and then in his letters to Jinnah is a Modernist ideal... and it received the most support from the Aligarh University.

I find it amazing that you will call the Leaguers who wanted a Modern Republic, who had been initially part of the Congress, who wanted Modern Western Education for Muslims, who exhorted Muslims to train themselves in fields of science and technology and commerce and finance ... backward... but those like Jamiatis who wanted Muslims to stay in Madrassahs, who cursed out at any thing modern, and who wanted Muslims to be forever concerned with masail-e-fiqh ... to be progressive ... is there no shame in your logic?

Look at the kind of people standing by Jinnah ... people standing by Jinnah were people like Zafrullah Khan, Iftikharuddin (and through him Faiz Ahmed Faiz , first editor of Pakistan Times in Jan 1947), Mian Salahuddin, The Rafis, Suhrawardy, Abul Hashim, Mian Barkat Ali, and even scheduled caste Hindus like Jogindranath Mandal... Most of them including Jinnah were EX-Congressites who were siezed with the desire to forward...


Here are some direct questions ... why don`t you answer them instead of going into another verbiage of utter and total historical ignorance?

1) Did the JUH not condemn the league leadership of being too secular/kemalist and hence not fit for Muslims?

2) Did they not repeatedly attack Jinnah calling him a kafir who married a non-muslim?


3) Did the JUH not use the rhetoric of jehad against the British gov. calling it the rule of infidel and against Islam?


4) Did the Jamiat not have this following charter:

* To guide the followers of Islam in political and non-political matters from a religious point of view;

* To defend on Shariat grounds, Islam, centres of Islam (holy places of Islam and the seat of Khilafat), Islamic rituals and customs, and Islamic nationalism against all odds injurious to them;

* To establish and protect the general religious and national rights of Muslims;

* To organise the Ulama on a common platform;

* To organise the Muslim community and to launch a programme for its moral and social reform;

* To establish good and friendly relations with the non-Muslims of the country to the extent permitted by the Shariat-I-Islamiyah;

* To fight for the freedom of the country and religion according to the Shariat objectives;

* To establish Shariat courts to meet the religious need of the community;

* To propagate Islam in India by way of missionary activities in India, and foreign land

* To maintain and strengthen the bond of unity and fraternal relations (as ordained by Islam) with Muslims of other countries.


5) This quote from Cantwell Smith who is by no means pro-pakistan

``The theologues of the JUH were as anti-British as ever; yet at their 1942 conference instead of attacking the League (Muslim League) in their old style they hoped for Muslim solidarity, and their resolution demanding complete Independence for India asked also for a federal constitution, such as would secure religious, political, and cultural self determination for Muslims. The Azad Muslim Board still made statements for Indian freedom but envisaged within that freedom, the right of secession`` (Modern Islam in India by Wilfred Cantwell Smith, 1946, London, page270). ``


6) Also explain this quote:

From Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind Madni`s address...

``If Dara (Shikoh) had triumphed, Muslims would have stayed in India but not Islam. Since Aurangzeb triumphed, both Muslims and Islam were here to stay`` (Muslim Politics in India - Hamid Dalwai, 1969, page 71). ``According to Maulana, the faith Dara followed was not genuine Islam because Dara wanted to tolerate Hindus. He did not insist on the rule of the Shariat. From the above views of Maulana it should be clear what kind of Islam a majority of ``Nationalist Muslims` subscribed to and what in the final analysis, their great goals were`` (ibid). For Madani ``all non-Muslims are the enemies of Islam and Muslims`` ( Muslim Nationhood in India - Safia Amir, 2000, page 179).


The classical aims and objectives of these Jamiatis were to convert entire India to Islam.. something which they are still involved in today.

-YLH

http://www.dawn.com/2003/09/12/letted.htm#5

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
12 September 2003 Friday 14 Rajab 1424

Who was Abdali?
by GHULAM KIBRIA, Karachi

The ongoing debate on Abdali (Encounter, Aug 30) brought back to my memory an old Punjabi saying, Khada peetalahe dabaqi Ahmad Shahe da. It was heard in my younger days in Lahore. Being curious to know its background and significance I turned to an elderly person. He explained that this saying refers to Ahmad Shah Abdali`s annual
looting spree in Lahore when he would take away everything his army - actually was a gang of looters - could lay their hands upon.

This saying emphasizes the need for spending all one earned during the year and the virtue of not saving anything. For whatever saved would be taken away by Ahmad Shah Abdali.

Lahore was an overwhelmingly Muslim city. Whether Abdali was a ghazi and mujahid or a lotaira is for Islam lovers, academicians and historians to debate, this saying only emphasizes the ground reality.

---

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-10-2003_pg3_7

Daily Times
Friday, October 10, 2003

Can Musharraf be like Ghaznavi?
By Khaled Ahmed

For us the great Muslim conquerors of history are a constant inspiration. Reverence to them became a part of the process of nation-building in Pakistan after 1947, especially if these conquerors were not favoured by India. If the Indians liked Akbar, we had to condemn him for deviating from true Islam, even though there would be some aspects of his rule worth emulating for us today to nurture a civil society at peace with itself. If the Indians disliked someone, we had to admire him. That`s what happened in the case of Ghaznavi who invaded India a number of times and laid its places of worship waste in the name of Islam. Ironically, the BJP is paying back for what he did. Because the Indians hated Aurangzeb for imposing ``jazia`` on them, we had to admire him although he was cruel to his brothers and persecuted the mystics we otherwise cherish.

Columnist Javed Chaudhry wrote in ``Jang`` (24 September 2003) that when the Afghan king Mahmud Ghaznavi wanted to invade India his commander advised him to first take care of trouble in the north of Afghanistan. Another courtier told him that as a king he was not to ``ask`` a commander whether he should invade India. He should just give an order and leave it to the commander to carry it out. The column said that General Musharraf instead of giving orders to build Kalabagh Dam was waiting for a consensus in the provinces.

While it is true that strategic decisions have to be taken in Pakistan sometimes without popular approval, it would be improper to refer to Mahmud Ghaznavi as an example to induce General Musharraf to take the decision on the Kalabagh Dam in the teeth of the opposition he faces in three provinces. Anything built in the name of Ghaznavi would not be right for Pakistan simply because his medieval rule was completely out of kilter with the requirements of governance today. We sometimes wrongly refer to the Justice of Emperor Jehangir (Adl-e-Jehangir) as a model for our justice system today, which is most embarrassing. Jehangir had a bell outside his palace where citizens would shout their petitions for him to decide. The one decision he famously made about his own queen was a most shabby miscarriage of justice. It was also a blatant violation of the separation of the judiciary in today`s terms. Ghaznavi as a medieval marauder is not a good reference to present to a ruler of today. It simply shows a kind of residual primitiveness in us. General Musharraf may be a military ruler but we cannot ask him to become savage like Ghaznavi who after all didn`t do the horrible thing to his own people. .....

---

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-9-2003_pg3_4

Daily Times, Pakistan
Wednesday, September 17, 2003

A policy of deceit
by Saad Anis

[Saad Anis is a student at Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Technology]

Our people have rigid and erroneous opinions on serious issues. Instead of being objective and logical, they are irrational and ignorant. Such an attitude is not surprising, considering the flagrant storytelling prevalent in our educational system.

Presenting a distorted version of events to the people is an odious practice but it has been the norm in our country ever since independence. The people are continuously fed propaganda and lies. The objective is to paint a picture that vindicates the stance of the
state on the matter at hand, no matter how unjust and incongruous the reality. The history that is taught in educational institutions throughout Pakistan is a case in point; this version of history is replete with half-truths and, in some cases, blatant fibs.

Innumerable examples can be quoted in this regard. Take the Indo-Pak war of 1965. Even today, almost four decades after the altercation, a large majority of our countrymen still believes, in accordance with the propaganda that it has been fed, that India initiated the conflict. One can still vividly recall the many textual lessons recounting how, one night, our devious enemy slipped into our territory unprovoked, with the treacherous aim of destroying our homeland. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

What all such texts fail to mention is the fact that in August 1965, two military operations were launched by the Pakistan government into Indian-held Kashmir. Armed militants infiltrated across the ceasefire line (now the LoC), with the aim of inciting a revolt which would allow the Pakistan army to take Srinagar. It was in reply to these incursions that India launched an offensive on Lahore. It was an act of retaliation, not one of pre-emption. Sadly, we are only told the latter half of the whole affair.

In the same pattern, the Dhaka Debacle, the dismemberment of Eastn Pakistan, makes a truncated appearance in our institutionalised version of history. If the issue is ever brought up, which is rare, it is the usual rant of the entire episode being a conspiracy hatched by the evil Indians. While it is true that India was guilty of gross interference in the Dhaka tragedy, one cannot overlook the fact that the separation of East Pakistan was brought about by decades of West Pakistani dictatorial policies and subsequent Bengali deprivation.

What we are not taught in schools is how Bengali dissent was suppressed when the language issue arose in 1948, or how the substantial Hindu population of East Pakistan was unthinkingly alienated by the Objectives Resolution in 1949. The unfair and unjust
treatment consistently meted out to the East is conveniently forgotten.

In 1963, more than half the population of Pakistan comprised Bengalis, whereas the army contained a paltry six per cent Bengali personnel. A similar incongruity plagues the civil services. By 1969, the per capita income of the West was 61 per cent higher than that of the East. The famous dictum that ``the defence of the East lies in the West`` was a political disaster, whatever its worth in military terms. Instead of highlighting the mistakes made and learning from them, subsequent administrations have embarked upon a futile tirade against Indian interference. None have had the moral courage to point out that the West looked upon East Pakistan as a mere colony.

The advocates of feeding the people a doctored account of history argue that it is imperative for maintaining national morale. They point out that as a nation, we already have to contend with much adversity. Hence presenting a distorted account of history is
essential for maintaining high spirits and patriotism. The conclusion is that a biased account of contentious issues is portrayed for the greater good of the country. This is a hollow argument to say the least.

The proponents of this custom do not realise that by keeping the public in the dark, they are endorsing violent jingoism not prudent patriotism. As a result of the misinformation, our people have rigid and erroneous opinions on serious issues. Instead of being objective and logical, they are irrational and ignorant. Such an attitude is not surprising, considering the flagrant storytelling prevalent in our curricula.

Predictably, this approach backfires. Whenever any government tries to adopt a rational policy on any issue, there is a vituperative public backlash. The Kashmir issue is a telling example. Today, the people of Pakistan are unwilling to accept a compromise on Kashmir because of the propaganda they have been fed in the past.

They think the accession of Kashmir to India was illegal, as the majority of the people there are Muslims; rightly it should have seceded to Pakistan. Once again, what most people are unaware of is the fact that according to the rules of partition of the Indian subcontinent, the fate of princely states was to be ascertained solely by their rulers. The populace of the state did not have a say in it, nor were the religious or ethnic affiliations of the people the guiding principles. Thus Maharaja Hari Singh`s accession to India was perfectly legal on that account. In fact, by invoking the same rule, Junagadh, a state with a Muslim ruler but a Hindu majority population, initially acceded to Pakistan. In fact Pakistan still lays claim to the state though it is not an issue that is ever brought up.

Similarly, the Indian army is portrayed as the only perpetrator of inhuman atrocities in the Valley. But the fact is that the militant organisations fighting in Kashmir have also been involved in numerous incidences of violence against the local populace. Owing to the convenient transformation of the Kashmir issue into a religious one, the killing of innocent Kashmiri youngsters by militants simply because the former are not willing to turn to violence has become commonplace. However, our governments ignore this aspect of the conflict.

History is documented so that nations learn from their mistakes. However, by distorting it to suit vested interests, we are nurturing a self-righteous and misinformed population. This policy of deceit will continue to harm the very national interest that it avowedly protects.

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Saturday February 01, 2003-- Ziqa`ad 28 1423 A.H.

Coping with the enemy
by Mir Jamilur Rahman
mirjrahman@hotmail.com

..... President Muhammad Khatami of Iran, who has just concluded a state visit to India, told a gathering in New Delhi that Mahmood Ghaznavi was a marauder who plundered and destroyed Somnath. He added that Mahmood Ghaznavi did not represent Islamic values; he was a military invader and his 17 assaults on India have no relation with Islam or Islamic principles. In fact, the President of Iran said, rulers like Mahmood Ghaznavi have brought bad name to Islam.

Could a Pakistani ever consider Mahmood Ghaznavi a marauder? In their eyes he is a ghazi and hero who smashed the idols. In the eyes of Hindus he is a barbarian who destroyed and looted their temples. And President Khatami has agreed with the Hindus. Does it make him our enemy?

mahrana,

``Actual invasions and oppresions, mass murders are not ``reworkings of history``. ``

No guff...did I not say it was a brutal history? Did I not admit to it? What is a reworking of history is to suggest that this is the sole legacy of Muslims on the subcontinent, or that somehow Hindu`s remained benign throughout that entire period and weren`t in some way complicit, or indeed it was the sole purpose of Muslims to wipe out all Hindus. What is stupid is to bring up this history in modern politics, or to suggest we Muslims today have something to atone for. Nonsense.

``Quite the contrary, for your info., Pakistan officially eulogises the above mentioned tyrants and teaches a ``reworked history``. Now, it appears that people like you prefer to call actual history as ``reworked history`` and the other way round``

Yes, and they`re stupid to. My statement ``No one is denying the brutality of some Muslim tyrants on the subcontinent`` was to acknowledge their brutality...I could care less what Pakistan does with their history since that particular version isn`t meant to attack any particular group, but rather to whitewash horrible characters as some kind of noble people. It is foolish, but much less worrisome.


``I don`t think you understand the genocide of hindus by muslims as genocide. This should tell you. I could psot many more links but if a person wants to live in denial then there is no argument. ``

I may have misunderstood you. If you meant to say certain Muslim invaders committed what we would call today genocide (or even if they simply committed mass murders without any care if Hindus were eliminated entirely or not), I will not deny. Perhaps not in the incident you describe - we have no idea what actually took place - just that the names of the maintains imply something brutal may have went on. The Library of Congress Country Studies reports (taken from http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Kush):

The origin of the term Hindu Kush (which translates as ``Hindu Killer``) is a point of contention. Three possibilities have been put forward: that the mountains memorialize the Indian slaves who perished in the mountains while being transported to Central Asian slave markets; that the name is merely a corruption of Hindu Koh, the pre-Islamic name of the mountains that divided Hindu southern Afghanistan from non-Hindu northern Afghanistan; or, that the name is a posited Avestan appellation meaning ``water mountains.``

Anyhow, certainly in other very will chronicled incidents it is quite apparent that some Muslim invaders were quite brutal.

Now the hindutva claim is that the Muslim presence on the subcontinent was genocidal. According to their various websites/propaganda outlets, this suggests that the goal of Muslims in India (in general) was the genocide of Hindus. Specific (alleged) incidents like what you mention do not support this view.

Manto:
I can`t recall where I had read that Sir Syed kept the Aligarh Muslim College open to non-muslims. In any case, Aligarh Muslim University has been open to non-muslims for as long as one can remember.

As for the Jamiatis, I think there were many among them who were willing to keep the religion and state separate. I am not certain but I think that even Maulana Azaad was at one time associated with the Jamiat`s mouthpiece, Al Jamiata. And he certainly was no wide-eyed mullah.

and they accuse Sangh Privar of rewrtiting the history......:-

if the yesterday borns will excuse me for calling a spade a spade

---

``the so called ``Communalist`` -- WERE communalists -- from the tip of the head to the tip of the toe -- unbridled unadultrated COMMUNALISTS ......

modernizing with a drawn sword of Islam?.... it reminds me of that sick-to-the stomach fking American metaphor in Vietnam -- ``we had to destroy the village in order to save it`` --

there are many ways to fight for your own homeland -- but in the creation of Pakistan through the brazen use of RELIGION -- something was irreparabely destroyed -- for all time to come --

2 million people paid with their lives right after that -- and the 1.3 billion creatures on the subcontinent are still paying with the hatred and bigotry -- more than half a century later--

some PRICE to pay for that `modernizing` idea.....

about the prepartition Jameeatis -- let me state it again -- before the Partition -- the funny looking Jameatis in medieval flowing robes -- -- were MORE PROGRESSIVE than the PANTALOONED Brown Sahibs and the Sherwanid Sardars of Muslim League running around waving the sword of Islam -- all over the gullible subcontinent.

the jameatis opposed creation of Pakistan -- not for an Islami Hukoomat in India -- one couldn`t be more sillier than that -- but for the silliness of leaving an equally large population of Muslims of India -- downed and shamed -- helpless at the mercy of Hindu communalist vultures -- and they did fight for Indian independece shoulder to shoulder withe the Hindus -- and went to jail for that -- unlike some people who were waiting for the post independence morsels thrown into their plates...

and by the way they Indian Jameatis did not migrate to Pakistan -- the Pakistani jehadi Jameatis are as PURE and Indigenous as the Land of the Pure..

Pakistan as the modernizing idea for the muslims may b a well gaurded secret that I am not privy to -- to me it is the same delusion -- that in order to modernize you have to follow TRUE ISLAM --

is like saying -- in odrer to move forward you have to look backward -- want to secularize and modernize Pakistan -- then don`t quote Meesaq-e Madina or whatever -- lock your Islam inside the masjid -- and lock the Pakistani Jameeatis and the Jamaetis in the jail and throw the keys in the `Arabian Sea`...

Vetex,

I figured one reference might not be enough for you. So please feel free to consult the following too-


V.Sarianidi, National Geographic Magazine, Vol.177, No.3, p.57, March 1990

Hammond Historical Atlas of the World, pp. H4 & H10, 1993

W.O.Douglas, National Geographic Magazine, vol.114, No.1, pp.13-23, July 1958

T.J.Abercrombie, National Geographic Magazine, Vol.134, No.3, pp.318-325, Sept.1968

An Advanced History of India, by R.C.Majumdar, H.C.Raychaudhuri, K.Datta, 2nd Ed., MacMillan and Co, London, pp.182-83, 1965

Ayodhya and After, By Koenraad Elst, Voice of India Publication, p.278, 1991

A Practical Dictionary of the Persian Language, by J.A.Boyle, Luzac & Co., p.129, 1949

Encyclopedia Americana, Vol.14, p.206, 1993

The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol.19, p.237, 1990

Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.21, pp. 54-55, 1987

An Advanced History of India, by R.C.Majumdar, H.C.Raychaudhuri, K.Datta, 2nd Ed., MacMillan and Co, London, pp.336-37, 1965

Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.21, p.65, 1987

The Cambridge History of India, Vol.IV - The Mughul Period, by W.Haig & R.Burn, S.Chand & Co., New Delhi, pp. 98-99, 1963

Adios