unflinching idealism ... since 1997 archivessitemapabouthelpfeedback
ideas, identities and interactions
  • Home
  • InFocus
  • Themes
  • Columns
  • Articles
  • Fiction
  • iLogs
  • Gallery
  • Unplugged
  • Writers
  • Interactors
  • Tags
Sign in | Join Chowk
web chowk
  • Unplugged Home
  • Books Movies Music
  • News Sports Biz
  • Off-the-wall
  • Chowk Connect!
  • Chowk related topics

Allah Bux, Sikander Hayat, Zafarullah by G M Syed


POST REPLY
read replies 16

Allah Bux, Sikander Hayat, Zafarullah by G M Syed

Topic started by sadna on May 10, 2008 11:58:04 pm

Chaudhry Zafarullah, a member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, was asked to submit a map of two dominions. On that subject, on 12 March 1940, Viceroy Lord Linlithgow wrote to the Secretary of State for India:

‘Upon my instruction Zafarullah wrote a memorandum on the subject, Two Dominion States. I have already sent it for your attention. I have also asked him for further clarification, which, he says, is forthcoming. He is anxious, however, that no one should find out that he has prepared this plan. He has, however, given me the right to do with it what I like, including sending a copy to you. Copies have been passed on to Jinnah, and, I think, to Sir Akbar Hydiri. While he, Zafarullah, cannot admit its authorship, the Muslim League with a view to giving it the fullest publicity has prepared his document for adoption.’

The Viceroy explains this further. Since Zafarullah was a Qadiani he had to be cautious. The Muslims would become irritated if they found that a Qadiani prepared this scheme. The Viceroy said that Jinnah had been given a copy to make the Muslim League adopt it and publicize its contents. Sir Akbar was given a copy because he was responsible for fund-raising. The dates take on a special significance, The Viceroy’s letter to the Secretary of State was written on 12 April 1940. The Pakistan scheme had been dispatched earlier. Twelve days later the Muslim League adopted this very proposal at their Lahore Annual Meeting. It was called Pakistan Agreement,

Sir Zafarullah’s term on the Viceroy’s Executive Council was expiring in March. Due to his loyal service, however, the term was extended. Two days after the Muslim League had adopted this proposal, on 25 March 1940, the Viceroy wrote:

‘The Congress is putting forward a preposterous claim, which they know is incapable of being accepted. He (Jinnah) will put forward just as extreme a claim, of the impracticability of realizing which he is probably just well aware; but the existence of which, will, while reaffirming the Muslim attitude of hostility to the Congress scheme, take away some, at any rate, of the damaging charges which are hitherto being leveled against them [Muslim League] that they have no constructive ideas of their own.’

When the Muslim League accepted the Viceroy’s proposal [author, Sir Zafarullah, the British were convinced of their dependability. It was natural, then, for the British to refuse to recognize the existence of any party other than the Muslim League. During those days, a large representative gathering of nationalist Muslims was held in Delhi. The Chief Minister of Sindh, Allah Bux Soomro, chaired the Assembly. The Secretary of State, Lord Zetland, asked the Viceroy to report on this gathering. On 14 May, 1 940, the Viceroy wrote:

‘I attach no particular importance to the Delhi Conference of the Muslims, which took place a few days ago. It has been well organized and the Congress press machine has written it up admirably.... We both are, of course, aware that there is a not unimportant Muslim element outside the Muslim League.... Indeed, I am sure that Jinnah remains the man to deal with on the Muslim side.’

The British deliberately ignored those Muslims, who, along with the Congress, were struggling for freedom. Their very faith was called I questionable’. More than 100 representatives, who had gathered together under the leadership of an elected Chief Minister, were totally disregarded. The Viceroy did not mince his words when he wrote to the Secretary of State that ‘Jinnah is our man and we accept him as a representative of all Muslims.’

The Khaksars were in a peculiar position. The objection to other Muslims was that they were not assisting the British but the Khaksars, who, in all humility, had offered help! On 24 May 1940, the Viceroy wrote, "Meanwhile the Khaksars have formally renewed their offer to me of 50,000 men to help in the war."

Their offer to fight for the British in the war against Germany was rejected due to Jinnah’s negative attitude. ‘Jinnah accepts no responsibility for Khaksars or their activities since they have declined his advice.’ The Viceroy adopted the following stand:

‘Considering the present attitude of the Khaksars in Punjab, it would not be advisable for me to enter into any correspondence with them or their leaders, and I propose, accordingly, to leave the telegram unanswered.’

The British were trying to make it very clear to every Indian Muslim that except Jinnah and the Muslim League, they were not ready to accept any other party. To gain British support, the Muslims were obliged to join the Muslim League. Earlier, the British had severed relations with the Congress because they were not prepared to assist them in the war against Germany. Their inconsistency becomes evident in their refusing the help of 50,000 Khaksars, while at the same time, rejecting the Congress because they did not offer 50,000 men to fight the same war’

Second, In 1941, Ayub Khuhro told me that the Punjabi President Sir Sikander Hayat was in Karachi and that I should meet him. Accordingly, I called on Sir Sikander Hayat in the company of Ayub Khuhro, Allah Bux Soomro and Sheikh Abdul Majid Sindhi at the Carlton Hotel. Among other things, the Punjab Premier told us that it would be better if an all parties government was formed in Sindh under Allah Bux Soomro’s leadership, He told me that I had done well to work for the establishment of such a government in Sindh because it would enable us to get laws protecting the rights of the people such as debt relief, the tenancy act, etc., passed by the Assembly. During the course of our discussion, Sir Sikander Hayat advised Soomro to join the Muslim League at which the latter said that he would not do so because he considered the very existence of the League detrimental to the interests of the Muslims of India, to Sindh, to the rest of the sub-continent and to Islam itself.

Sir Sikander Hayat told Soomro: ‘Look, I am in League Myself ‘Allah Bux Soomro retorted by saying that Sir Sikander Hayat had criticized the Pakistan plan in the Punjab Assembly only a few days ago. How was it possible to be in the Muslim League and be opposed to the Pakistan scheme? he asked. ‘At least my conscience does not allow me to indulge in this kind of two-timingness," he added. He also said that in his view, Pakistan would be detrimental to Muslim interests and be deadly for Sindh. At this, Sir Sikander Hayat said even the central President of the League, Mr. Jinnah, was not in favor of Pakistan and the proceedings of the Round Table Conference were proof of that. He had opposed the Pakistan idea in the light of Jinnah’s views, he added. Allah Bux Soomro said he was not capable of that kind of hypocrisy. Only Sir Sikander and Mr. Jinnah could do it.

Later, Sir Sikander left for Cairo when Rommel was threatening to take over the Suez Canal for Germany. Gen. Montgomery who was leading Sikh and Muslim troops from the Punjab, was facing the Germans. Sir Sikander Hayat had gone to Egypt to boost the morale of the Indian troops. He performed this duty with great loyalty. Shortly afterwards, the German advance turned into retreat. At this, Winston Churchill met Sir Sikander in Cairo and personally thanked him for having helped the British in their hour of trial while the Congress had added to their problems Therefore; the Congress did not deserve British attention or friendship. He said that the British could not ‘ remain in India in the face of opposition from its 400 million people. He asked Sir Sikander Hayat to assure Mr. Jinnah that in order to teach the Congress a lesson, the British would quit the sub-continent soon after the War but only after having created a ‘Muslim India’ in India. Mr. Jinnah need not be afraid, and he could have this pledge verified by the Viceroy of India.

Sir Sikander Hayat left Cairo for Bombay where he met Mr. Jinnah and conveyed Mr. Churchill’s message to him Mr. Jinnah had the promise made by the British Prime Minister verified by the Viceroy through the Governor of Bombay. The Viceroy then summoned Mr. Jinnah to Delhi and told him that a framework for the division of India was already on the anvil and he could check on this from Sir Zafarullah Khan, on the condition that he would not enter into any settlement with the Congress. Jinnah agreed to do so and began to work against the Congress with renewed vigor.

It is possible that at this may yet be regarded as not fully established. Therefore, I am citing an excerpt from Syed Nor Ahmed’s book, "Martial Law Se Martial Law Tak" in which he says that even after the passage of the Lahore Resolution, Sir Sikander Hayat was not mentally prepared to accept the Pakistan plan because he believed in provincial autonomy. However, he was in favor of partition because of autonomy for the Muslim nation, which was the basis of the Lahore Resolution. However, he wanted that the Punjab should remain united. He wanted partition to take place in such a manner that the martial races of the Punjab should be free of the influence of the pundits and Brahmins of the majority party in the center. He probably thought that the Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs would agree with his point of view. He made a strange effort towards this end over and above the heads of the League leadership.

At the request ‘of the British Government, he visited the War theaters once again to buck up the Indians, which is to say, Punjabi soldiers. In the winter of 1941-42, he had the occasion to meet Churchill in Cairo. On his return home, he told some of his Cabinet colleagues, including Sir Chotu Ram and other friends that apart from other things, he had discussed India’s constitutional problem with the British Prime Minister and had tired to make two points clear to him.

1. He had tried to impress upon him the fact that only the martial races of the Punjab had contributed to the British War effort with loyalty and it would be a travesty of justice if they were made subservient to the Congress and the Brahmins who would be in majority at the center in a free India.
2. A loyal Punjab deserved to be the leader of a separate dominion, which should include Sindh, the NWFP and Baluchistan. This could be easily achieved provided the British statesmen were convinced of its advantages. Such a federation would be loyal to the British under all circumstances. The defense of the new dominion and the rest of India should for some time, be joined under British supervision. Later, a mutually agreed formula could be evolved for the purpose. The new dominion would be economically self-sufficient.

http://www.sindhudesh.com/gmsyed/case/
saeen-book1-part4.ht m


flag objectionable content
Posts 1-16 of 16
Post by sadna on May 11, 2008 1:00:27 pm

bjk
In the plight of people like G M Syed, Mujiber Rehman and perhaps Suhrawardy lies a lesson which Indians (Hindus) must learn without delay.

All these politicians used communal arguments against Hindus. And not long after they found that similar communal arguments were used against them to bring them down, by their own former allies.

In other words, if Hindus think that communal Hindutva politics against Muslims is without cost to them, they are stupid.


flag objectionable content
Post by sadna on May 11, 2008 12:04:33 pm

bjk
Jinnah did good for the Muslim majority provinces' Muslim politicians. He also did good for those who migrated from a Muslim minority position to a Muslim majority position, a number of whom got to take the places and assets of the Hindus who had been forced to leave. So his villainy is in the eye of the beholder.


flag objectionable content
Post by bjkumar on May 11, 2008 11:58:26 am

Sadna,

I recommend saving and keeping track of these various little pieces of the long-ago "puzzle" in an organized manner (preferably along a timeline). You could perhaps keep a Table of Contents on your interactor page with link to different pieces which, in order to guarantee long-term survival, should be saved outside the chowk site, certainly outside the chowk UP.

The more I learn about Jinnah, the more I am convinced of his being a villain.

Perhaps some day the Pakistanis will come to the same conclusion. It may be a while though, there are a lot of mule-headed Pakistanis.


flag objectionable content
Post by sadna on May 11, 2008 10:33:48 am

Yeah HP, let me guess. G M Syed blamed Hindus for all his actions. Nothing new in that, it is already known from the beginning of time that everything Muslims do is the fault of Hindus


flag objectionable content
Post by sadna on May 11, 2008 10:27:45 am

As for noone anticipating the power of the military, that is simply not true.

BR Ambedkar in his book written in the early 40s(before 1944) quoted questions asked in the Central Assembly in 1938 about the threat from a Punjabi dominated Army.


flag objectionable content
Post by HP on May 11, 2008 10:21:25 am

Sadna,

I cannot discuss any more. I see that you are losing temper ands are mad. Any continuation would be just another exchange of heated words.

Thanks.


flag objectionable content
Post by sadna on May 11, 2008 10:17:38 am

Congress asked for government responsible to elected legislature, plain and simple. The British were unwilling to grant that even in mid 1946. The ML could care less about legislatures and majorities, they wanted unchallenged ML rule right from 1936 elections onward. The way it turned out was then logical.


flag objectionable content
Post by sadna on May 11, 2008 10:14:45 am

Anyway it is funny to read G M Syed and realise the ironies of history.
For years Sindhis wanted to be separate from Bombay. This was a valid regional demand of course and there was communal resistance from Hindu Sindhis of course, but there was also a relevant argument against separation of Sindh which was that Sindh should be separated when it became financially viable.

But British to make Muslims happy granted separation of Sindh irrespective of the financial factor. So when Allah Bux Sumroo became Chief Minister, the British did not approve and to embarass his government they demanded that Sindh pay down the costs of the Sukkur barrage. So Allah Bux Sumroo had to increase taxes on Muslim landholders benefitting from the Sukkur barrage. So he lost political favor (as was intended by the British.

Then Muslim League including GM Syed created a big fuss about a mosque in Sukkur. Hindus were abused by many politicians including GM Syed, riots occurred. Allah Bux was caught in the middle and eventually his govt fell.

After fighting the Hindus on behalf of Muslim League and increasing ML hold on Sindh through communal polarization incited by the central League, GM Syed then began to come up against the power of the same League Urdu-Punjabi factions.

At some time after independence, the same League Urdu-Punjabi factions combined all provinces into One Unit and Sindh lost all control over its affairs.

The major part of irrigated land from the various barrages in Sindh was given away to nonSindhis. There was no redress or relief in this centralized decisionmaking over Sindh despite GM Syed's attempts to bring down the West Pakistan or Pakistan government (successful in one instance I think). To rally Sindhis around Sindhi literary and cultural activities was also considered a crime against the Pakistani state.

All these "sacrifices" simply to drive out the Hindus who were 30% of the province and to grab their assets, because being Hindu was worse than being a fellow Sindhi.

I think in the above it can be seen that Sindh got EXACTLY what its leaders like GM Syed worked for all along, so I don't really understand why GM Syed had complaints


flag objectionable content
Post by HP on May 11, 2008 10:09:53 am

Sadna,
Whatever happened in Pakistan after the partition was a tragedy but no one had the idea that Pakistan would slip into the hands of bureaucracy and later the army so quickly after the partition.
Some like Sain GM Syed thought that Pakistan would have bad politicians due to the kind of people who dominated ML. However, he too in his wildest dreams never thought that the army would take over the country.

There was no tradition of army rule in united India. Even the Brits never placed the army near the political hierarchy in India. Politicians never considered that something to worry abt.

Autonomy is a legitimate political demand and that is what the Congress asked for from the Brits...Dominion status was the first Congress demand before they moved towards independence. Dominion Status was just another name for autonomy.


flag objectionable content
Post by sadna on May 11, 2008 9:53:19 am

HP
Thanks for your post.
Incidentally, I was never ever under the impression that GM Syed wanted a united India.

I have stated repeatedly on chowk my assessment that the Muslim politicians of the Muslim majority provinces were never ever going to accept a Hindu majority centre. This was clear in the early 1930s and even earlier.The Muslim parties rejected even the Government of India Act 1935 which they themselves helped write, even though elected Hindus would be in a minority at center wrt Muslims + nominees of Princes.

You see something called 'autonomy' as some highminded practical option which was different from unitary central government. I don't, I know that sort of talk has always been all cr_p, ie meaning nothing at all in concrete terms. Even Bahawalpur was allowed to have "autonomy" only for 10 years or less.


flag objectionable content
Post by HP on May 11, 2008 9:42:53 am

Sadna,
I had posted links to this abt four years ago on chowk.
When I was a student, I used to visit Sain GM Syed often. He used to talk abt the History and would teach us abt the partition and many factors behind it. Why he supported Pakistan and his falling out with Jinnah.

Incidentally, Kazi Akber who beat GM Syed in 1946 elections was a neighbor and a relative. He too used to tell us the issues behind the partition and how Sir Abdullah Haroon, a Sindhi businessman, pleaded with jinnah to lead the struggle for autonomy. GM Syed was Abdullah Haroon supporter in 1939-40.
As I had said it many times, for the leaders in the muslim majority provinces, it was all about autonomy within or outside of India. They saw Pakistan as an opportunity to achieve that goal.Sir Sikander too supported a semi independent Punjab.

I will write my take on it but one thing should always be clear to you that Sain GM Syed despite his differences with Jinnah, did not support a united India...He too wanted to Sindh to be independent of India.

So whatever influence the brits had did not matter....


flag objectionable content
Post by sadna on May 11, 2008 9:09:29 am

Maybe you could add Saudi Arabia to that list but I am not sure


flag objectionable content
Post by sadna on May 11, 2008 9:06:17 am

einsteinwallah
I don't have any other report of this conversation presently, but I'm looking. Churchill had been wanting to teach Congress(ie Indian nationalists) a lesson since 1920 or even before.

Actually if you think about it, most of the troubles facing the world today can be traced to Churchill and his fellow British diehards
1. Israel /Palestine
2. Lebanon-Syria
3. Iraq
4. Iran to some extent I think
5. Pakistan and Afghanistan


flag objectionable content
Post by einsteinwallah on May 11, 2008 7:33:46 am

"Winston Churchill met Sir Sikander in Cairo and personally thanked him for having helped the British in their hour of trial while the Congress had added to their problems Therefore; the Congress did not deserve British attention or friendship. He said that the British could not ‘ remain in India in the face of opposition from its 400 million people. He asked Sir Sikander Hayat to assure Mr. Jinnah that in order to teach the Congress a lesson, the British would quit the sub-continent soon after the War but only after having created a ‘Muslim India’ in India. Mr. Jinnah need not be afraid, and he could have this pledge verified by the Viceroy of India."

Churchill sounds really petty in this. So he wants to create "Muslim India" within India before they quit just to teach Congress a lesson? Not something you expect from a mahan leader. Anyways... these are the words used by the author. Wonder if there was any another witness to this conversation?

Thanks sadna for posting this here.


flag objectionable content
Post by sadna on May 11, 2008 12:10:11 am

Hat tip to someone (off this forum) who brought it to my attention.


flag objectionable content
Post by sadna on May 11, 2008 12:02:20 am

Allah Bux Soomro got killed.
But OTOH Zafarullah Khan got apostasized. G M Syed who had said in 1938-39 that 'Hindus in Sindh would be treated like Jews' saw Sindh getting merged with Punjab under One Unit.


flag objectionable content
Posts 1-16 of 16

Latest Interacts

  • ahmedmadani: Both Left and congress... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
  • BJ2: 19th July 1909 Dear Muhammad... Translation of a (Love)
  • ahmedmadani: DM as usual good... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
  • ahmedmadani: Re: # 89 Parthaab......... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
  • ahmedmadani: This read remembers me... Roshni
  • quin: Asif, I am glad... Translation of a (Love)
  • Naqshbandi: quin: thanks for your... Translation of a (Love)
  • quin: I don't know why... Translation of a (Love)

Latest iLogs

  • ana 07:36 pm
    Chíngate!
  • opium 04:57 pm
    Bilo De Ghar
  • rabiawsti 01:45 pm
    one ply grocery store brand toilet paper
  • mullah_toofani 11:30 am
    Today is Friday; Your chance to repent,confess, and start a new
  • Charlie 11:22 am
    Blogging Reloaded
  • quin 07:56 am
    Eternal Embrace
  • Nikhat 07:33 am
    In the Gallery Of Pakistan
  • Tazeen 04:36 am
    Mown a Lisa
  • masadi 03:44 am
    Trails of Deception: Pakistan\'s F-16s and US Aid
  • Afat 01:49 am
    Khuch Naheen badla
  • pavocavalry 12:49 am
    Men of Steel or Distortion of History
  • HP 12:11 am
    Nuclear schizophrenic
more »

Write on Chowk Interact Guidelines Privacy policy Terms Contact

Copyright © 1997 - 2008 chowk.com. All Rights Reserved
Reproduction of material on any www.chowk.com pages without prior written permissions is strictly prohibited