The Curse of Mullah

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

The Muslim Salariat view is good... Hamza Alavi perhaps....

Sorry I jump the gun and get to conclusions too quickly... please forgive me... maybe we Pakistanis live on the edge.

-Manto

#83 Manto

{{One could debate or have a dialogue with you, but your focus is simply to drive down Pakistan. That seems to be your only focus.}}

I think you`re jumping to conclusions. I was not looking for a quarrel here. I asked questions about matters of fact because I couldn`t find definitive answers anywhere. I am not interested in using this to `drive down Pakistan` or - Gandhi, Jinnah & Nehru forbid - question partition, or suggest it be reversed, etc. etc. On the contrary.

{{Why would you only mention the UP, Bengal and Punjab provinces?}}

Actually, I asked also about Madras in the previous post, though not about Bombay or Central Provinces. I did expect that, given your known interests, you might have the answer for at least those three provinces since they were crucial to the formation of Pakistan.

{{It should be looked at this way... In 1937 the elections were less representative than 1946 ... agreed? In 1937 the League couldn`t win outside of the UP winning only 4% of the vote... Then we see that as the elections got more representative, the Muslim League expanded its vote exponentialy. In 1946, the League had won close to the 70 % of the Muslim votes polled... What trend does it show you?1) As the system got more representative, the anti-League elements and the Mullah parties lost out 2) Congress also faced a reversal as far as the Muslim vote was concerned.}}

But it doesn`t follow that the trend would have continued had the franchise been expanded still further, or if a further round of elections had been held somewhat later, for that matter. (I`m not saying that it would not have, simply that I have no way of knowing). It could very well be that expanded franchise for the 1946 elections captured precisely the League`s strongest constituency (a Muslim salariat, perhaps?) or something close to it. But if it was not universal franchise or very close to it - if it did not include illiterate landless peasants and rickshaw pullers - it was not the `Muslim masses` - or the `non-Muslim masses` for that matter, that voted in those fateful 1946 elections. I`m not questioning the outcome, simply inquiring as to exactly how it came about.

{{By your logic all Presidents of the United States (or the prime ministers of UK for that matter) till the 1920s weren`t representative either.}}

Quite right. For the US I would go further, to the Voting Right Acts of 1965. The saving grace for the US was that they had a sound constitution which they respected, and amended with great circumspection.

{{No one can question the legitimacy of those elections because under the given rules they were free and fair. ... Why is it that the entire focus of yours seems to be discrediting Pakistan and its democratic basis? No serious historian I am afraid will get into this debate.}}

The exact same argument would also discredit independent India and its democratic basis. The obvious way to counter it and demonstrate the democratic legitimacy of the government of the young nation would be to hold national elections on universal franchise basis in fairly short order. I repeat that I`m not interested in questioning the legitimacy of the formation of Pakistan - which incidentally suites my personal interests just fine. I accept the rules as they were at that time. I suspect though that they did have very obvious consequences for subseqent history.

In any case, don`t let this distract you from your Law exams. We can continue this later if you feel so inclined. Regards.

Compare the representative status of Muslim League (which I have shown was gaining from an ever expanding franchise) and the Congress to the framers of the constitution of the United States of America... The framers of the cosntitution of the United States of America included landed, aristocratic, slave owners... for many decades after that only white men with land were eligible to vote.

I think as far as legitimacy is concerned... no one can point fingers at the League and the Congress.

-Manto

PS Remember by 1946 the number of eligible voters had doubled from 1937 .. from 30 million to almost 60 million or so. If that 100% increase in the number of voters indicated a manifold increase in League`s votebank, is there any reason to doubt that the trend would have carried forward as the system became more and more representative?

AlephNull,

One could debate or have a dialogue with you, but your focus is simply to drive down Pakistan. That seems to be your only focus. Why would you only mention the UP, Bengal and Punjab provinces? The answer to the question is very simple... It should be looked at this way... In 1937 the elections were less representative than 1946 ... agreed? In 1937 the League couldn`t win outside of the UP winning only 4% of the vote... Then we see that as the elections got more representative, the Muslim League expanded its vote exponentialy. In 1946, the League had won close to the 70 % of the Muslim votes polled... What trend does it show you? 1) As the system got more representative, the anti-League elements and the Mullah parties lost out 2) Congress also faced a reversal as far as the Muslim vote was concerned.


By your logic all Presidents of the United States (or the prime ministers of UK for that matter) till the 1920s weren`t representative either. Muslim League was getting close to a half a million to a million strong crowd every time it held a jalsa or a rally. Congress`s position was similar. Imagine bringing together a million people in those days when there were only a few cities with a population in excess of a million. No one can question the legitimacy of those elections because under the given rules they were free and fair. Why is it that the entire focus of yours seems to be discrediting Pakistan and its democratic basis? No serious historian I am afraid will get into this debate. Parties like the League and Congress were supposed to play the hand as it was given to them. Given all the conditions they turned out to be the most popular amongst the masses. Let us not forget also that compared to Congress, League wasn`t even as organized... getting organized only later on under Jinnah`s leadership. Still if you go to the national archives you will find letter pads and letters from the Muslim League branches in the remotest of villages and areas of NWFP.

-Manto

#81 Manto

{{The franchise for the 1937 elections was extended under the Government of India Act 1935 to 30 million people ...

In 1946 the elections were held under an even more expanded franchise (Indian Franchise Act 1945, the details of which I don`t currently have)... and Muslim League swept those polls. ...

Given those facts I`d Congress and Muslim League were pretty representative of the people, even if the principle of universal adult franchise wasn`t achieved.}}

Let us do a quick back-of -the-envelope calculation.

I recall that the areas that became Pakistan (both wings) alone had a population of about 70 million people in 1941 (42 million for the East and 28 million for the West). The areas that became the Indian Union had a population of about 320 million. This gives us a total of about 390 million as of 1941. Subtracting say a third of the population living in princely states leaves us with about 260 million. I expect that (despite the horrendous life expectancy figures of those times) at least 50% of these, or about 130 million, were 21 or over and thus `adults`.

Extending franchise to 30 million out of say 120 million in 1937 cannot by any stretch be called representative. Moreover, people generally vote keeping their personal interests very clearly in mind. Elections conducted on the basis of a franchise sharply restricted by property or educational qualifications (and thus, effectively, along class lines) would inevitably reflect the class interests of the groups permitted to vote (property-owners, a salariat, etc.) rather than those of the general population.

A web search also turned up the following, from the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan:

http://www.hrcpelectoralwatch.org/his_persp.cfm

{In the elections of 1945-46, nearly 15 per cent of the population was entitled to vote on a qualifications of literacy, property, income and combatant status.}

That is a shockingly low figure and if true refutes any claim to those elections being representative.

It would be very interesting to know the actual populations of United Provinces, Bengal, Punjab in 1946 and the number who actually casts votes in the elections held that year.

AlephNull,

The franchise for the 1937 elections was extended under the Government of India Act 1935 to 30 million people.

K B Sayeed writes in book:

`the extension of franchise to 30 million voters Congress and League realized that they need elaborate political organizations if their representative claims were to be successfuly tested` Page 288 Formative phase.


The 1937 elections was where Muslim League shared the vote with other muslim organizations. In 1946 the elections were held under an even more expanded franchise (Indian Franchise Act 1945, the details of which I don`t currently have)... and Muslim League swept those polls.

Given those facts I`d Congress and Muslim League were pretty representative of the people, even if the principle of universal adult franchise wasn`t achieved.

-Manto

#78 Mantolioves

{{Muslim masses voted for Jinnah, a clean shaven, western dressed, English speaking Muslim who spoke of a modernist future.}}

A couple of question for you, Manto (apologies if this is a digression). What was the basis of franchise in the various pre-Independence provincial elections (starting with 1937) which the Muslim League contested, together with the Congress and other parties? I`m pretty sure it was not universal adult suffrage - my understanding is that the Indian Union had to wait until the first post-independence elections for that. Were there educational and/or property qualifications? Did the basis vary from province to province (from United Provinces, to Bengal, to Madras, etc.)?

What did all this imply for the representative character of the major parties?

Previous post was in response to 73.

Naqshbandi is repeating the same old lies that have been fed to this nation over the last 25 years...

The question is how does he know the Muslim masses voted for a system based on Quran and Sunnah. Jinnah had made it expressly clear what the nature of the Pakistani state would be and he had personally seen to it that the issues of Shariat and Islamic system were shot down at Muslim League meetings. Muslim masses voted for Jinnah, a clean shaven, western dressed, English speaking Muslim who spoke of a modernist future. They rejected the Mullahs Barelvi, deobandi or ahle hadith. The vast majority of the Ulema were aligned in the religious parties ... namely Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind (Deobandi), Jamaat-e-Islami (Ahle hadith) and Majlis-e-Ahrar(which had barelvi leadership)... they were opposed to the creation of Pakistan. Sure some Mullahs did try to jump on the bandwagon of Pakistan but they usually got a cold shoulder from Jinnah. They had to listen in horror, as Jinnah declared irrevocably :` Pakistan shall not be a theocracy to be run by priests with a divine mission.`


Amazingly we know that the religious leaders who wielded the greatest influence in the Muslim League were either the Parwaizis led by Ghulam Ahmed Parwaiz, or the Ahmadi Muslims both from the Lahori and the Qadiani jamaat. Even they couldn`t influence Jinnah`s thinking when it came to the separation of church and state. Infact even the rationalist progressive G.A.Parwaiz criticized Jinnah for being too secular after Pakistan was created.

-Manto

How do you people know what a Pakistan with Qazi Hussain Ahmad as PM would be like when it hasn`t happened?! Now I myself am not a big fan of Qazi Sahib (due to theological differences he being Ahle Hadith) and I would much prefer Maulana Noorani or even Tahirul Qadri to be PM BUT I would much rather have Qazi sahib as PM (or even Fazlu) than any of the non-MMA leaders because the theological differences are in terms of aqida whereas in practical application of Nizam i Mustafa (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) there is almost no difference.

These ulama are wordwise too and Pakistan will not become like the Taliban--possibly more like Saudi Arabia

---

but that isn`t necessarily a bad thing; my father went to umrah a few years ago and was amazed at how jewellers would just leave their shops open when prayer time came and no one would even think of stealing anything! subhan Allah! Imagine jewellers in the UK or USA or even Pakistan as it is doing that!

I accept that for the tiny percentage of pakistanis whom Mohsin Hamid describes in his novel Moth Smoke and who are usually referred to as the ``elite``--basically Westernised pakistanis life would be more difficult as their lifestyle would be more difficult to maintain openly in such a society but for the vast majority of pakistanis--who tend to be religiously inclined and conservative whether they are practising or not--they will have a much better life. For them whether the girls on PTV wear hijab or not is not really an issue--infact they`d probably prefer it. I spoke to people in villages of panjab on my last trip their and they were not worried at all about a prospect of (at that time it looked likely that Fazl ur Rahman would be PM in a joint govt with the PPP) a MMA govt--in fact they didn`t seem to mind it at all and in fact supported the MMAs foreign policies.These people were not illiterates either but college and high school graduates although they were all Barelvis and non-maulvi types as well.

Romair:
How do you like `em apples? the virtues & benefits of corruption (moral) and bankruptcy (intellectual) in the progress & prosperity of the third-world.

This no laughing matter; it is a crying shame.

It is Islam that bothers the loser atheists masquerading now as humanist & liberals.
Why does`nt the blanket let them go? Fear of postmortem question period?

---

do they not know that if they did`nt even enroll or dropped-out they are exempt from appearing in the exam?

``How much worse could Qazi be?``(Romair)

Umair you don`t want to go there -- you don`t want to know how much worse -- much much worse -- my dear young man -- may be a LITTLE better than Mulla Omar? -- you can live with it?

this is exactly the problem with Pakistani politics -- as to why the country in such deep trouble --

the ambivalence of Pakistani moderate intellectuals regarding the Islamiic fundamentalist estremism --

because Qazi is a fundamentalist Muslim naturally he is a `GOOD` Muslim -- because he is a good Muslim -- he is ok for Peshawar -- because he is good for Peshawar -- he is good for Islamabad......

do you really believe Qazi will dissect the cancer of corruption that is eating Pakistan --

well Qazi himself is a cancer that will kill Pakistan same way Mulla Omar killed Afghanistan trying to save it from Infidels.

it is amazing we Asians talking about corruption with such a pious indignant innocence --

man the third world economy rests upon the shoulders of corruption -- if we remove corruption with a magic wand of Islamic or Hindutva hukoomat from the fabric of our societies -- there will be a meltdown of every aspects of economic, political, cultural and social lives of India and Pakistan.

eradication of corruption by the very politically corrupt Mullahs? -- amazing -- janab iss hammam meiN sabhi nungey haiN.....

especially `corruption in poltiics` -- it`s like``mai kade meiN meiN khumaar ki baateiN`` --

There is almost a futile debate going on between the ireconciliables. Now the important thing is not what alignment of forces for what reasons got to support the conception of Pakistan. All that was in the past and is now recognized to be counterproductive mostly for People in Pakistan. India has also suffered from it but most of the people in India have willy-nilly reconciled with the folly.

The point to focus on now is that we need to rectify the mistake that was done. How best to do it? It seems that the demands of modernity, fairness and justice REQUIRE that the statecraft in Pakistan should be separated from religious tyranny and impositions. Why? Not because that is a decent thing to do but because without it the nation is headed for chaos. When Islams (plural is deliberately used) of Barelvis and Deobandis are different as admitted by Naqshbandi, then how can religious dogma be an appropriate foundation for a heterogeneous nation including non-Islamic population also?

It seems first thing that Pakistan should do is to acknowledge the error of their ways. Secondly, they should invite back the population that they drove out or left due to their improprieties. Now the Pakistani Muslims can rest assure no Hindu ( I am a Hindu.) is going to believe in the sincerety of Pakistani Govt. But that would straighten the priority in Pakistan. This would lead to acceptance of Shias, Ahmediyas, and other sects by general Sunnis. An atmosphere of democracy will be initiated. Finally, the detailed laws, then, would be needed to carry out the elementary, decent and modern policies.

manto--

Even IF we accept that the Quaid himself wanted a separate secular nation state for the Muslims (which I don`t but for the sake of argument), the fact remains that almost all of the Muslim masses who voted for the Muslim League`s Pakistan voted for what they thought would be an Islamic state run by the Qur`an and Sunnah.


[Let me explain: most of the Muslims of United India belonged (as they do now) to the Barelvi Sunni school (Ahle Sunnat) --at least 80% if we exclude the Shias and the Deobandis. Now, although the Deobandi ulama called Quaid i Azam , ``Kafir e Azam`` and were against the creation of Pakistan, the Barelvi ulama and all of the major Pirs throughout India (who were almost exclusively Barelvi too) voted FOR Pakistan and supported Pakistan`s creation on the basis that voting for Pakistan would be voting for Islam. Therefore the people thought they were getting an Islamic state run by Qur`an and Sunnah...

The fact that the Ahle Sunnat ulama actively supported the Quaid in his fight for pakistan has been well documented by researchers such as Usha Sanyal, Metcalffe, Arthur Beuhler, and others. Especially important in the Punjab region for the masses voting for Pakistan was the work of Hazrat Pir Sayyid Jama`at Ali Shah (rahmatullah alayhi) who had millions of mureeds throughout India (Iqbal was a big admirer and friend of the Pir Sahib too--both being from Sialkot) said that he would not read the janaza prayer of any of his mureeds who did not vote for Pakistan! The influence of Pir Sahib in getting the Muslims to vote for Pakistan was thus massive as mureeds never go against the command of their Pir; in other parts of India (then) other Pirs also played similar roles to a lesser extent. Thus the common refrain that the ``ulama/mullahs were against the creation of Pakistan`` is wrong. It should be, ``the Deobandi ulama were against the creation of Pakistan along with the Ahli Hadith`` but the vast majority of Sunni ulama who belonged to the Barelvi school voted FOR Pakistan and they represented the vast majority of the Muslims of United India (as they do now in both India and Pakistan)
***

I am writing an article on the interaction between Hazrat Pir Sayyid Jama`at Ali Shah sahib rahmatullah alayhi, the Ahle Sunnat ulama, and the Quaid e Azam and the Pakistan movement. Watch out for it on Chowk. I have got letters written by the Pir Sahib to the Quaid and vice versa in which the Quaid thanks the Pir Sahib for his support which I will also include in my article insha Allah...

***