The ANP Challenge majumdar bhai,

"it wud be unfortunate"

My posts 590 and 682 explain my idea of patriotism. I hope Cheema sb also reads it.

The ANP Challenge Correction August 12, 1948.

And the main architect was none other than Bacha Khan's old Congress comrade Qayyum.

The ANP Challenge Re: # 724

"I came across one of your articles on 1974 (Pakistan RIP); very impressive. Having secular tendencies myself, I'd love to see the day when a solid secular democracy has taken root and to see it prosper in our homeland."

Thanks.

The ANP Challenge Re: # 721

How does one argue with someone like you who insists on ignoring straight answers and going in circles for a punch line he is not going to get? The answer is there in several posts, but especially in 633.

As for Bhabra Sharif "massacre"... according to you it took place on August 12, 1947. Jinnah was already on his deathbed by then barely even able to move. But lets humor you and say that Jinnah was not "fit" to be governor general, how does it prove the facts I have put up about Bacha Khan false?

I think you are not worth anyone's time ... nor should I base my assessment of ANP on you, because you are as HP says an unintelligent ANP worker who knows nothing.

The Irreverent Hero Islam Forgot Ref: akcheema, Majumdar discussion

There are two statements... which I think sum it up. One by H V Hodson and the other by Dr. B R Ambedkar .. which might explain why Majumdar bhai and I use (PBUH) for Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah.

"One thing is certain, it was not for any venal motive that he changed. Not even his political enemies ever accused Jinnah of corruption or self seeking. He could be bought by no one and for no price. Nor was he in the least degree a weathercock, swinging in the wind of popularity or changing his politics to suit the chances of the time. He was a steadfast idealist, as well as a man of scrupulous honour." (Page 39- Great Divide)


and

From Pakistan or Partition of India by Dr. B R Ambedkar - the author of Indian constitution:

"Secondly, it forgets that Mr. Jinnah, who represents this ideological transformation, can never be suspected of being a tool in the hands of the British even by the worst of his enemies. ..... it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah."


Those who wish to abuse Jinnah, should go right ahead but one should not stop others from holding a point of view which is rooted in history.

The ANP Challenge There are two statements... which I think sum it up. One by H V Hodson and the other by Dr. B R Ambedkar .. which might explain why Majumdar bhai and I use (PBUH) for Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah.

"One thing is certain, it was not for any venal motive that he changed. Not even his political enemies ever accused Jinnah of corruption or self seeking. He could be bought by no one and for no price. Nor was he in the least degree a weathercock, swinging in the wind of popularity or changing his politics to suit the chances of the time. He was a steadfast idealist, as well as a man of scrupulous honour." (Page 39- Great Divide)


and

From Pakistan or Partition of India by Dr. B R Ambedkar - the author of Indian constitution:

"Secondly, it forgets that Mr. Jinnah, who represents this ideological transformation, can never be suspected of being a tool in the hands of the British even by the worst of his enemies. ..... it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah."


Those who wish to abuse Jinnah, should go right ahead but one should not stop others from holding a point of view which is rooted in history.

The ANP Challenge harish bhai,

The Lahore Convention of 1940 had 100 000 people. The Delhi convention had 90 000. What you say was true upto 1936... when Jinnah increased membership of the League and remodelled it on Congress lines.

All India Muslim League was divided on 17th December 1947 between PML (under Khaliquzzaman) and the Indian Union Muslim League (under Muhammad Ismail). Your junior external affairs minister is part of that party.

In Pakistan, the successor Pakistan Muslim League, along with other political parties, was banned in 1958.

The feudals who had briefly joined the Muslim League at the end of the Pakistan movement were encouraged by the establishment to join the Republican Party in 1954-55. Muslim League sat in the opposition till it was banned.

Suhrawardy and Mamdot formed what was known as Jinnah Awami Muslim League. This Party ultimately transformed into Awami League.

When Ayub Khan allowed the parties to work again, two Muslim Leagues came into being... one with people like Mahmudabad and Khaliquzzaman etc who supported Fatima Jinnah.... there was Ayub's own Muslim League which had Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as the secretary General.

Ayub's Muslim League died out... the other Muslim League was divided into two anti-Ayub factions: Qayyum group Malik group. Both of them I believe were part of the PPP government in the 1970s.

Parties were again banned in 1978... A new Muslim League came into being in 1986 under Junejo. This Junejo Muslim League was divided into Junejo League and Nawaz League. Later Junejo League was divided into Chatha League and Watoo League but soon their main people joined in with Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League. When Mush came along, PML-N was divided into N and Likeminded. Likeminded later adopted the name PML-Q.

The thing is that there has always been two Muslim Leagues after 1958... one that is pro-establishment and the other than is anti-establishment. At times, the pro-establishment League also turns into the anti-establishment league ... like Nawaz Sharif's League.

It is however the great emotional attachment the people of Pakistan have to the name that makes these politicians revive the Muslim League every now and then.

The ANP Challenge Majumdar,

I told you pliant and non-pliant Muslims... apparently the fundooness or lack thereof doesn't depend on anything else but the willingness of the Mualana submit himself to Gandhi's commands.


The allegiance of the Muslim intelligentsia of India at that to the Khilafah is unquestionable. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad summed up their view when he wrote in his newspaper al-Hilal on 6th November 1912 that the Ottoman Sultans possessed the only sword which Muslims had for their protection. Insofar as the “caliphate was essentially a religious integration of the shari’a”, it became “necessary by revelation, is of God’s institution and that obedience to its authority is farz, or positively commanded”.


The Khilafat Movement


In September 1919, Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali, together with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani, started a new organization, the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Their avowed aim was to use whatever leverage they had to protect the Khilafah. They organized Khilafat Conferences in several northern Indian cities. It is noticeable that the scholars and activists that were part of the Khilafat movement came from different schools of thought and backgrounds, for example Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was known to be a ‘ghayr taqleedi’ (non-taqleedi – who believed Taqleed to Mazahib is prohibited) and Maulana Mahmood Hasan was Deobandi who are followers of the Hanafi Mazhab yet they were united in the objective of working for the maintenance of the Khilafah.


In 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee agreed on two important organisational goals: “first, to urge the retention of the temporal powers of the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph, and second to ensure his continued suzerainty over the Islamic holy places.”

Delivering the presidential address at the Calcutta meeting of the Bengal Provincial Khilafat Conference in 1920, Maulana Azad discussed the importance of Khilafah he declared, “the purpose of this institution was to organise and lead the Muslim community in the right path, to establish justice, to bring about peace, and to spread God’s word in the world. For all this it was absolutely necessary for the caliph to possess temporal power”. Maulana Azad had no doubt that “without an Imam, their lives were un-Islamic and that they would be damned after death”.


Maulana Azad published a book in 1920 called Masla-e-Khilafat (The Issue of Khilafah), he stated: “Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this”.

In the same book page 176 Maulana Azad said, “There are two types of ahkam shariah, the first is related to the individual like the commands and prohibitions, the fara’id (obligations) and wajibat in order to perfect oneself. The second is not related to the individual but is related to the Ummah, nation, collective obligations and state politics like the conquering of lands, political and economic laws”.

According to Peter Hardy, Maulana Azad believed that, “The Muslim who would separate religion and politics for Muslims is an apostate who works silently”.


The loss of political power in India and the threat posed by a combination of forces to the temporal authority of the caliph, was so worrisome for the leaders of the Muslim community that some of them felt compelled to issue fatwas ‘in favour of migration (hijra)’ from India.


Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a fatwa which was published in the daily Ahl-e-Hadith of Amritsar on 30 July 1920. In his fatwa he urged Hijrat from India as an alternative to non-cooperation with the British.

Maulana Abdul Bari’s fatwa said, “every Muslim residing here should adopt non-cooperation but if (that is) impossible, should proceed for hijrat”. Maulana Shaukat Ali issued a statement on behalf of the Central Khilafat Committee, “expressing the hope that all dedicated Muslims would stay in India and work for the non-cooperation. Only if it did not succeed would they consider resorting to hijrat”. The impact of the fatwa was electrifying and thousands of Muslims preferred to leave the Dar al harb of India where their religious rights symbolized in the position of the Turkish Caliph was being infringed.

The ANP Challenge Re: # 687

Except that they took every opportunity to blame others like Suhrawardy.

Besides I suppose no religious scripture played a part in Maulana Azad's famous fatwa in early 1920s that India was Dar-ul-Harb and the Muslims should move to Afghanistan.
But then I suppose in India the title of religious zealotry is reserved for those irreligious gentlemen who take up the political causes of a community based on religious identity.

Mahatmas and Maulanas are exempt from such love.

The ANP Challenge Re: # 683

Agreed bhai but I wasn't referring to you nor did you egg him on. :)

The ANP Challenge Re: # 681

Harish bhai

May I interject.

I think what Majumdar is trying to say is that since in his view they were dishonest, they would have jumped to the opportunity to denounce Jinnah at the first opportunity. The fact that even they didn't accuse Jinnah amounts to something.

The ANP Challenge HP,

I haven't defined patriotism. Don't take my tit for tat responses to Salman mian as indicative of my definition of patriotism. You may visit #590 (for which I was abused by this brilliant ANP worker) and see for yourself that my definition is hardly based on taking any prisoners of conscience.

Anyone... be it Bacha Khan's grandson or GM Syed's nephew ..
who works for a democratic social welfare state and a strong Pakistani federation based on provincial autonomy and respect for diversity is a patriot of Pakistan i my view.

I do hope though that the followers of these gentlemen will not allow their illustrious forerunners to become symbolic tools in the hands of those who want to see Pakistan fail.

The ANP Challenge Salman mian

Refer to 676 and 633. As for the sentence that you asked for. HP - who is Bacha Khan's biggest fan and supporter - has given you a sentence:

Salman is clearly is an unintelligent ANP supporter and has no idea what he is talking about

The ANP Challenge Adam Khan,

That is a very well written post and you know where I actually stand. However, it is better addressed to Salman. You may go to the begining of his posts on this board and see for yourself how he started this nonsense.

If a self-professed ANP worker comes up and starts levelling baseless allegations against Jinnah for example simply because of my very mild criticism of Bacha Khan in the article- none of which was untrue and we went through it point by point earlier in more civil times, I reserve the right to dig up with potentially disastrous stuff about Bacha Khan and others.

For the record... Zeemax was not the only person who claimed this. I was actually acting on the claims of Mr. Pavocavalry. However you may consider #580 when I voluntarily dropped this issue given the contradictory nature of the claims. Even that was taken to be sign of weakness as was my post # 590 where I once again tried to speak sense to Mr. Salman0902. He- irked on by his newfound Indian supporters- attacked me for even doing that.

To top it all off - this self professed ANP supporter declared that 1. I was not objective because I was an Ahmadi. 2. I was not objective because I was a PPP supporter and finally 3. He accused me of being a typical Punjabi chauvinist who wanted to build Kalabagh Dam. If this is the way secular ANP activists deal with criticism then it is a grave issue for NWFP.

You know that even Jinnah had great personal regard for Bacha Khan... and whatever negativity and misunderstanding was was created between the two in 1948 was well washed away by Bacha Khan and Wali Khan's wholehearted support for Fatima Jinnah in her quest against Ayubian dictatorship.
The fact of the matter is that I have never heard any ANP wallah abuse Jinnah except for this fellow here. Disagree with his politics but I have found ANP wallahs always properly respectful and this should be mutual.

-YLH

The ANP Challenge Majumdar,

While you are correct to point out that the Khans did sup with the Islamists but at least they had a reason. They were making deals with them to take on a 800 lb gorilla (Brits, ZAB, Army etc) But if that makes them unsecular, what do you say about the PPP which cut deals with the some forces (Excommunicating Ahmedis, setting up the Taliban in 1995) when there was no pressing need to do so?

You are right as usual but I don't hold the brief for the PPP either. To PPP's credit though, it has never claimed to be secular or non-violent. (I am guessing though that PPP will claim similar expediencies- national interest, democracy and what not. The history of Ahmaddiya issue is full of establishment's conspiracy to destabilize governments starting from the attempt to bring down the Muslim League government by creating the anti-Ahmaddiya riots... in 1953 when Nazimuddin was sent packing. Bhutto just chickened out in 1974).

The ANP Challenge Salman mian,

I have answered this question several times. You may read my last response to Harish Bhai on the matter which is 633.
The issue here is not Jinnah in any event but your inability to defend Bacha Khan on his merits.

As for "doobtay ko tinkay ka sahara" bit, I voluntarily deferred the matter of Hayat Khan Sherpao assassination given that I was given two very contradictory views - each of which claimed with absolute certainty. It is therefore my inability to ascertain both claims that I have washed my hands off the matter.

Zeemax however has made a claim which I have neither accepted nor denied. He has every right to give his point of view.