Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango

shishapa #111 Tough luck, charlie. Pakistan is here to stay, and you can shout ``foul`` all you want. :-)

I think Mr. Jinnah`s and Muslim League stance was, once we are rulers, we will be gracious.
We will be secular to the miniscule minority, we will pick some of them and
put them on the pedestal for whole world to show that we are good people.
But only after we are in power and in charge. Till then, we will use all kind of means to achieve our goal of being in power and in sole charge, and using religion and religious divide was one of the foremost means used by them. Once he decided to use religion to divide and blackmail, it did not matter how good he was before, however much ambasdor of Hindu Muslim unity (whatever that means, as if leaders of Congress were ambasadors of Hindu Muslim division).

dm: i checked out the link. very nice presentation, and interesting snippets from jinnah`s life.

Some vintage pictures of Jinnah, along with some khatta-meetha comments:
http://specials.rediff.com/news/2005/jun/21sld1.htm

Re: # 106

Dear HP,

I stick by my statement amending it for Suhrawardy and Sheikh Mujeeb, who is the founding father of another state.

I have on record (Howard Donovan`s letters to George Marshall US Sec of state in July US National Archives 845.00 7-147 ... I think these letters form the best record of the history of Partition) Ghaffar Khan`s proclamation for a Free Pathan State where Islamic notions of statehood would succeed and which he proclaims that Jinnah`s government was unIslamic and against sharia and therefore had to be distanced from. And I am sure the Indians will find much to their amusement... that Ghaffar Khan also says that his alliance with the Hindus was only till the British left... the Pushtoons never wanted Hindu Domination. Sure... Wali Khan and his son have a history with the secular Congress... but just like the secular Congress they have always allied themselves with the Mullahs ... starting with Fakir of Ipi to Mufti Mahmood... they`ve always been allied with the Mullahs against Jinnah first and then Bhutto. They were even allied to the ``Islami Jamhoori Itehad`` at one point ....

Bhutto might have been secular but he certainly wrote a theocratic constitution .... he might be compared to Liaqat Ali Khan in that respect.
-YLH

YLH: While I agree with your sentiments (secular Pakistan), you need to convert that into a specific set of action items. These items could include: 1. removal of hadood and blasphemy ordinances that Zia introduced to secure arbitrary power (they were introduced by one military dictator under cover of ``Islam``, and they can and should be done away by Musharaff through the same military power that he possesses. Instead of hiding behind maulvis and claiming he is afraid of the fuss they will raise). 2. elimination of sharia courts which have weakened the legal structure in Pakistan. 3. Removal of the requirement to indicate one`s religion on the national ID card (passport application?).

My point is - utilize your obvious energy and commitments to the cause of secularism in Paksitan to achieve concrete, achievable goals. There are already groups working on each of the above in Pakistan, and they could benefit from your commitment and dedication to this cause. If you are not already in touch with them, I think you should do so.

Just a thought.

#104 by Mantolives

“I want a Pakistan that is secular, democratic and progressive. I believe that the last major politician to enunciate this clearly in Pakistan was Jinnah and very unfortunately only him.”

“I mean pick up even the Indian favorite Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his son Wali Khan and they from day 1 of Pakistan were stirring the masses in the name of parochial tribalism and ``sharia``.”


Yassar, I think that you should think over these two statements. First Jinnah was NOT the only politician in Pakistan who promoted secularism in Pakistan. A few names that come to mind right away are Hussain Suharwardi, Sheikh Mujib, Zulfiqar Bhutto, Khan Wali Khan and all Baloch and Sindhi leaders. Bhutto made secularism as one the four goals of his party.

A word about Ghaffar Khan. You may disagree with his politics and that is your prerogative but there was not a single bone in that man’s body which was not secular and he always promoted secularism in Pakistan. I think you need to read more about his relationship with Faqir Ippi too. Being secular does not mean that you start abusing religious figures and religious symbols. One should get the whole context of what Ghaffar Khan said about Sharia etc. I will just remind you that like many Pukhtoons, Ghaffar Khan was a religious person in his personal life. His son Wali Khan and now grandson Asfand yar strongly support secularism in Pakistan. Incidentally, the new Gen Secretary of ANP is Afrasiab Khattak. A former communist and a former Chairman of the Human rights commission in Pakistan just before Asma Jehangir.

Re: # 103

Dear Kauray...

Regardless of what you think not everyone who speaks the truth is Manto.

I accept that as a compliment both to myself and Mr Saadat Hassan Manto.

Re: # 101

Dear Harish,

We agree on that particular order of events. We agree that the demand (not for partition) as embodied in the Lahore Resolution being forwarded as the bargaining counter was dependent on too many variables. We agree that Jinnah miscalcutated and he was helped along by others as well. We agree because we came to those reasonable conclusions. We also agree that Pakistan is a reality.

The problem here is not that. What Advani said in Pakistan was very clear: That Jinnah once was the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity and that his 11th August speech is a classic and forceful espousal of a secular state. Regardless of all the mess and the confusion, I think there can hardly be any dispute on the above mentioned and I am glad that you have noted that.

I want a Pakistan that is secular, democratic and progressive. I believe that the last major politician to enunciate this clearly in Pakistan was Jinnah and very unfortunately only him. I mean pick up even the Indian favorite Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his son Wali Khan and they from day 1 of Pakistan were stirring the masses in the name of parochial tribalism and ``sharia``. So Jinnah alone, with his personal qualities that you and I discussed in some detail, is my shield... and he is alone the shield of many others.

Now I don`t know why some people have to be so uptight about accepting history as is. Dr Kirpal Singh`s interview for example carries no evidence that Aug 11th speech was made on Ismay`s behest. If Lord Ismay asked for a statement condemning violence, it certainly had nothing to do with Jinnah`s speech as the president of the constituent assembly which is talking of a future constitution and in which Jinnah merely is exhibiting his liberal British education and his western political theory of state. Do you see what I am saying? Yet people like Kaura and others are calling me blind ?

-YLH

---

A Hindu wrote Pakistan`s first national anthem

Luv Puri

How Jinnah gotUrdu-knowingJagannath Azadto write the song.


http://www.hindu.com/2005/06/19/stories/2005061907400100.htm
JAMMU: ``Aey sarzameen-i-pak Zarrey terey hein aaj sitaron sey tabnak Roshan heh kehkashan sey kahin aaj teri khak.``(``Oh land of Pakistan, each particle of yours is being illuminated by stars. Even your dust has been brightened like a rainbow.```)

These are lines from Pakistan`s first national anthem — written by Jagannath Azad, a Lahore-based Hindu, acceding to the wishes of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the country`s founder and first Governor-General.

As the debate about Jinnah`s secular August 1947 vision of his country rages on, this little known fact will be of public interest. Days before his death last year, Azad recalled, in an interview to this correspondent, the circumstances under which he was asked by Jinnah to write Pakistan`s national anthem: ``In August 1947, when mayhem had struck the whole Indian subcontinent, I was in Lahore working in a literary newspaper. All my relatives had left for India and for me to think of leaving Lahore was painful. I decided to take a chance and stay on for some time. My Muslim friends requested me to stay on and took responsibility of my safety. On the morning of August 9, 1947, there was a message from Pakistan`s first Governor-General, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. It was through a friend working in Radio Lahore who called me to his office. He told me `Quaid-e-Azam wants you to write a national anthem for Pakistan.` I told them it would be difficult to pen it in five days and my friend pleaded that as the request has come from the tallest leader of Pakistan, I should consider his request. On much persistence, I agreed.``

Why him? ``The answer to this question,`` Azad said in the interview, ``has to be understood by recalling the inaugural speech of Jinnah Sahib as Governor General of Pakistan. He said: `You will find that in the course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.` It is for historians and analysts to judge what made Jinnah Sahib make this speech. But clearly as understood by the speech was the fact he wanted to create a secular Pakistan, despite the fact the whole continent, particularly the Punjab province, had seen a human tragedy in the form of communal massacres. Even I was surprised when my colleagues in Radio Pakistan, Lahore approached me. I asked them why Jinnah Sahib wanted me to write the anthem. They confided in me that `Quaid-e-Azam wanted the anthem to be written by an Urdu-knowing Hindu.` Through this, I believe Jinnah Sahib wanted to sow the roots of secularism in a Pakistan where intolerance had no place.``

The national anthem written by Jagannath Azad was sent to Jinnah, who approved it in a few hours. It was sung for the first time on Pakistan Radio, Karachi (which was then the capital of Pakistan).

Meanwhile the situation in both east and west Punjab was becoming worse by the day. The same set of friends told Azad in September 1947 that even they would not be able to provide him protection, and that it would be better for him to migrate to India. He followed their advice.

The song written by Jagannath Azad served as Pakistan`s national anthem for a year and a half. After Jinnah`s death, a song written by the Urdu poet Hafiz Jallundhari was chosen as the national anthem.

---

I was passing the Eidgah Maidan when I found Jinnah Sahib addressing the crowds. He had passionately spoken for about 10 to 15 minutes. He had his famous “Jinnah cap” in his hands upside down, extended towards the crowds, imploring them to desist from bloodshed and not to make Hindus the target of their wrath. His unforgettable words spoken in Urdu, which ring in my ears even today, were about Pakistan not having been created for the massacre of Hindus who had an equal right to live with Muslims and others in this “pak” (pure) land not to be made “napak” (impure) by killing them.

He desired the crowds to return and help in returning all the loot to their area police stations. He had sternly warned the masses that shoot-at-sight orders were being given to deal with offenders. And that did have a salutary effect as under the direct orders of the then military chief, the military did open fire a few times on the miscreants and riots came to a halt much to the relief of everyone including our family. It was a pleasant surprise to find the crowds returning the “loot” which piled up at Eidgah Maidan to form a mini hillock.

That was the only time I had seen and heard the creator of Pakistan. I owe my life to him and to my Muslim neighbours, the migrants from India.

HIRA GULRAJANI
Mumbai, India.

Manto,

Yes, ``my community`` did go crazy and matched the frenzy on the other side. I have not made my final thoughts on that.

I still struggle with their actions. On one hand, it is morally wrong to kill innocent. On the other hand, lack of reaction is suicidal to a community. Thus I cannot justify or defend either.

Muslims initiated the mayhem in NWFP and Rawalpindi - way before E Pb. carnage took place. E Pb. was reltaively calm till the failed attack on Golden Temple and non muslim refugees started pouring out of Rachna and Chajj doabs.

Leveller (manto),

we cannot quote muslim authors - there are none unbiased - most muslims don`t see any evil in muslims - those few who do - are suffocated by your govt./religion/etc. even the ones who do speak the truth, cloak or blunt the truth as not to offend the senitments of their berthen. Simple as that.

#90 by ana on June 21, 2005 7:35pm PT


because what i understand of what i have read of most of farzana`s articles is clearly different from yours,


Maybe you haven`t seen the pattern in her writings, but i have...all ideological strains are reflected as patterns in writings...just as i can detect harimou`s hindutvawadi leanings through his posts....

Notice her cop-out when she was asked a question about her accepting the paki line on agra...``that was part of a 2000 word article``...sure..as if the the length of her article prima facie discredits my point....

Let`s analyze her letter(and what`s in contention here is more than her defn of refugees)...

ought to realise that the Pandits’ plight is not only the doing of the militants.


Umm...ok..the big bad hindu government of India is to blame for the threats to their lives....


Besides, the Kashmiri Pandits cannot be called refugees because they chose to leave.


Right....they chose to leave of their own accord...maybe they liked the air quality in delhi? For them, leaving Kashmir is just like a trip to disneyland...and extended trip..all for pleasure..going by that logic the muslims living in camps in gujrat are there for the community activities...


And in that they had governmental support.


That`s right...how dare the big bad government of India do anything to protect the lives of the pandits...helping the pundits leave is a plot for hindu domination of the valley...


From 1947 to 1989, the Pandits had pretty much say in government matters. They are mainly professionals, not artisans or small businessmen.


Yup...they aren`t victims because they were professionals and had a say in government matters(how diabolic..people participating in government)

Maybe you`re reading a completely different letter, but it seems to me like she`s blaming the victims here and giving the militants like yasin malik a pass...hard to see how you can interpret this any other way...

FV is being an apologist for the jihadis in the same way some people here say the muslim in gujrat had it coming and demand a discussion on the burnings at godhra when discussin the killings of innocents outside godhra....

#100 by Mantolives

[However I maintain that an honest investigation will reveal a view closer to the view of the authors I quote.]

Dear Yasser, we have debated this to death. His personal qualities aside, you will agree with me that the demand for Partition, though a bargaining counter in the beginning, was unreasonable and acquired a life of its own like Frankenstein and in the end caused the death of millions of Indians and Pakistanis.

Whatever Jinnah may have felt, it doesn`t really matter. A politician is identified by what he says in public and not what he is (or thinks) in private. Just as Advani will forever be identified as the man behind the destruction of the Babri Masjid despite his statement in Pakistan (that December 6, 1992 was the saddest day of his life), so will Jinnah be identified as the man who divided India into two, despite being known as the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity in the early part of his political career.

Re: # 99

Dear Harish,

For the record: I absolutely acknowledge the diversity of thought that you talk about in India. It is the result of a working secular democracy... and nothing else could achieve this. However I maintain that an honest investigation will reveal a view closer to the view of the authors I quote.

Sincerely

YLH

#97 by leveller1

[One thing that strikes me is that whatever the argument, manto always quotes authors and sources that are more often than not non-Pakistani, non-Muslim and usually Indian.]

That only goes to show the diversity of thought that exists in India, from outright deification of Jinnah to absolute contempt for the man, a trait sadly lacking in the Paki accounts of Partition we have seen. If there is one thing I have seen in the accounts by Paki authors, it is that of blaming either the Congress, or Hindus or British for the tragedy.

[Meanwhile his opponents always quote sources that belong to their own communities and are often biased and easily discredited.]

That is more because of the lack of serious analyses of the Parition by Paki authors. All we`ve seen is the unnecessay and undeserving hero worship of Jinnah and the portrayal of Nehru and Patel as the villains-in-chief, with Mountbatten thrown in for good measure.

BTW, how well you contradict yourself by first saying that most of Yasser`s sources are Indian, and in the same breath say his opponents quote sources, again usually Indian, that are biased and discredited.

#97 by leveller1

[One thing that strikes me is that whatever the argument, manto always quotes authors and sources that are more often than not non-Pakistani, non-Muslim and usually Indian.]

That only goes to show the diversity of thought that exists in India, from outright deification of Jinnah to absolute contempt for the man, a trait sadly lacking in the Paki accounts of Partition we have seen. If there is one thing I have seen in the accounts by Paki authors, it is that of blaming either the Congress, or Hindus or British for the tragedy.

[Meanwhile his opponents always quote sources that belong to their own communities and are often biased and easily discredited.]

That is more because of the lack of serious analyses of the Parition by Paki authors. All we`ve seen is the unnecessay and undeserving hero worship of Jinnah and the portrayal of Nehru and Patel as the villains-in-chief, with Mountbatten thrown in for good measure.

BTW, how well you contradict yourself by first saying that most of Yasser`s sources are Indian, and in the same breath say his opponents quote sources, again usually Indian, that are biased and discredited.