Peace in South Asia Professor`s Bilal`s sad demise

There are times in your life when you regret a lot of what you said... it is one of those times for me... while I was learning Professor sahib was way ahead of me... but I didn`t understand ...He wrote to me several times, telling me that I misunderstood him, but I never gave him a chance... I am so sorry. Please forgive me Bilal Sahib.

He was a true humanist and a true patriot... not the lesser and uglier variety of patriotism that I belong to ... but genuine patriotism which sought the greater good for Pakistan and even its neighbors... All I can say is that his inherent goodness changed me a lot.

May Allah bless his soul,

Can someone please pass my condolences to his family?

-YLH

Peace in South Asia MY FAVORITE ARTICLE ON CHOWK:

This is my favorite article on chowk and it was by Bilal Ahmad, the first one I actually read on Chowk... and the first time I interacted on Chowk... Overtime I have come to agree with every single word of this beautiful and patriotic article which was motivated by an overwhelming love for Pakistan...

Bilal Ahmad probably didn`t know this but this article was the one which introduced me to the real Pakistan and Jinnah`s vision that he so eloquently mentions and that secularism to which I am so ardently committed... to me this article is right up there with the 11th August speech which I mention so often...

May God bless Bilal Ahmad...

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?bahmad_feb0400

Pakistan: A Failed State?

by Bilal Ahmad



Pakistan needs to foster an alternative discourse that prioritizes the values of humanity, freedom, justice, and peaceful coexistence.

Many scholars and political commentators have addressed Pakistan`s apparent failure as a nation-state by focusing upon the East-West Pakistan divide, military-bureaucracy ruling alliance, the continuity of colonial form of governance, core-periphery relations, etc. In his controversial New Delhi speech, Najam Sethi argues that contemporary Pakistan is embroiled in: (1) the crisis of identity and ideology; (2) the crisis of law, constitution and political system; (3) the crisis of economy; (4) the crisis of foreign policy; (5) the crisis of civil society; and (6) the crisis of national security.

If Sethi`s diagnosis has some merit, Pakistan is a potentially failed state. This article, however, argues that the crisis of Pakistani nation-state rest essentially in a failure of her dominant discourse (ideology; worldview), which not only allows the reproduction of elitism but fails to prepare our youth to deal with the political, economic, and cultural complexities of the world we live in.

Soon after Pakistan`s inception in 1947, Pakistani ruling elite constructed a discourse around the notion of an Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The proponents of this discourse have incessantly argued that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam which provides the only true basis of our national identity. The critics argue that Pakistan was an accidental product of a struggle to safeguard the rights of Muslims in the pre-Partition India. They further maintain that no Pakistani should feel insecure and be treated as a second class citizen in view of his/her class, gender, ethnolinguistic background, religious preference, or any other basis of collective identity. This view is in tune with the vision of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah who asked all Pakistanis to live and work cooperatively irrespective of their color, caste or creed because they are ``first, second and last`` the citizens of Pakistan with ``equal rights, privileges and obligations.`` Jinnah indeed believed in a secular Pakistan. In addressing the people of Pakistan, he unequivocally said: ``You may belong to any religion or caste or creed–that has nothing to do with the business of the State. . . .``

In spite of Jinnah`s secularist vision, the Pakistani ruling elite (the army-bureaucracy-bourgeoisie alliance) has invariably taken refuge under the perceived, constructed, or real internal and external threat to the national ideology and/or security to legitimize: (1) an authoritarian centralized system of governance; (2) too much reliance upon the coercive state apparatus; and (3) intolerance of opposition, counter-hegemonic struggles, and sectionalism. These developments have fostered not only numerous corrupt and unresponsive regimes, but exacerbated difficulties for our national cohesion. Instead of constructing national cohesion through the development of a sense of belonging and loyalty to the state (not necessarily to the incumbent government), the Pakistani ruling elite has often resorted to the rule of danda to deal with the problems of inequality, marginalization, and conflict resolution. The bloody conflicts in Baluchistan, East Pakistan, and more recently in the province of Sindh (particularly in Karachi) provide considerable evidence of the ineptness of a highly centralized and authoritarian state to deal effectively with citizenship rights, local-central relations, and other issues of national integration.

In contemporary Pakistan, the tension between secular and theocratic forces has become much more severe, primarily due to the growth of so-called ``fundamentalism,`` which I prefer to call ``Neem Mullahism.`` There is an element of truth in the famous Urdu proverb: Neem Mullah Khatrah-e-Emaan (which means that a partially/poorly educated Mullah is a threat to the religious faith). Neem Mullahism unequivocally stresses that:

1) Islam needs to be imposed with or without the power of the state as a solution to the existing crisis-prone everyday life in Pakistan and elsewhere; and

2) a struggle in the name of Allah would ensure each Mujahid a secure place in the immortal world of happiness and luxury in the heaven.

This view has at least two major flaws:

1) Neem Mullahs want to impose a particular interpretation of Islam; and 2) the word Jihad is used in a narrow and corrupted sense, and the actions of the so-called Mujahideens violate the human rights of other people (both Muslims and non-Muslims).

Since most Pakistanis are not adequately educated, they often fail to distinguish between ideology and reality and remain emotionally vulnerable to Neem Mullahism. In contrast, most college and university educated Pakistanis tend to reject the worldviews of Neem Mullahs suggesting that the proliferation of Neem Mullahism is likely to turn Pakistan into a hotbed of enhanced internal conflict and violence. This situation calls for the need to:

(1) institutionalize a separation of state and religion, and (2) foster an alternative discourse that prioritizes the values of humanity, freedom, justice, and peaceful coexistence.







Long Live Pakistan

-YLH

Peace in South Asia

The Shahab Nama,

Some of our friends have been quoting as a source of History on this board… this includes Layman.

The writer of the Shahab Nama, Mr. Qudratullah Shahab was an ICS officer who opted for Pakistan… while he served Pakistan diligently and honestly, and it is true that he probably wasn’t a fundamentalist, but Shahab’s book is an extremely narrow view of history based on his petty biases. When giving the reasons for Pakistan’s creation, he deviates from the reasons Jinnah and Iqbal gave, and instead starts a vitriolic of hate against the Hindus. He views the entire politics of the time through those lenses… the whole world according to poor Qudratullah is out to get the Muslims, … while Hindus according to him are inferior foes, the Jews and Christians (Yahood-o-Nisara) of the world have joined together to bring down the Muslims. In short this ‘historical document’ is a diatribe against the Hindus and the British.

Moreover Mr. Shahab is a delusional and superstitious wreck sadly. He dedicates an entire chapter to ‘Bimla Kumari ki Bechain Rooh’ (the restless and frustrated ghost of Bimla Kumari) which comes to haunt his house, and dedicates many pages to a haunted tape recorder which bothers him. He also goes into some detail about a supernatural entity ‘Ninety’ and even dedicates the book to it. Even G.M.Syed, a former League stalwart turned Sindhi separatist, quoted this ‘historical document’ in his deposition to the Sindh High Court… What more can one say of his mental ability at that advanced age?

God save Pakistan from people like these…

-YLH

Peace in South Asia

harimau,

I told you before... I am not going to respond to your lies and petty insults...

However I am sure Aisha`s SJSU is much better than Gymno`s El Camino County College...

-YLH

Peace in South Asia

harimau,

I told you before... I am not going to respond to your lies and petty insults...

However I am sure Aisha`s SJSU is much better than Gymno`s El Camino County College...

-YLH

Peace in South Asia To begin with I want to suggest an excellent book to all Chowkies that I came across yesterday:

‘The Trial of Bhagat Singh’

by A G Noorani

Konark Publishers

Vikas Marg Dehli

1996

Of special importance to me were Pages 76-96. ‘Nationalist’ pseudo-historians on both sides often downplay Jinnah’s valiant and articulate defense of Bhagat Singh, but this book dedicates a whole chapter to it. Please read the Book.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I wish to point out as I have done so in my article that the biggest threat we have as Pakistanis and Indians is from those who twist history for nationalist purposes.

Here we have on this board an individual who completely contrary to the facts is accusing Jinnah of `ethnic cleansing`. This is contrary to all the reports we have... infact many Indian observers which included one High commissioner to Pakistan have lauded Jinnah for his role in protecting the Hindus of Pakistan... this is consistent with the reports of foreign and Indian media of the time... Besides if there was such a doubt in the minds of anyone of that time, do you really think the `Indian Constituent Assembly` would be standing up in tribute to Mohammed Ali Jinnah in 1948 as Shammi has quoted?

I have long been the victim in this game... stupid and baseless accusations like these are levelled by outright fools against a person who I hold to be my hero... when I retaliate by applying the same standards to Nehru and Gandhi, those words are brought out against me everytime I try to present my true views. The facts are very simple... if the mass Hindu exodus from West Pakistan is going to be blamed on Jinnah despite the Indian High Commissioner of the time`s evidence, then the Mass Muslim exodus from East Punjab and Northern India should be blamed on Nehru and Patel, which makes them greater criminals since the exodus of the Muslims was far greater in number than that of the Hindus.

Ofcourse the facts are very different. Objective History (even a blatantly anti-Pakistan book like `Freedom at Midnight`) lauds the efforts of Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Jawaharlal Nehru to stop the communal violence in their own respective countries. As Kuldip Nayar, the respected Indian journalist, pointed out in his article in Dawn a few weeks ago that if anyone should have been blamed it was Mountbatten for he was responsible for the inaction. Pity those who made him their first Governor General.

Gymnophist aka HARIMAU,

`I am not the one who went to Rutgers`

Yes I am sure the 2 year El Camino County College is far more prestigious than the University that gave the US Milton Friedman, Paul Robeson, atleast one US vice President and scores of Governors, senators and Congressmen. By the way there is no point trying to prove that you are two different people unless you suffer from multiple personality disorder. Furthermore I don`t wish to argue with someone like you who can`t put up proper quotes and sources, who is usually twisting facts and who usually is way off mark with his bigoted and one sided lies.

Hence in the future don`t address any posts to me.. You are no match of mine as far as the accuracy of sources is concerned, and you are certainly far inferior to me in the basic Honesty and integrity.

ROMAIR,

Your formula will only lead to the break up of Pakistan... besides none of it has any ground realities of politics... PTI (TI is tehreek-e-Istiqlal and not Pakistan Tehreek e Insaaf) unfortunately is not going to win Urban Punjab, though MQM unfortunately might win Urban Sindh.

I am as committed an enemy of feudalism as you...

but unlike me, you will never realize that the feudalism is much less an evil than the sectarianism and ethnic conflict which will emerge as a lack of feudalism... education and slow secularization of daily life must come first ... and feudalism will slowly evaporate, as it did in Europe... If feudals were to be dislodged without adequate secularization of the society, the likes of Jamaat-e-Islami will triumph because the Middle class is decidedly anti-left and considerably more conservative. The only reason the religious parties haven`t won in Pakistan is this feudalism...

I don`t wish to argue about this... you will see the results yourself... As for PPP, your views just show your ignorance of the Party... I am no fan of the PPP, I don`t even think it is a proper party but simply a Movement... but I don`t agree with your characterization of PPP as a feudal party anymore than I agree with the similar allegation against the Historical league of the 1940s levelled by the Indians.

LAYMAN,

You might not wanna buy a book or see some hardcopy, but the price of quoting a random website off of Google is a loss of credibility.

1) Kindly take it out of your mind that I need to prove anything to you. Facts will be facts whether you choose to believe them or not. You can go on believing what the `Sindhi guy` said... objective historians however point to only one statement in 1940 and that has no mention of Pakistan...

2) My question to you is basic: Did you actually go and read `Shahabnama` of Qudratullah Shahab to prove to yourself that the statement actually existed? and if you did, did you then go and consult Raja of Mahmudabad`s Memoirs? Simply because he mentioned a source, it became fact eh?

Wonderful facts!

(By the way are you now going to tell me that you didn`t quote the rest of the part in that `Sindhi guy`s` statement just to spite me when it had nothing to do with what you were really interested in ie Jinnah`s type writer statement?)

3)The fact is that K.B.Sayeed, a well respected Historian (and a favorite of the now missing Bilal Ahmad of Chowk), quite clearly says that all such quotes concerning Jinnah`s typewriter statement are only motivated by the 1940 quote.

4) “Your quote above is a fragment, and the context is not clear. For all we know, Jinnah is referring to the contents of his law office” Why don’t you go and read the Context for yourself… I have given you the source haven’t I? Tell me what you find… Here is the Source again: Speeches and statements of Mr. Jinnah Vol 1 Ashraf Lahore 1960

Now you can go on believing and quoting the statement… that is your right… and no one can stop you from it, but don’t expect a fair answer from me either in the future… whereas I am trying to point out something with the best of intentions, your motivations seem to lie in disparaging everything I say… I have no time for ‘Bahas Barai Bahas’…

Shrink2,

`The typewriter` comment was only made in 1940 as per objective historians... all other claims are fabricated. That is what Sarwari and myself are trying to prove.

NAQSHBANDI:

I answered your question in my last post... but you didn`t answer mine...

Anyway..

“sigalph--also as to that smug comment of yours which you attribute to the Qaid-``which sect did the Holy Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam belong to?`` that remark in itself shows the ignorance of the person who made in matters of Deen.”

Sigalph didn’t attribute the comment to the Quaid… Quaid e Azam made the comment himself… I think even that terrible and pathetic excuse for academic work ‘Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity, the Search for Saladin’ by S Akbar Ahmed that you love to quote has that quote somewhere in it…

People like you are the Pakistani and Muslim equivalent of the Gymnophist/Harimau… only your revisionism is even more dangerous because it is motivated not by some random twisting of facts as is the case with Gymnophist aka Harimau… which can be countered with simple facts… your revisionism is based on a much more dangerous premise: Direct wahi from God himself… People like you fashion yourselves in quite a blasphemous manner to be have some kind of direct telephonic contact with Allah… Something like the Ice Candy man in Bapsi’s ‘Ice Candyman/Cracking India’ It seems to me that people like you fashion everything in your own image… since you are a Bigot, you assume that the God, the Holy Prophet and even the Quaid e Azam were all bigots in your image… since you assume yourself to be the perfection of all Humanity…

May God save Pakistan and Islam from people like Asif Naqshbandi, and may God save India from Asif’s brother ‘Harimau’.

Pakistan Zindabad

-YLH

Peace in South Asia

Harpareet,

I don`t have the necessary information you asked for... but there has been enough mention of his advice to the British ...

-YLH

Peace in South Asia

¡§I think in the end, if PPP doesn`t win in Punjab (which I doubt it will), a joint PML(Q), PML(N), ANP and MQM govt. will be formed (as was the case in the last elections). The religious parties and PPP will be in opposition. While other smaller parties could go either way.¡¨

This is the worst piece of political analysis I have seen¡K MQM, ANP and PML N will never come to an agreement with PML Q ¡K PML Q will form a Government with Grand National Alliance led by Leghari who is tipped to be the next Prime Minister of Pakistan¡K Javed Jabbar a good guy might actually be in the Government this time.

¡¥PPP is a Big Sind feudal party¡¦

This is another one of those generalizations¡K Indians love to declare that the AIML was feudal when there were enough examples to the contrary¡K Big parties like PPP (the flawed but true successor of the AIML) are not monolithic¡K that is what makes them national parties¡K PPP has enough middle class and lower class support to say that it is not necessarily a feudal party though there are feudals in it.

I too am looking forward to Imran Khan making a debut in the Assembly but he isn¡¦t going to be the Prime Minister¡K Ch. Shujaat vs Imran Khan court case is going to be interesting¡K

¡¥Jinnah was a parsi¡¦

I wish¡K ƒ¼

Personally I think Karakoram has hit the hammer on the head... Jinnah might actually be a Catholic :)... after all the first religious service he attended after the creation of Pakistan was a Church service in Karachi. (not sure which denomination though)

A N

{1. Is it true that he was an Ismaili Shia himself (although he was born into such a family)?}

Ans: It is true that he belonged to the `Khoja Ismailite` sect... Belonging to the same Gujurati Caste as Mohandas Gandhi, His family converted to the extremely heterodox Islamic sect of Ismailism two generations before Jinnah was born. The family retained their Gujurati Indigenous Hindu names, and Mohammed Ali Jinnahbhoy was the first in the family to have an Islamic name.

{2. Did he remain an Ismaili all his life?}

There is some conflict about this. Jinnah was very personal about his own beliefs, but it is said that he converted to Ithna Ashari Shiism in the early 1920s... though I haven`t seen conclusive evidence. I think Sigalph`s answer is more representative of Jinnah`s thought.

Fatima Jinnah and the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan signed an affidavit declaring Mohammed Ali Jinnah to be a `Khoja Shiite Mohammaden`. Shireen, Quaid`s other sister, inherited his Karachi property in the 1970s under the same judgement. This ruling was overruled under Zia ul Haq who wanted to establish that Jinnah was a Wahabi Sunni. Such attempts are described in Ian Talbott`s `India and Pakistan`, and were generally laughed at by the civilized World.



{3. Is it true (as claimed by Prof. Akbar S Ahmed in his book on Jinnah, ``The Search for Saladin``) that he was buried according to Sunni rites (thus suggesting that at the time of his death he had become a Sunni)?}

It is true that the Sunni Allama Shabbir Usmani led the ritual Janaza prayers. However your suggestion is rather sad.. I don`t think Jinnah became a Sunni at the deathbed... if `ritual prayers` are indicative of what someone`s faith was at his death bed... then perhaps you would like to read some more on Kemal Ataturk, the guy you condemn as `Zindiq`. He too was buried under Hanafi Sunni rites... So are you now going to suggest that Kemal Ataturk, the alleged atheist, became a Pious muslim at his deathbed?

Word of Advice: concentrate on what these people did in their lifetimes for their people... there is no point in second guessing whether Mohammed Ali Jinnah believed in the same God as you... or what will become of him in the hereafter.. that only God knows... I admire Jinnah not for his faith or his religious piety, but his idealism in the early part of his political career, some of which he had to ditch as a tactical political move in the later part of his life... but which he reclaimed once he had achieved his tactical objective in the form of his speeches and statements after the 3rd June plan.

Sigalph,

G M Syed, Abul Hashim, and the young men of the Suhrawardy disposition ie Mujeeb ur Rahman etc were the Young Turks of the League.. they wanted change fast and they were in the frontlines of the League`s struggle for Pakistan... Mohammed Ali Jinnah generally agreed with them and relied more on them than the old guard around him... infact he spoke in the same terms as them..

he was as adamant in poverty alleviation as say G M Syed... Jinnah thundered many times against the exploitation of the poor:

`There are millions and millions of people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? Is this the aim of Pakistan? If that is the idea of Pakistan, I will not have it`

(Jamil ud din `Jinnah speeches and statements` VOL1 Page 507)

It was Jinnah who brought these Young Turks into the League... Jinnah had been a revolutionary in the League ranks... first he had brought the League`s stated objectives in sync with the Congress, of self rule in 1913, and then complete Independence... then it was Jinnah who abolished the heavy membership fee allowing the common man to come into the League... It was because of him these young men thronged into the League. But they had been disappointed by the growing influence of the Land lords in the closing stages of the Partition saga... and that was the root cause of their disillusionment.

Sadly disillusionment clouds judgements... It was these people who had convinced Jinnah to take up GGship of Pakistan... Jinnah had announced his retirement from Politics on June 9th 1947 after achieving the Pakistan principle... Being a Bombaywallah to the core, he planned on living out his days in his beautiful house on Mountpleasant Rd. Malabar Hill Bombay... he thought now Pakistan and India could take over under the able leadership of Liaqat and Nehru, while he could retire in peace having won his last major case.

But that was not to be. The leaguers were extremely distrustful of Mountbatten and for very good reason. Hence they didn`t want him to be the Joint Governor General... Jinnah`s name was a counter proposal.

-YLH

Peace in South Asia More Evidence WRT my previous posts :

It has been brought to my attention that Raja of Mahmudabad’s real statement is also referring to the very same 1940 speech that I mentioned and not some private statement as Layman assumes when he says: ‘Clinches it’. Now I would like to ask all of you that which Pakistan had Jinnah made in 1940? Unless ofcourse the 1.5 Billion people of South Asia went through a collective amnesia, Pakistan was created on 00.00 AM 15th August 1947. Ironically the statement that these people are referring doesn’t even mention Pakistan.

The truth is that Jinnah had not made any such claim (I made Pakistan through a type writer), nor did any such claim have any validation from history. Infact he was simply mentioning the lack of organization amongst the leaguers in 1940. People like Raja of Mahmudabad, in order to show their undying devotion to the Quaid, quoted the 1940 statement to prove that Jinnah was a one-man army and a super hero who didn’t require anyone’s help (especially the league stalwarts who had sidelined the Raja Sahib). This is what a disgruntled, rejected at the Polls, Pakistan-Movement-Worker-turned-Sindhi-Separatist like G M Syed can do to History. G M Syed wanted to be another Mujeeburrahman… but he could never muster enough support amongst those who he claimed to be fighting for.

Perhaps the dependence on Internet Sources will now take a back seat, and we will all become more academic in our approach to history… or is that just optimism on my part?

-YLH

Peace in South Asia

PS: In My last post I wanted to say: G M Syed was a `Sindhi separatist`... not just Sindhi as it might seem...

Sindhis have played a great role in the creation of Pakistan, and they are often very good Pakistanis... which is evidenced in the total annihilation of the Separatist Sindhi-nationalist parties at the Polls. GM Syed`s quote on the Internet can hardly be accepted as the genuine voice of history especially since he is quoting Qudratullah Shahab, who is quoting Raja of Mahmudabad who is then quoting Jinnah as saying that `I made Pakistan with my type writer`.

Come on... I thought chowkies were more sagacious in choosing their sources.

Peace in South Asia Layman,

I hope you will appreciate that the quote I have presented has a primary source from a hard copy. The sources you have quoted are all secondary (and Motivated) sources based on a google search. This is what I have been trying to say all along. Rule of History is that you prefer the objective Primary Source (based on Hard Copy) over the Motivated Secondary Source (based on an Internet search). At Rutgers, my almamater, it was often disallowed by the professors to use `Internet` sources.

What happened was that most of the secondary sources took the 1940 quote out of context and misplaced it in the annals of History to prove that Jinnah was some kind of a super human to create a country just on his own. The facts ofcourse are that without the landslide electoral victory of 1946, the civil disobedience of 1947 and the mass mobilization from 1940-1947, Jinnah wouldn`t have been able to create Pakistan.

Let us examine the Motives of the Writers who you are quoting as secondary sources:

1) Syed Shahabuddin and Dr Rafiq Zakaria : Indian Muslims who wish to establish that Muslims as a body were not involved in the struggle for Pakistan... this ofcourse is contrary to the facts and figures of the time... even the Congress and the British came to an agreement that the Muslim League probably represents upto 99% of the Muslims. The President of the All India Khilafat Body and self proclaimed secularist Mr Dr. Rafiq Zakaria`s book about Jinnah was critiqued in the west by a lot of scholars, and most agreed that the good doctor lacked in verifiable quotes, and his work was largely based on a personal vendetta he developed during that period. His entire effort is to prove that Jinnah alone created Pakistan without any mass movement which is a complete fib.

2) Ayaz Amir and Raja Sahib of Mahmudabad: Their attempt is to belittle the stalwarts of the Pakistan Movement and contribution of the League. Raja Sahib of Mahmudabad was made to take a backseat by the Quaid e Azam himself... The Raja Sahib had been advocating an `Islamic State` which brought him into clash with Mohammed Ali Jinnah ... this forced him out of the mainstay of the League and out of the working commitee... Later the other leaguers shunned him. There is no doubt he was loyal to Mohammed Ali Jinnah,... hence his attempt was to elevate Jinnah above all others by claiming that he said this. Ayaz Amir has been contemptuous of all Pakistani Politicians and leaders except Jinnah, so one can easily understand why he would say this...

3)G.M. Syed: G M Syed was a Sindhi separatist whose claim about Raja of Mahmudabad has been explained above... he too has no Primary Source. G M Syed was a contemptous Politician who had himself fought for Pakistan most of his life, and had only turned away when he was sidelined. I don`t want to argue about his one sided view of history.

You will probably also realize that my source is not the result of some random search on Google.. but based on a 1) Jinnah`s own speeches 2) a Proper History Book which is well accepted in the West as an authentic account of events... Dr. K.B.Sayeed has been a lecturer in India, Pakistan, Canada and the United States. His book is a balanced view which criticizes Jinnah on many accounts... This book was published by the Oxford University Press, first in India, and then in Pakistan.. It is also a prescribed text for South Asian History in many US Colleges...

If you want to argue on the basis of Passions, biases etc, then I suppose you can take the one sided `Political` views of the above mentioned politicians/opinionists. However if you want objective History, I would advise you to look at Objective Historians such as K.B. Sayeed, Wolpert, A.Jalal, etc.... and not the collection you have presented... former and present Indian MPs and ministers, a confused separatist Sindhi leader, an ex-Pakistani senator, and a disgruntled Raja....

K.B.Sayeed`s Book:

`Pakistan: The Formative Phase 1857-1948`

I am still baffled how History can be objectively learnt through `Google Searches`?

-YLH

Peace in South Asia Layman,

I hope you will appreciate that the quote I have presented has a primary source from a hard copy. The sources you have quoted are all secondary (and Motivated) sources based on a google search. This is what I have been trying to say all along. Rule of History is that you prefer the objective Primary Source (based on Hard Copy) over the Motivated Secondary Source (based on an Internet search). At Rutgers, my almamater, it was often disallowed by the professors to use `Internet` sources.

What happened was that most of the secondary sources took the 1940 quote out of context and misplaced it in the annals of History to prove that Jinnah was some kind of a super human to create a country just on his own. The facts ofcourse are that without the landslide electoral victory of 1946, the civil disobedience of 1947 and the mass mobilization from 1940-1947, Jinnah wouldn`t have been able to create Pakistan.

Let us examine the Motives of the Writers who you are quoting as secondary sources:

1) Syed Shahabuddin and Dr Rafiq Zakaria : Indian Muslims who wish to establish that Muslims as a body were not involved in the struggle for Pakistan... this ofcourse is contrary to the facts and figures of the time... even the Congress and the British came to an agreement that the Muslim League probably represents upto 99% of the Muslims. The President of the All India Khilafat Body and self proclaimed secularist Mr Dr. Rafiq Zakaria`s book about Jinnah was critiqued in the west by a lot of scholars, and most agreed that the good doctor lacked in verifiable quotes, and his work was largely based on a personal vendetta he developed during that period. His entire effort is to prove that Jinnah alone created Pakistan without any mass movement which is a complete fib.

2) Ayaz Amir and Raja Sahib of Mahmudabad: Their attempt is to belittle the stalwarts of the Pakistan Movement and contribution of the League. Raja Sahib of Mahmudabad was made to take a backseat by the Quaid e Azam himself... The Raja Sahib had been advocating an `Islamic State` which brought him into clash with Mohammed Ali Jinnah ... this forced him out of the mainstay of the League and out of the working commitee... Later the other leaguers shunned him. There is no doubt he was loyal to Mohammed Ali Jinnah,... hence his attempt was to elevate Jinnah above all others by claiming that he said this. Ayaz Amir has been contemptuous of all Pakistani Politicians and leaders except Jinnah, so one can easily understand why he would say this...

3)G.M. Syed: G M Syed was a Sindhi whose claim about Raja of Mahmudabad has been explained above... he too has no Primary Source. G M Syed was a contemptous Politician who had himself fought for Pakistan most of his life, and had only turned away when he was sidelined. I don`t want to argue about his one sided view of history.

You will probably also realize that my source is not the result of some random search on Google.. but based on a 1) Jinnah`s own speeches 2) a Proper History Book which is well accepted in the West as an authentic account of events... Dr. K.B.Sayeed has been a lecturer in India, Pakistan, Canada and the United States. His book is a balanced view which criticizes Jinnah on many accounts... This book was published by the Oxford University Press, first in India, and then in Pakistan.. It is also a prescribed text for South Asian History in many US Colleges...

If you want to argue on the basis of Passions, biases etc, then I suppose you can take the one sided `Political` views of the above mentioned politicians/opinionists. However if you want objective History, I would advise you to look at Objective Historians such as K.B. Sayeed, Wolpert, A.Jalal, etc.... and not the collection you have presented... former and present Indian MPs and ministers, a confused separatist Sindhi leader, an ex-Pakistani senator, and a disgruntled Raja....

K.B.Sayeed`s Book:

`Pakistan: The Formative Phase 1857-1948`

I am still baffled how History can be objectively learnt through `Google Searches`?

-YLH

Peace in South Asia Roohi,

I am glad that you find my thinking `mature`, though I insist that it is the change of environment.. I am no longer an expatriate, hence I can take a dispassionate view of things. However while accepting his role as a symbol of non-violence and peace for Indians and billions world over, I must confess that I can`t be inspired personally by the Gandhian philosophy. I think I have made my reasons pretty clear in the past. If there are Indian leaders, I admire, I must say they are Nehru and Ambedkar.

However I still haven`t seen any reciprocation of this maturity from say.. you? You had made an awful claim about one of Aisha`s first articles, calling it hateful and bigoted... here is a quote from that article:

[My solution to the Kashmir issue; cultivation of greater tolerance for other beliefs, yet never compromising on ones own, being a citizen of the world yet beginning with one’s own country. Working at grass root levels in Kashmir and believing that one day the world would meet God halfway, by being nice to its neighbors. This is not an over-simplification of the problem in Kashmir. I attempted to internalize the many details, so I’d be better equipped to step into the domain, but after lots of thought, I have created a new domain, the domain of “ fighting with peace”.]

Despite this concluding paragraph in which she calls for the cultivation of greater tolerance for other`s beliefs (simply because she mentioned the Pakistani point of view on things) you decided to call this piece `hateful`. Do you think that was fair? I find it really hard to swallow that we Pakistanis can only be `mature`, `idealistic` and `peace loving` people if we play to your tune?

Please don`t mind my bitter tone.

-YLH

Peace in South Asia Dear Sweet Harimau,

The words used in Wolpert’s quote : ‘Few’ , ‘Fewer still’ and ‘Hardly anyone’ doesn’t suggest ‘no one’ does it ? That you/gymnophist gave a counter example of Mongolia proves one of two things:

1) Either you/Gymnophist are weak at English Language comprehension. (This is a strong possibility given the sheer number of misquotes you do.)

2) Or you/Gymnophist have an IQ less than room temperature on a Cold December night in the North Pole.

Which one is it? And are you using iodized salt? If not why not?

-YLH

Peace in South Asia

Attn Chowkies: Proof that Jinnah’s alleged Typewriter Statement is a fabrication.

For a very long time the statement ‘I made Pakistan through my type-writer’ has baffled me. It seems so inconsistent with Jinnah’s personality in general despite his self-confidence and vanity. Yet this Lie has been repeated even by well-intentioned people so many times that it has become a fact/truth.

The truth is that Jinnah never made this statement. He did mention his type writer in one speech but that speech was made in 1940, 7 years before the creation of Pakistan… so there is no way he could have said ‘I made Pakistan through my type writer. It is simple common sense after all…

The Real Statement (1940 speech) is:

‘entire equipment is confined to an attache case, a type writer and a personal assistant’.

(Speeches and statements of Mr. Jinnah Vol 1 Ashraf Lahore 1960)

Please don’t take my word for it. This book in the States is available as well through Inter Library Loan service so please do check it out. The context of this statement was his description of the difficulties he has had to face because of the lack of organization within the Muslim ranks.

In the ‘Formative Phase’ (Chap 6 ‘The Muslim League: Its Role and Organization’ on Page 176 OUP Karachi 2nd Edition) Khalid Bin Sayeed gives this footnote:

‘This statement is a speech made in 1940 in which Jinnah urged Muslims to strengthen the Muslim League organization and pointed out that it was only after Muslims were well organized that he would give them the Marching orders.’

It is hoped that our friends on both sides of the border will nip this lie in bud, though the plant of lie has grown to be quite a tree. I don’t expect much from the likes of Harimau, but it is hoped that gentlemen like Mr. Layman and others will cease and desist from repeating such fabrications.

-YLH

PS I also have the salient points of the Cabinet Mission Plan for those who are interested. It seems that some of them too have been subject to misinterpretation here on Chowk. If anyone wants to read them, I’ll willingly put them up.

Harimau,

Who are you trying to fool ... I nailed you and your other alias `Gymnophist` many times.

Sorry none of your esoteric logic makes any sense dude... give it up... start by accepting that you misquoted Bhutto and now you can`t get out of it.

-YLH

Peace in South Asia

dear Sigalph,

Thankfuly he is not. He is contesting from the PPPp ticket. He is a secularist (and anti-Mullah) from what I gather atleast, and he is a well established lawyer of the High Court and not so well established one of the Supreme Court.

However to be a `Jinnahist` I think one has to be an urbanite or atleast non-feudal as well, where as my uncle is a medium range feudal which is the part I don`t like. However his father (my nana) had been the election campaigner of Mohatarma Fatima Jinnah in 1965 from the Khushab district near Sargodha, and his grandfather had switched over from the unionists to the League in 1939.

I don`t know if he says this as a joke, but he claims that his favorite politicians in the South Asian History are Sardar Sikandar Hayat and Sardar Khizer Hayat Tiwana other than ofcourse Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his daughter.. sigh

Shammi,

Thankyou. The sentiment is reciprocated.

-YLH