2009 May « Pakistan Historian

May 29, 2009

Father of the Nation Quaid e Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah was not secular

Filed under: History of Pakistan,Independence movement — The Editors @ 8:24 pm
Tags: Jinnah was not secular, Mohmmad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan, Quaid e Azam

There is a new discussion going on in Pakistan. Actually, it is an old discussion which has been resurrected the progeny of Sr. Chutto Ram’s Zamindara Pary (renamed the Unionist Party). Backed by the cultural onslaught from Delhi, the Old Unionists have come out of the woodwork to challenge the Pakistan Ideology as enshriened in the immutable Lahore Declaration, the holy “Qarardad e Maqasid”, and the glorious Pakistani Constitution. These 5th Column gasbags are supported by the likes of Aakar Patel who routinely pulls out arcane arguments, and inane points to undermine the Pakistan ideology and destroy the its leadership. The “discussion” is the same as it always was “Why we created Pakistan? One Nation Theory vs Two Nation Theory:

It is profitable to be Anti-Pakistan. Writings that deface Pakistan can make money for the author. The thinktanks hire Pakistanphobic authors. There is a premium on the price of writers if they hail from South Asia. There is a super premium if the author is a Muslim or a Pakistani. The bonus id doubled if it is a Muslim Pakistani woman.

There are three main culprits that have spread nonsensical misinformation about the Quaid e Azam Mohmmad Ali Jinnah. The first source is Muhammad Munir. The second source is Akbar S. Ahmed. The third source is Stephen Cohen. This tripod pretty much defines the enemies of Pakistan. It is pedagogical to analyze the sources of the information as well as what they are saying and why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaD3FzjVEI

Pakistan was created for the Muslim majority areas of SouthAsia. It is like Israel which insists on its Jewish character. Ireland and Lebanon also insist on their Catholic and Christian character. The agenda of the enemies of Pakistan is simple and has been he same since the 1930s. If Pakistan is converted into a secular state then what differentiates it from the secular sate of Bharat? The raison d’etre for Pakistan’s existence is its Islamic identity.

The credibility of sources are self evident. There is an American Jew on the Indian payroll, a ”Pakistani” who has madea Faustian deal with the Pakistanphobic Carnegie Thinktank and a Pakistani who has done more harm to the Pakistani judicial system than any man alive. So we have a axis of evil which blatantly and surreptously tries to pour Sulphuric Acid into the foundations of the Pakistani identity.

Let us start with the discussion of Justice MunirAhmed. He sold his soul to the devil and came up with the untenable “Doctrine of Necessity“. The absurd Doctrine sanctioned Martial Laws as legal and paved the way for dictators to undermine the foundation of peoples rule in Pakistan. It was the same Justice Munirwho later came up with cock a mamy articles about Mohammad ALi Jinnah and asked Field Marshall Ayub Khan to drop “Islamic” from the name of the Pakistani republic. The decisions of Justice Munirled both Zia Ul Haq and Pervez Musharraf to usethe same “Doctrine of Necessity” to imposemilitary rule in Pakistan. It has taken Pakistanis about four decades to reverse the insidious designs of Justice Munir. It may take longer to purge the psche of this historical malfeasance.

The late Chief Justice Muhammad Munir is perhaps best known for his highly controversial book, From Jinnah to Zia (1979), in which he openly stated that Mohammad Ali Jinnah was a secularist. To support this claim Munir used two quotes attributed to Jinnah. One of the sequotes has become the prime favourite of the pro-secularist writers because it provides seemingly indisputable proof that Jinnah was a secularist. However, the quote is a fake. The interview it is sourced from is real, but the words that Jinnah supposedly said are nowhere to be found.

In her new book, Secular Jinnah: Munir’sBig Hoax Exposed, a young British writer tells the story of how a point of curiosity – based on little more than an issue of grammar – led her to the startling truth. Saleena Karim shows us how much damage the ‘Munir quote’ has done over the last 26 years, not only in terms of twisting the facts of history, but now in exposing the intellectual dishonesty of Pakistani scholarship. The author names those who have cited the Munir quote, and discusses the various myths about the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, then sets the record straight.

Saleena Karim is a British Asian writer with a BSc (Hons) in Human Biology from Loughborough University. She has worked as a literary columnist and editor, and has also translated some Urdu Islamic works into English, including Economic System of the Holy Quran (2005) and Liberty as defined in the Quran (2004). She is the founder and Director of the recently launched Jinnah Archive.

Some Pakistani patriots are setting the record straight. Salima Karim is one such author who has integrity.

The study of Mr. Jinnah, the Quaid-i-Azam of Pakistan, is crucially important in understanding the debate about Islam and Democracy in our post 9/11 world. Saleena Karim’s book is essential reading to understand Jinnah. I strongly recommend it. Prof. Akbar S. Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University, Washington D.C. (Prof. Ahmed is an authority on Jinnah, best known for his ‘Jinnah Quartet’.) American University

SaleenaKarim’s close reading of Jinnah’s speeches concludes that the father of Pakistan was not an ideologue who demanded that the new nation be an exact model of a western capitalist society. She claims he rather wanted Muslims to work for a more humane social order, one that would reflect the core Islamic principles of justice and compassion for all. Prof. Sheila McDonough, Adjunct Professor, Department of Religion, Concordia University (Prof. McDonough is one of the foremost scholars of Islam in South Asia)

(The book) is a well-documented and thoroughly researched treatise about the views of the Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah as to the future setup of Pakistan. The book demolishes convincingly Chief Justice Munir’s assertion in his book from Jinnah to Zia that: ‘the pattern of Government which the Quaid-i-Azam had in mind was a secular democratic government’. … (The) Quaid opposed theocracy and did not talk of secularism but pleaded for an Islamic State. The author must be congratulated on this publication which will be welcomed by all, especially the scholars and intellectuals.

Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, former Honorary Secretary to Jinnah (1941-44) and Legal Advisor to the President, Pakistan

… In her heart and mind (SaleenaKarim) is firmly Pakistani, and she has a great faith in the Quaid-i-Azam. … She has concluded that the Quaid-i-Azam was absolutely not a secularist. The author has thoroughly pursued (the claims in) Justice Munir’s book on the Quaid-i-Azam, and has labelled its baseless hypothesis a hoax. If anyone were to make such a statement in Pakistan, he/she would be accused of being backward and ignorant … (Yet) this book has been written by a young scholar who was born and raised in a liberal environment, educated in England, and who therefore cannot be accused of narrow-mindedness or ignorance. (Translated from Urdu). Dr. Safdar Mahmood, eminent historian and columnist at Jang, in the article Jazbay, 10th February 2007 – DAILY JANG Read full Urdu text here

… you have brought fortha highly professional little book, from the get-up to the content. You are a blessed and gifted lady with much promise for the future. … (The book) will be revered by scholars and future researchers, thereby making a lasting room for itself in the realm of knowledge, especially about Quaid-e-Azam and “PAKISTANIAAT”. Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, Florida, renowned Islamic scholar and author- OurBeacon.com

Your book is excellent. Every page has the impress of thorough research and careful documentation. The source material that you have used and have mentioned in the book is reliable and intelligently selected. … I hope more books on the Quaid and Pakistan will follow from your pen. Qutubuddin Aziz, former Pakistani diplomat and distinguished journalist and broadcaster

Well done – I may not agree with certain views but you make interesting points. … However I’m an ardent supporter of Voltaire’s famous saying and am always willing to agree to disagree in total amity. Ardeshir Cowasjee, Senior Columnist at DAWN – DAWN

Saleena Karim’s book has come as a bombshell … The book could be a guideline to the people of Pakistan. Ghulam Asghar Khan, former Inspector General of Police – Frontier Post Pakistan

I found your book to be very interesting … it certainly opened my eyes, and it just goes to show how people can interpret things wrongly. Once people take the time to read your book they will see that Mr. Jinnah only wanted the best for (the people of) Pakistan regardless of who they are and what religion they are. Terry Davies, a reader, United Kingdom

It is really unfortunate and rather strange that a person of (Chief Justice Munir’s) stature should have gone astray so grossly in comprehending a person, i.e. Jinnah Saheb, who was not at all ambiguous in his expositions. His view about the Great Leader could only be regarded as a slander … your book which is highly analytical and well-documented, leaves no room for defence of the position taken by the Chief Justice. In fact, your book has exposed his hoax boldly and exquisitely. I congratulate you for a frank and irrefutable presentation.

Sirajuddin Ahmad, author, “Understanding Islam” (Saleena Karim) has brought to light some interesting aspects of Jinnah’s life. … Her interpretation of Islam carries a modern outlook shunning the idea of theocracy. She also emphasised the social and economic equality as a basic tenant of Islam. The image of the Quaidthat emerges from this book is that of modern Muslim leader who endeavoured to create a system where there could be equal rights for all the citizens having any faith or creed. VISTA Magazine (The Post), 14th February 2006 – VISTA

Expressing his views on Hindu-Muslim relations in the twentieth century Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah observed:

“The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither intermarry, nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different.”

Mr. Aakar Patel has been given space in Pakistani newspapers to propagate the same old arguments that were rejected by the Pakistanis and the Muslims of South Asia. No Indian paper gives any space to Pakistani writers to disseminate the “Two Nation Theory” and the basis for Pakistan. Here is Mr. Patel obfuscating the issues and characterizing Mohammad Ali Jinnah in the bigoted views of the Hindu Mahasaba.

Jinnah after August 11, 1947 Sunday, September 28, 2008 by Aakar Patel. Jinnah was secular and liberal, but he deliberately left the door open for Pakistan to become an Islamic state.

On August 11, 1947, Jinnah delivered his great speech to the Constituent Assembly. He said Pakistanis should take as their ideal Great Britain, where “Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen.”

“We should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims; not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.”

The speech was precise and elegant, as his speeches often were. It was delivered without notes; as he put it, he said “a few things as they occur to me.”

Liberal Pakistanis hold the speech up as proof of Jinnah’s determination to see Pakistan produce a secular constitution instead of an Islamic one. But he doesn’t use the word secular and his speeches after Aug 11 do nothing to support this view.

If anything, they support the view of Jinnah’s associates like Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar. On March 9, 1949, six months after Jinnah’s death, Nishtar told Hindus in Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly who opposed the Islamic language of Liaquat’s Objectives Resolution, that though Jinnah had “given pledges to the minority, (he) had also given pledges to the majority.”

Mr. Patel cherry picks the quotes to justify the carnage in South Asia. He doesn’t present a holistic picture of the historical realities of that era. Here is a quote from Dr. Ambedekar–the Dalit leader who defines “Pakistan” through Hindu eyes.

“I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars: (1) Hindu Sangathan, (2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Moslems, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the Frontiers. So long as the Hindu nation does not accomplish these four things, the safely of our children and great-grandchildren will be ever in danger, and the safety of the Hindu race will be impossible.

The Hindu race has but one history, and its institutions are homogeneous. But the Musalmans and Christians are far removed from the confines of Hindustan, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab and European institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made of these two religions. Afghanistan and the hilly regions of the frontier were formerly part of India, but are at present under the domination of Islam. . . .

…Just as there is Hindu religion in Nepal, so there must be Hindu institutions in Afghanistan and the frontier territory; otherwise it is useless to win Swaraj. For mountain tribes are always warlike and hungry. If they become our enemies, the age of Nadirshah and Zamanshah will begin anew. At present English officers are protecting the frontiers; but it cannot always be. . . .

…If Hindus want to protect themselves, they must conquer Afghanistan and the frontiers and convert all the mountain tribes.” Pratap of Lahore, Lala Hardayal in 1925. Quoted by Dr. Ambedkar in his book “Pakistan”

Haldiram’squote is as pertinent today as it was in 1925. The likes of Haldiram were propagating a Spanish Inquisition type of expulsion of all Muslims from South Asia after the conquest of Afghanistan. Muslims ruled Spain from 711 to 1492, but after losing their last foothold were converted back to Christianity or expelled from Spain. The RSS, the BJP, the VHP still believe in Shuddi and Shangtram movements which want to reconvert the Muslims back to Hinduism and keep them in their place as Untouchable Dalits.

Shabbir Ahmed Usmani reminded the Assembly of Jinnah’s letter of March 10, 1945, to the Pir of Manki Sharif, where he promised that the Constituent Assembly would enact laws for Muslims “not inconsistent with the Shariatlawsand Muslims will no longer be obliged to abide by the un-Islamic laws.”

There were other instances.

On January 25, 1948, Jinnah spoke to the Bar Association of Karachi, and said:

“Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws? Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago.”

“Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a codeforevery Muslim, which regulates his life and conduct in even politics and economics and the like.”

THE PAKISTAN RESOLUTION OF 1940: The Lahore Resolution (later known as the Pakistan Resolution) The Lahore resolution moved by Fazlul Haq at the 27th Session of the All India Muslim League, at Lahore on March 23, 1940 stated:

“that geographically contagious units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial adjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are in a majority, as in the north-west and eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.”

In February that year, in an address to Americans: “I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam.”

Pressed for an answer about the structure of government at a press conference in Delhi on July 14, 1947, he said the matter was for the Constituent Assembly to decide. Asked: “What is your personal opinion?” He said: “No responsible man expresses his personal opinion in anticipation of a supreme body like the Constituent Assembly, the function of which is to frame the constitution.”

To the question, “Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?” he replied: “You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.” When the correspondent said it was a state in which only people of a particular religion, for example, Muslims, could be full citizens, Jinnah said: “I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy 13 centuries ago.”

Why would a secularist be this ambiguous? Not becauseJinnah was a hypocrite, but because he understood his constituency. Jinnah would not have been surprised by the creeping Islamisation that came with Zia’s amendments.

1938 RESOLUTION ASKED FOR SEPARATION:Even earlier in 1938 Sir Abdullah Haroon moved a resolution for establishing independent Muslim states in the north-west and eastern zones. The word states continued to be used in subsequent sessions of the All India Muslim League till about 1943. Originally the two zones were meant to be autonomous and sovereign and it was only when the British and the Hindus insisted that Punjab and Bengal were to be partitioned that Pakistan began to be talked about as one state.

What is the Two Nation Theory exactly? The moniker “‘two’ ‘nation’ ‘theory’” is a misnomer. The theory of nationalities states that “India does not have a homogeneous population”. There are many racial, ethnic and linguistic groups in India. India is not a national state, India is not a country, but a sub-continent composed of “nationalities”. The two nation theory clearly states that that there are several nationalities in the subcontinent, and the Hindus and the Muslims are the largest of the two nations. Hindus and Muslims are different therefore Muslim majority areas must exist separately. Chaudry Rehmat Ali’s “Pakistan proposal asked for SEVERAL MUSLIM STATES in the subcontinent.”

In this document a map of India has also been published showing India split into different states, named as Pakistan, Guruistan, Usmanistan, Bangsamispan, Hindoostan comprising Rajistan, Kathiwar, Maharashtra, Rajistan and Dravidia. This pamphlet was reproduced in 1934 (Ref: The Great Divide by H. V. Hodson page 81). Karakal Pakistan’ existed as autonomous region of USSR.

But Jinnah also felt deep concern for Pakistan’s minorities and kept issuing statements after Aug 11 in their favour. On Aug 24, he said: “I consider it my duty to call upon Muslims to temper their sentiments with reason and to be aware of the dangers which may well overwhelm their newly won State, should they allow their feelings of the moment to gain mastery of their actions.”

On Sept 17, he told the Afridis. “My advice to Mussalmansin Pakistan and outsideisthat it will be most unwiseon their part, wherever they are in the majority, to resort to retaliation or adopt any action in sprit of revenge.”
On Oct 11, to Pakistan’s military officers: “We shall continue to protect the life and property of minorities in Pakistan and shall give them a fair deal. We do not want them to be forced to leave Pakistan, and that so long as they remain faithful and loyal to the State they shall be entitled to the same treatment as any other citizens.”
On Oct 30, in a speech on Radio Pakistan after a massacre of Hindus: “I am speaking to you under deep distress and with a heavy heart. Are we now going to besmear and tarnish this greatest achievement for which there is no parallel in the whole history of the world by resorting to frenzy, savagery and butchery?” He was moved enough to speak in Urdu at the end: “DonoN hukumatoN ka yeh pak farz hai ke woh awaam ke maal aur jaan ki har-tarah se hifazat (kareiN).”
On Jan 9, 1948, in a message to Karachi’s riot victims: “I once more want to impress upon all Muslims that they should fully co-operate with the Government and the officials in protecting their Hindu neighbours…”

Over time he began to despair and believe that the Hindus were not fleeing in fear but because of a conspiracy by the Indian government. In the Oct 11 address to military officers in Karachi, he added: “I, however, regret to say that the minorities here did not give us a chance to prove our bona fides and give us their wholehearted cooperation as citizens of Pakistan when the crisis suddenly overtook us.”

On Jan 9, he spoke to Karachi’s Hindus, who “have been misled by propaganda that is being carried out to pull them out of Sind…” On Feb 3, in a speech to Parsis in Karachi: “If (Hindu) exodus from Sindcontinues, it is not becausetheyare not wanted here but because they are more prone to listen to people across the border who are interested in pulling them out. I am sorry for these misguided people, for nothing but disillusionment awaits them in their promised land.”

On March 28, in a speech on Radio Pakistan, Dacca (Dhaka): “Migration of Hindus has been… due to psychological reasons and external pressure.”

ANALYSIS OF THE TWO NATION THEORY:
The two nation theory enunciates that the subcontinent is madeof several nationalities, the Hindus and the Muslims being the largest of the two. India is as big as Western Europe and contains many many racial, religious, linguistic, and ethnic groups. The Hindus and the Muslims are two separate nations, in terms of diet, attitude, social behavior, economic tendencies, social interaction, behaviors, and attitude.

According to many Pakistanis “The two nation theory did not solve all the problems of the subcontinent. However it did save 200 million Muslims (thoseemancipated in Pakistan and Bangladesh) from social economic and political servitude. The servitude is proven by the decadent condition of Indian Muslims in a “secular” Indian state. Perhaps it sacrifices 150 million Indian Muslims. But the alternative was 450 million Muslims in servitude.” “Secularism” in “India” means “Hinduism Light.“

Nationhood is defined as the tendency of a nation to exist. No two nations have the same reason to exist. USA and Canada exist separately, though you may think that both nations have English speaking population, with similar accents, similar religions, similar culture, similar economic structures, and similar racial and ethnic backgrounds. Do you hear America question the validity of Canada to exist. I believe that the USA has the power to take over Canada, if it really wanted to. BUT the USA recognizes the right of the Canadians to exist separately.

Though he would have been aware of the consensus being built in India under Ambedkar, for some reason Jinnah thought India would be a Hindu State. “There are many events which go to show the reality, which is that the Dominion of India is a Hindu State. Even a great Professor, Dr Gadgil, in his statement of Oct 9 says that a Hindu State, or more fully a federation of Hindu national states, is the only proper description of the new Indian Union.”

Jinnah was a direct and honest man. He had admirers in India even after he divided the country. The Bombay Bar Association, then as now, almost fully Gujarati, sent him a letter through Honorary Secretary C M Trivedi on March 17, 1947, informing him of its decision to host a reception in honour of Jinnah’s completing 50 years at the Bar and asking him to pick a day suitable to him. Jinnah replied on March 25. He thanked Trivedi for the decision but said: “According to my information this resolution was carried out by 37 votes against 35, and in face of such strong opposition, while I am grateful to the majority, I am reluctant to force myself upon a large body of unwilling members of your association.”

Even had Jinnah lived longer, Pakistan’s constitution would have still been Islamic–it did not get its teeth till the 60s. And it took another liberal, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, to take the leap and turn the Pakistani Assembly into a Maulvi, performing takfir, with the Second Amendment in September 1974. aakar.patel@gmail.com

“(Jinnah) wanted Muslims to work for a more humane social order, one that would reflect the core Islamic principles of justice and compassion for all.”Prof. Sheila McDonough, Adjunct Professor, Department of Religion, Concordia University “…

an important contribution.” Prof. Akbar S. Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University, Washington D.C. – American University

“(A) masterpiece book, one of the best I have read this year.” Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, Islamic scholar and author – OurBeacon.com

PAKISTANI NATIONHOOD: Pakistanis justify the existence of the country by explaining that “India was never ONE NATION. India is as big as Western Europe and has more nationalities than Europe. The subcontinent has always been a conglomeration of states and nationalities. If one looks at the “Indian” map during the Mughal era, or during Vikramadatya’s era, one will see dozens, sometimes hundreds of STATES. Pakistanis believe that “Akhand Bharat” was a figment of the imagination of Gandhi and the Jan Sangh. Just because the British called it India, does not mean that it was one nation ever or will be one nation ever.”

Plutarch expressed this sentiment well some centuries ago: “A conqueror is always a lover of peace. He would like to make his entry into your cities unopposed.” Does India talk peace in the Plutarchian sense?

THE FORTIES: THE THEORIES IN AIR
Freedom is in the air. The Union Jack is to come down. How do we deal with independence? Are we mature enough to behave as civilized nations? The years preceding our independence was an intense time. The Freedom Movement created many leaders and many movements. Neither the Muslims nor the Hindus nor the Sikhs were monolithic groups. Each political group had many leaders. Many times the leadership seemed to head in different directions. The Harrow-Eaton Oxbridge led INC under the leadership of Motilal Nehru was a very different Congress. The INC led by his son Jawaharlal Nehru was a very different INC.

The INC had several factions that split and made up. Similarly the Muslim Movement had factions and grouping in it. Disgruntled elements in each of the major parties went and formed their own political parties and contested the elections. Each group had sub-groupings and subdivisions. There were more than 550 states in the Subcontinent. The Forties gave us the opportunity to forge a country in the Subcontinent or create many nations. As a people we failed to remain at peace. As countries we failed to keep the peace. As nations we failed to usher in an era of prosperity into the Subcontinent. Today let history teach us some lessons.

ONT VS. TNT:
The Two Nation Theory is in direct contradiction of the One Nation Theory. There were proponents of the One Nation Theory in the Indian National Congress and many Muslims believed in the One Nation Theory. Similarly there were many Congressional Leaders that believed in the Two Nation Theory. There were many variations of the TNT and there were many variations of the ONT . On the one hand the TNT espoused many countries in the Subcontinent, on the other is espoused two countries.

Rama Rajha vs Darul Islam:
The ONT had many variations too. There were fundamentalist minority of Muslims who also supported the ONT and had declared India as “Darul Harb” (Area of war) with a view to convert it to “Darul Islam” (Area of peace). The religious right espoused a religious Brahman theocracy based on the dharma. “Ram Rajha” were proposed with forced eviction and/or conversion of all Non-Hindus by some of the fundamentalist parties on the right.

United States of India vs. Mahabharta vs India and Pakistan
There were the secular versions of the ONT and there were many that propagated a United States of India. The secular and moderate wings of the Congress and the Muslims won the day, and the fundamentalist on both sides lost the elections.

“THE PAKISTAN IDEOLOGY” EXPLAINS “WHY PAKISTAN?: For those who TRULY want to understand Pakistanis, let us go over the excerpts from: Ideology of Pakistan by Prof. Saeeduddin Ahmad Dar

The Muslims of South Asia are a nation in the modern senseof the word; The basis of their nationhood is neither territorial, nor racial, nor linguistic nor ethnic; They are a nation becausethey profess the same faithIslam; They are entitled to self-determination. The areas where they (Muslims) are in dominant majority should be constituted into sovereign states/state; Wherein they should be enabled to order their lives in individual and collective spheres in accord with the teachings and requirements of Islam asset out in Holy Quran and Sunna; and The state should endeavour to strengthen the bonds of unity among Muslim countries. The Ideology of Pakistan stems from the instinct of the Muslim Community of SouthAsia to maintain its individuality by resisting all attempts to absorb it by the Hindu society. They believe that Islam is incompatible withHinduism. Historical experience has shown that Islam and Hinduism have two different social orders and given birth to two distinct cultures and that there is no meeting point between the two.

Comments (1)

May 24, 2009

Quaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah was not secular

Filed under: History of Pakistan,Independence movement — The Editors @ 10:45 pm

Some Pakistani patriots are setting the record straight. Salima Karim is one such author who has integrity.

The study of Mr. Jinnah, the Quaid-i-Azam of Pakistan, is crucially important in understanding the debate about Islam and Democracy in our post 9/11 world. Saleena Karim’s book is essential reading to understand Jinnah. I strongly recommend it. Prof. Akbar S. Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University, Washington D.C. (Prof. Ahmed is an authority on Jinnah, best known for his ‘Jinnah Quartet’.) American University

SaleenaKarim’s close reading of Jinnah’s speeches concludes that the father of Pakistan was not an ideologue who demanded that the new nation be an exact model of a western capitalist society. She claims he rather wanted Muslims to work for a more humane social order, one that would reflect the core Islamic principles of justice and compassion for all. Prof. Sheila McDonough, Adjunct Professor, Department of Religion, Concordia University (Prof. McDonough is one of the foremost scholars of Islam in South Asia)

Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, former Honorary Secretary to Jinnah (1941-44) and Legal Advisor to the President, Pakistan

… In her heart and mind (SaleenaKarim) is firmly Pakistani, and she has a great faith in the Quaid-i-Azam. … She has concluded that the Quaid-i-Azam was absolutely not a secularist. The author has thoroughly pursued (the claims in) Justice Munir’s book on the Quaid-i-Azam, and has labelled its baseless hypothesis a hoax. If anyone were to make such a statement in Pakistan, he/she would be accused of being backward and ignorant … (Yet) this book has been written by a young scholar who was born and raised in a liberal environment, educated in England, and who therefore cannot be accused of narrow-mindedness or ignorance. (Translated from Urdu). Dr. Safdar Mahmood, eminent historian and columnist at Jang, in the article Jazbay, 10th February 2007 – DAILY JANG Read full Urdu text here

… you have brought fortha highly professional little book, from the get-up to the content. You are a blessed and gifted lady with much promise for the future. … (The book) will be revered by scholars and future researchers, thereby making a lasting room for itself in the realm of knowledge, especially about Quaid-e-Azam and “PAKISTANIAAT”. Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, Florida, renowned Islamic scholar and author- OurBeacon.com

Your book is excellent. Every page has the impress of thorough research and careful documentation. The source material that you have used and have mentioned in the book is reliable and intelligently selected. … I hope more books on the Quaid and Pakistan will follow from your pen. Qutubuddin Aziz, former Pakistani diplomat and distinguished journalist and broadcaster

Well done – I may not agree with certain views but you make interesting points. … However I’m an ardent supporter of Voltaire’s famous saying and am always willing to agree to disagree in total amity. Ardeshir Cowasjee, Senior Columnist at DAWN – DAWN

Saleena Karim’s book has come as a bombshell … The book could be a guideline to the people of Pakistan. Ghulam Asghar Khan, former Inspector General of Police – Frontier Post Pakistan

I found your book to be very interesting … it certainly opened my eyes, and it just goes to show how people can interpret things wrongly. Once people take the time to read your book they will see that Mr. Jinnah only wanted the best for (the people of) Pakistan regardless of who they are and what religion they are. Terry Davies, a reader, United Kingdom

Sirajuddin Ahmad, author, “Understanding Islam” (Saleena Karim) has brought to light some interesting aspects of Jinnah’s life. … Her interpretation of Islam carries a modern outlook shunning the idea of theocracy. She also emphasised the social and economic equality as a basic tenant of Islam. The image of the Quaidthat emerges from this book is that of modern Muslim leader who endeavoured to create a system where there could be equal rights for all the citizens having any faith or creed. VISTA Magazine (The Post), 14th February 2006 – VISTA

Expressing his views on Hindu-Muslim relations in the twentieth century Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah observed:

“The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither intermarry, nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different.”

Jinnah after August 11, 1947 Sunday, September 28, 2008 by Aakar Patel. Jinnah was secular and liberal, but he deliberately left the door open for Pakistan to become an Islamic state.

“We should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims; not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.”

The speech was precise and elegant, as his speeches often were. It was delivered without notes; as he put it, he said “a few things as they occur to me.”

Liberal Pakistanis hold the speech up as proof of Jinnah’s determination to see Pakistan produce a secular constitution instead of an Islamic one. But he doesn’t use the word secular and his speeches after Aug 11 do nothing to support this view.

If anything, they support the view of Jinnah’s associates like Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar. On March 9, 1949, six months after Jinnah’s death, Nishtar told Hindus in Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly who opposed the Islamic language of Liaquat’s Objectives Resolution, that though Jinnah had “given pledges to the minority, (he) had also given pledges to the majority.”

There were other instances.

On January 25, 1948, Jinnah spoke to the Bar Association of Karachi, and said:

“Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws? Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago.”

“Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a codeforevery Muslim, which regulates his life and conduct in even politics and economics and the like.”

“that geographically contagious units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial adjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are in a majority, as in the north-west and eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.”

On Sept 17, he told the Afridis. “My advice to Mussalmansin Pakistan and outsideisthat it will be most unwiseon their part, wherever they are in the majority, to resort to retaliation or adopt any action in sprit of revenge.”
On Oct 11, to Pakistan’s military officers: “We shall continue to protect the life and property of minorities in Pakistan and shall give them a fair deal. We do not want them to be forced to leave Pakistan, and that so long as they remain faithful and loyal to the State they shall be entitled to the same treatment as any other citizens.”
On Oct 30, in a speech on Radio Pakistan after a massacre of Hindus: “I am speaking to you under deep distress and with a heavy heart. Are we now going to besmear and tarnish this greatest achievement for which there is no parallel in the whole history of the world by resorting to frenzy, savagery and butchery?” He was moved enough to speak in Urdu at the end: “DonoN hukumatoN ka yeh pak farz hai ke woh awaam ke maal aur jaan ki har-tarah se hifazat (kareiN).”
On Jan 9, 1948, in a message to Karachi’s riot victims: “I once more want to impress upon all Muslims that they should fully co-operate with the Government and the officials in protecting their Hindu neighbours…”

On March 28, in a speech on Radio Pakistan, Dacca (Dhaka): “Migration of Hindus has been… due to psychological reasons and external pressure.”

“(Jinnah) wanted Muslims to work for a more humane social order, one that would reflect the core Islamic principles of justice and compassion for all.”Prof. Sheila McDonough, Adjunct Professor, Department of Religion, Concordia University “…

an important contribution.” Prof. Akbar S. Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University, Washington D.C. – American University

“(A) masterpiece book, one of the best I have read this year.” Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, Islamic scholar and author – OurBeacon.com

“THE PAKISTAN IDEOLOGY” EXPLAINS “WHY PAKISTAN?: For those who TRULY want to understand Pakistanis, let us go over the excerpts from: Ideology of Pakistan by Prof. Saeeduddin Ahmad Dar

The Muslims of South Asia are a nation in the modern senseof the word; The basis of their nationhood is neither territorial, nor racial, nor linguistic nor ethnic; They are a nation becausethey profess the same faithIslam; They are entitled to self-determination. The areas where they (Muslims) are in dominant majority should be constituted into sovereign states/state; Wherein they should be enabled to order their lives in individual and collective spheres in accord with the teachings and requirements of Islam asset out in Holy Quran and Sunna; and The state should endeavour to strengthen the bonds of unity among Muslim countries. The Ideology of Pakistan stems from the instinct of the Muslim Community of SouthAsia to maintain its individuality by resisting all attempts to absorb it by the Hindu society. They believe that Islam is incompatible withHinduism. Historical experience has shown that Islam and Hinduism have two different social orders and given birth to two distinct cultures and that there is no meeting point between the two.

Leave a Comment

The 7000 year old Pakistani Mehergarh civilizition preceded the Pakistani Indus Valley Civilization

Filed under: Mehargarh Civilization — The Editors @ 4:26 pm
Tags: Pakistani Indus Valley Civilization, Pakistani Mehergarh civilizition

Pakistani Mehergarh civilizition preceded Pakistani Indus Valley Civilization: Pakistan is the home of several Civilizations. As we navigate the corridors of time and look into the seeds of time we discover the seven thousand year old Mehergarh Civilization that encompassed much of Pakistan. After the demise of the Mehergarh Civilization the Indus Valley Civilization came to its zenith around 3500 BC.

If one looks at the map of the Indus Valley Civilization one is astonished that the civilization was within the borders of current day Pakistan. The Mehergarh and the Indus Valley Civilizations were not “Hindu“. The Indus Valley Civilization for example buried their dead, used a pictographic language, read right to left, did not use horses and did not worship the Hindu pantheon. Similarly the Mehergarh Civilization was similar in character.

The Geographic Two Nation Theory. Pakistan existed 5000 years ago as the “Indus Valley Civilization”

Islamabad, April 8 (ANI): Archaeologists have recently found earthenware pottery from 7000-2000 BC, in excavations that took place at Sohr Damb/Nal, a prehistoric site in Balochistan, a province in Pakistan.

According to a report in the Daily Times, the finding was made by Dr Ute Franke, a German archaeologist, who has been following the prehistoric sites in Balochistan since 1981.

The gradual shift of the pottery from very crude and basic vessels to more sophisticated and decorated containers, as well as, urbanity and later migration, highlighted the way the civilization progressed.

In a recent lecture at the Goethe-Institute, Karachi, Dr Franke presented the findings from the various periods in Balochistan history.

From the undisturbed Period I to Period II, where a single grave carried upto to 16 individuals, along with decorative beads and utensils and, later on, Period III, where figurines and refined ceramics were made, to Period IV that shares stark similarities with the Indus Valley Civilization, the changes that took place culturally and technologically were revealed along with the everyday life that was based on a nomadic lifestyle.

Though there was initially the idea that the civilization in Balochistan was linked with the Indus Valley, however, the notion was dispelled by the findings of the German-Pakistani Archaeological Mission. (ANI). Archaeologists find earthenware pottery from 7000-2000 BC in Pakistan, April 8th, 2009 – 3:18 pm ICT by ANI -

THE THESIS: There was no “partition”

THERE WAS NO “PARTITION”: For Britain ” ‘Indian’ Empire” included Somalia, Iraq, Burma, Singapore etc. For the French “India” included Vietnam (Indo-China). For the Dutch “India” included “Indo-n-asia”.

Historians in general and many Pakistanis in particular take deep umbrage and dislike the usage of the term “partition” because “partition” implies the division of a whole. Pakistanis prefer Independence. Pakistanis will accept “Separation” but not “partition.” As the maps show, the term “India” was very ephemiral and put in vogue by the British. Before British times, there was no such word. Because there never was a country called “India” there was no partition.

“India is no more a country than the Equator“ Winston Churchill

Initially when Lord Clive of the East Indian company defeated Shirijud Daulah, he called it British Bengal. When the British formally came to the Subcontinent in 1857, they encountered more than 570 states. When they left the Subcontinent they left more than 570 independent states and two dominions, India and Pakistan. The states on the banks of the Indus decided to live together as Pakistan, as they had lived together for thousands of years. The states on the Gangetic plain banded together to form “Bharat”. The state on the Brahamaputra became its own state.

Maps showing various sovereign, independent states in the Subcontinent during the British Raj

Each state had its own currency, laws, jails, flag, crest, passport, military, treasury, and British forces were not allowed to enter the state. Many were ruled by Muslims rulers like Hydrabad, Bhopal, Junagarh etc. Maps showing various sovereign, independent states in the Subcontinent during the British Raj

The separation of Burma is not called “partition”. The independence of Sri Lanka is not called “partition”. the removal of Iraq from the British Indian Empire is not called “partition”. The independence of Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan is not called “partition”. Aden and Somalia becmae independent in the British Indian Empire and are not lamented as being “partitioned” off. For the French, sperating Vietnam from their Indian Empire is not called “partition”. For the Dutch, removing Indonesia from Dutch “India” is not called separation.

The Western states had lived together in the Valley of the Indus for more than 5000 years together so it was natural for them to live together

THE BASIS FOR THE THESIS

“Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago.

5000 years ago Pakistan was probably not called “Pakistan”. China 5000 years ago was also called something else. Egypt 5000 years ago was called something else.

Kushan Parthian maps show different parts of the world

The British Indian Empire included Somalia, Iraq, Aden, Burma and other states. Then there was the French “Indian” Empire, Dutch “Indian” Empire, “Portuguese” Indian Empire and even a Dansih “Indian” Empire. Each one had a different meaning of “India”.The French “Indian” Empire included Vietnam etc. The Dutch Indian Empire included parts of the Subcontinent and Indonesia. Columbus called America “India” and the local inhabitants Indian. Other islands in the new world were called East Indies. South East Asia was called Indo-China.

The French “Indian” Empire included parts of the Subcontinent and (Indo-China) Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos in it

The Dutch “Indian” Empire included Indonesia in it

Map showing Burma, Aden, Iraq as part of the “Indian” Empire

Constables maps of 1893 not shwoing many part of Paksitan in the “Indian” Empire

Map of Asia showing “India” without Pakistan

Map of the Middle East does not show Pakistan as part of the Subcontinent

Timur’s Empire show Pakistan not part of the Subcontinent

THERE WAS NO PARTITION

The Pakistan proposal “Now or Never” was not based on any partition. It was based on the Muslim majority areas coming together.

“Notwithstanding [a] thousand years of close contact, nationalities which are as divergent today as ever, cannot at any time be expected to transform themselves into one nation merely by means of subjecting them to a democratic constitution and holding them forcibly togdher by unnatural and artificial methods of British Parliamentary statutes. What the unitary government of India for one hundred fifty years had failcd to achieve cannot be realiscd by the imposition of a central federal government. It is inconceivable that the fiat or the writ of a government so constituted can ever command a willing and loyal obedience throughout the sub-continent by various nationalities, except by means of armed force behind it. Quaid E Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: Founder of Pakistan and the Father of the Nation

These maps show the distribution of Muslim majority areas and other areas. The proposal called for Pakistan to be created in the Muslim majority areas

THE PROOF OF THE THESIS

How could a country be partitioned when it has existed for 5000 years as a separate entity. One hundred and Fifty years as part of the British empire does not make “India” a country

Pakistanis and historians detest the word that incorrectly describes the genesis of the country that has existed since time immemorial

The term “india” stems from the Arab usage of the word Hind from for the inhabitants who lived on the Sindhu (Indus) river. From Sindh to Hindh. In time all residents beyond the Indus were also called Hindus.

The Western states, Kalat, Bhawalpur, and provinces Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, and NWFP banded together to form “Pakistan” and decided to live together as one country just like they had lived together for thousands of years before the British arrived in the Indus Valley Civilization that existed almost entirely on the banks of the Indus. The states of the Gangetic Civilization that existed on the banks of the Ganges banded together to live form Bharat(constitutional name of “India”). Pakistan had objected to the name “India” being used by Bharat.

These maps show the British Indian Empire which included many states. The other maps detail the condition of the Subcontinent on the eve of the British departure.There never was a country called “India.” The Arabs never ventured past Sindh. The nomenclature was for those on the river Indus as Sindhu or Hindu. ”India” is a colonial derivative of the word. During British Times vast areas of Asia came under the jurisdiction of Britain. Iraq, Somalia, Burma and 526 states in the Subcontinent were all part of the British Empire. When the British were leaving all the parts were made independent.Of these, Somalia, Iraq, Burma, and Pakistan are some of the countries that got liberated. There never was any partition because there never was a “whole” to divide.

At one point Afghanistan was also part of the British Indian Empire. Curzon’s retreat from Afghanistan, and its separation from the “Indian” Empire was not called “partition”. The separation of Iraq from the Indian empire was not called partition. The separation of Aden from British India was not called partition. the separation of the gulf states from “India” was not called partition. The independence of Burma from the British raj in 1933 was not called “partition”. Why is the Pakistani separation called “partition”, as if it was part and parcel of a “whole”.

British Raj (rāj, lit. “rule” in Hindi) or British India, officially the British Indian Empire, and internationally and contemporaneously, India, was the term used synonymously for the region, the rule, and the period, from 1858 to 1947, of the British Empire on the Indian subcontinent. The region included areas directly administered by the United Kingdom (contemporaneously, “British India”) as well as the princely states ruled by individual rulers under the paramountcy of the British Crown. The princely states, which had all entered into treaty arrangements with the British Crown, were allowed a degree of local autonomy in exchange for accepting protection and complete representation in international affairs by Great Britain. The British Indian Empire included the regions of present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and, in addition, at various times, Aden (from 1858 to 1937), Lower Burma (from 1858 to 1937), Upper Burma (from 1886 to 1937), British Somaliland (briefly from 1884 to 1898), and Singapore (briefly from 1858 to 1867). British India had some ties with British possessions in the Middle East;the Indian rupee served as the currency in many parts of that region. What is now Iraq was, immediately after World War I, administered by the India Office of the British government.Source: Wikipedia

THE FOUR SUPERPOWERS OF PROTO-HISTORY: China, Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan. The Nile, the Tigris-Euphrates delta, the Yangtze Delta, and the Indus, are the wombs of all civilizations on our earth. These river valley spawned and nurtured humanity. Imagine a world with four superpowers at peace with each other. Imagine a planet where each civilization was immersed in humongous construction projects, urban edification and trade. . How did these proto-world powers interact with each other? Imagine a civilization without any implements of war. Let us look into pre-history and peek into the “seeds” of time. Let us look at the valleys of the world that engendered the Superpowers of the ancient world..

PAKISTAN 5000 YEARS AGO:-The Indus Valley Civilization of South Asia was one of the inceptive civilizations on the planet. It was contemporaneous with the Chinese, Egyptian, and Sumerian civilizations. These were the times when the Egyptians were building huge monuments to their God-kings,the pyramids and the Sphinx. These were the centuries when the Chinese were building palaces for the Shun dynasty. These were exciting eons in the Holy lands too.

These were the centuries when Moses was battling the pharaohs, Abraham was building the Kaaba, David was ruling the kingdom, and Solomon was building the Temple of Yahweh. It was during these centuries that the Indus Valley Civilization flourished and reached its zenith in South Asia.

The IVC built well planned municipalities for its citizens. While the Egyptians spent three generations of their labor force (estimated between 20,000-10000) building useless mausoleum-pyramids to bury the God-kings, the Harappans were successful in eradicating, disease, hunger, and malnutrition.

The Harappans of the IVC did not build huge commemorative, deifying, dedicatory, cenotaphs. The Harappans of Meluhha-IVC built the finest cities of the third millennium.

THE CENTRIFUGAL FORCES IN CURRENT DAY BHARAT

Second, the Northeast if not addressed appropriately could unhook from the Union before the Valley given the acute vulnerability of the Siliguri Corridor, which is merely 10 to 20 kilometer wide and 200 kilometers long. If this critical corridor is choked or subverted or severed by force, the Union of India will have to maintain the Northeast by air. With poor quality of governance for which the country is infamous, the local population may gravitate towards other regional powers.

Given a modicum of political will, Danger-I and II may still be manageable, however, Danger III to its territorial integrity in the Northeast may prove to be the most difficult. In fact the entire Northeast can easily be unhooked on multiple counts from the Union. First, these are low populated areas having contiguity with the most densely populated and demographically aggressive country in the world, i.e., Bangladesh. The country has also emerged as a major source of Islamic fundamentalism which impacts grievously on the Northeast. To add to these woes, New Delhi because of sheer vote-bank politics legitimized illegal migration for 22 years through the vehicle of IMDT. Many border districts now have a majority population constituting illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. In near future, this leverage will be used to create an internal upheaval against the Centre as in the case of the Valley. It’s a classic Islamic fundamentalist principle of asymmetric warfare. What cannot be achieved by conventional wars, can be done through infiltration and subsequently internal subversion

Because the Subcontinent was never “one” country, there are deep fissures in “Bharat.” The Kashmiris, the Naxalites, the Northeastern states, as well as East Punjab, and Tamil Nadu on the South all want to revert to the pre-1947 era.

There are several other articles on the History of India and Pakistan, and Geographic Two Nation Theory on this site:

http://moinansari.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-geographic-two-nation-theory-pakistan-existed-5000-years-ago/

Fair Use Notice:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Leave a Comment

The Idea of Pakistan

Filed under: Independence movement — The Editors @ 3:29 pm
Tags: Pakistan, Steven Cohen

A rebuttal to Mr. Cohen: Can we get a full disclosure please!

Mr. Cohen’s writings are the worst example of Orientalist claptrap in modern times. The Orientlalist agenda is simple. First depict the “Orient” (in this case Pakistan) the way Mr. Cohen wants it defined. Second: Find solutions to the ails that were defined.

“I doubt if it is controversial, for example, to say that an Englishman in India or Egypt in the later nineteenth century took an interest in those countries which was never far from their status in his mind as British colonies. To say this may seem quite different from saying that all academic knowledge about India and Egypt is somehow tinged and impressed with, violated by, the gross political fact – and yet that is what I am saying in this study of Orientalism. (Said, Orientalism 11)

Mr. Cohen should publish full disclosure on the money he receives from various sources in India and/or Indian-Americans and/or Indian lobbies in the USA. Mr. Cohen’s article about Pakistan has serious errors in it and it is part of his ongoing anti-Pakistan demonization campaign waged by the Indian lobby in America.

“So far as the United States seems to be concerned, it is only a slight overstatement to say that Moslems and Arabs are essentially seen as either oil suppliers or potential terrorists. Very little of the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab-Moslem life has entered the awareness of even those people whose profession it is to report the Arab world. What we have instead is a series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression.” Edward Said on Orientalism

India, the neighbor is beset with huge problems but Mr. Cohen will never write about it. The best development in Asia was NOT achieved by India, but by China, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. The world does not believe the fiction of ”Indian democracy.”

“India has failed her population and kept South Asia in penury. China has. Malaysia has provided her citizens with a decent standard of living. Let us not confuse Indian “mobocracy” (Socratic term) with “apartheid” family owned dynastic Indian “democracy.” Democracy does not begin and end with an election and tokenism (minority president).

The real power rests with the same families as it always has. One brother in the INC, one brother in the BJP, etc.Kashmir is occupied territory and listed as disputed territory on UN maps. Kashmiris are fighting a war of liberation. If the 800,000 incompetent Indian soldiers cannot seal the border with Pakistan, India should fire the ineffectual soldiers and hire Swiss guards to seal the cease fire line The UNO resolutions are also international treaties that India adheres to.

The Plebiscite (for Kashmiris to decide which country to join), is not a Pakistani initiative, the world (UN) approved it and India is a party to the agreement and Nehru repeatedly assured the world and Kashmiris that it would adhere to it.

What about democracy for the 50 million White widows, the millions of disenfranchised dalits, the 150 million subjugated Muslims, and the swath of huge lands owned by the Naxalites? What about the democratic rights of the state of Hyrabad (destroyed in a police action), and the rights of the Asaamese? Naxalites? Mizuram?

In spite of two executive defense agreements and SEATO and CENTO membership. The USA failed to the come to the assistance of Pakistan when she was being dismembered by a hostile neighbor in 1971. In the 80s after sacrificing 2 million of her citizens in fighting the USSR, Pakistan faced sanctions and forced confiscation of $450 million Dollars paid in cash for F-16s. Pakistan never got the planes or the money back. After 2001, the USA imposed an anti-Pakistan government in Kabul. This is a matter of survival for Pakistan and will be resisted.

Local devolution and destruction of the British based local body system are being emulated in India and other places. Pakistan is a vibrant country and has issues like any country of the world. Is France a Time bomb because of student rioting? Is the US a Time bomb because of Waco? Pakistan’s 160 million people have sworn to defend the motherland, and will not kowtow to diktats from across the border.

“My strong opinion, though I don’t have any proof in the classical sense of the word, is that they want to change the entire Middle East and the Arab world, perhaps terminate some countries, destroy the so-called terrorist groups they dislike and install regimes friendly to the United States. I think this is a dream that has very little basis in reality. The knowledge they have of the Middle East, to judge from the people who advise them, is to say the least out of date and widely speculative….

I don’t think the planning for the post-Saddam, post-war period in Iraq is very sophisticated, and there’s very little of it. [US Undersecretary of State Marc] Grossman and [US Undersecretary of Defense Douglas] Feith testified in Congress about a month ago and seemed to have no figures and no ideas what structures they were going to deploy; they had no idea about the use of institutions that exist, although they want to de-Ba’thise the higher echelons and keep the rest.

The same is true about their views of the army. They certainly have no use for the Iraqi opposition that they’ve been spending many millions of dollars on. And to the best of my ability to judge, they are going to improvise. Of course the model is Afghanistan. I think they hope that the UN will come in and do something, but given the recent French and Russian positions I doubt that that will happen with such simplicity

I don’t think the planning for the post-Saddam, post-war period in Iraq is very sophisticated, and there’s very little of it. [US Undersecretary of State Marc] Grossman and [US Undersecretary of Defense Douglas] Feith testified in Congress about a month ago and seemed to have no figures and no ideas what structures they were going to deploy; they had no idea about the use of institutions that exist, although they want to de-Ba’thise the higher echelons and keep the rest.

Friendship is a two way street. Pakistan friendship has not been appreciated by the likes of Mr. Cohen.

Peek into Obama’s brains: Bruce Reidel on Pakistan ————————–
Growing consensus in the Obama team: Much of Pakistan’s problems originate in Afghanistan ————————–
Obama advisor Weinbaum predicts total Afghan policy review: Sees focus on talks & Reconciliation —————————-
Afghanistan: Gen. Petraeus’ Pakistani advisers: Indians jittery ——————————
Obama adviser Weinbaum gives deep insights into new Afghan policy

Pakistani defense based on missile nuclear deterrent. Hatf, Shaheen, Ghauri, Babar and Abdali are far more advanced then previously thought

Pakistan’s “214 Subs” made in Karachi 5th Generation Su-35 spinoffs made in China as J-11s
Pakistan rapidly moving beyond basic JF-17 Thunders. The J-10s J-11s and newer versions of JF-17

Jointly Redesigned and upgraded Chinese J-10Bs built in Pakistan as FC-20s to be operationalized before 2015
The Pakistani hawks in the sky: Y-89 AWACS
Nothing succeeds like success: Hataf, Ghauri, Babar, Abdali missiles

JF-17 Thunders: Designed, built and operationalized in a record time of 4 years. Custom built for Pakistani needs The impact of Pakistan’s first indigenous JF-17 Thunder Squadron deployment

Serial production of JF-17 Thunder expedited:30-50 per year to 100 per annum
Beyond the Pakistani made JF-17 Thunder Fighter Plane, Chinese made J-10s.PAF next acquisition the J-11s?
Pakistan defense based on missile nuclear deterrent Hataf, Shaheen Babar and Abdali Hamza: Pakistan’s Augusta class Subs made in Karachi Pakistan’s 500 Al-Khalid tanks have been in production since 2001. Next generation tanks exported via IDEAS Pakistani made UAVs: Uqaab & Jasoos

3 New shipyards support Pakistani ship building & Frigates

Pakistan’s F-22 Frigates made in Karachi Chinese SAMs S-300s for Pakistan When with Iranian S-300s be operational? Why did Pakistan buy fewer F-16s?

PAF: Nuclear armed deterrent to hegemony

Pakistan already has a Nuclear Deal with China! India tried to raise expectations to portend failure!

IAF vs PAF: Defined by IAF

Tanks: Bharati Arjun vs. Pakistani Al Khalid

Russian 5th generation Su 35s spinoff of Su 27 Made in China as J-11

China achieves techonological independence in arms production

Russian Arms–Made in China

With $30 Billion China building Jxx 5th Generation Fighter

Pakistan’s 250 JF-17s, 50 F-16: Indias panicky “concern”

Indian missile failures

Why doesn’t Russia transfer plane technology to India?

When will Delhi ground the New Flying Coffins?

Indo Russian bickering disputes delay FGFA to stretch target in 2017

How Abdul Kalam stole US NASA secrets for India

Indian Airforce crying wolf? or facing shortage of jets?

South Asia Air Forces: PAF counters IAF strategy

The declining Indo-Russian relationship leaves Delhi scrambling for new arms sources—but they come with strings

Pakistan’s as Nuclear power: 250 bombs

Pakistan’s Plutonium based Tritium H-Bombs deter Indian agression

Pakistan Space Agency (SUPARCO) to launch 3 satellites in 3 years

Pakistan indigenous Satellite launch Vehicle & PakSat launch in 2011

Leave a Comment

May 5, 2009

Revisiting “9 Hours to Rama”. Repudiating false history of Gandhi & Pakistan

Filed under: History of Pakistan,Independence movement — The Editors @ 9:53 pm
Tags: Gotse, Mohandas Gandhi, Nine Hours to Rama

The rise of the Hinduvata in Bharat and rise to power of those that support the bigtory of Nathuram Godse is a seminal event in the history of South Asia. The fascism in Delhi has a reaction in the Hindu Kush. When Babri Masjid is destroyed, there is a reaction from Mecca to Morocco. When 2000 Muslims are burned in Gujarat, Djarkta to Djibouti feels the heat. The rise of fundamentalism in Bharat has an equal and opposite reaction in Pakistan. For Pakistanis Godse and Gandhi represent two faces of the same coin. For the Hinduvata, Gandhi represented appeasement and Godse represents the rise of the Saffron Brigade. For Pakistanis Gandhi is irrelevant to the history of Pakistan. For Godse, he is an essential ingredient. For Pakistanis, Pakistan came into being because of the national aspirations of hundreds of Muslims of South Asia. It cannot be reduced to the whims of one person. This essential difference in the national outlook represents a schism between the Hindus and the Muslims. This difference of opinion led to the creation of Pakistan.

The creation of Pakistan was the result of the glorious struggle of the Muslims of South Asia for a century. The Musslamans of South Asia had struggled to resurrect the Mughal rule since 1857. Millions worked to create a Muslim state. The producers of Nine Hours to Ramahas done a great disservice to South Asia. It portrays the views of a fanatic and in the end these views are pawned off as history. The movies tries to recreate history and portray the creation of Pakistan as a result of the personal decision of Mohandas Gandhi. This is far removed from historical fact but the impressions remain part of the Indian psyche. Atlee: Gandhi’s role in UK decision to leave India was MINIMAL

Pakistan was a result of the bigotry of people like Lala Hardiyal and those who represented Gotse and supported him. In this statement, which he called his political testament, Lala Hardayal said:—

“I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars: (1) Hindu Sangathan, (2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Moslems, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the Frontiers. So long as the Hindu nation does not accomplish these four things, the safely of our children and great-grandchildren will be ever in danger, and the safety of the Hindu race will be impossible. The Hindu race has but one history, and its institutions are homogeneous. But the Musalmans and Christians are far removed from the confines of Hindustan, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab and European institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made of these two religions. Afghanistan and the hilly regions of the frontier were formerly part of India, but are at present under the domination of Islam. . . .

…Just as there is Hindu religion in Nepal, so there must be Hindu institutions in Afghanistan and the frontier territory; otherwise it is useless to win Swaraj. For mountain tribes are always warlike and hungry. If they become our enemies, the age of Nadirshah and Zamanshah will begin anew. At present English officers are protecting the frontiers; but it cannot always be. . . .If Hindus want to protect themselves, they must conquer Afghanistan and the frontiers and convert all the mountain tribes.” Excerpted from Dr. Ambedkar’s book “Pakistan”.

Our Aim Is Make “A khand Hindusthan” Which was Martyre Nathuram Godse’s and martyre Narayan Apte’s last Dream. http://www.hindurashtra.everwork.com Nine

Extracts from Marathi book Nathuramayan by Y. D. Phadke
http://www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/godse.htm Hours

Hindu Unity & Soldiers of Hindutva http://www.hinduunity.org

Another site dedicated to Nathuram Godse http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1800/index.htm

9 hours to Rama tells the story of the assassination of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi the Hindu leader of the Indian National Congress. He and Mohammad Ali Jinnah spearheaded the independence movement that led to the creation of India and Pakistan. Many bigoted Hindus feel that the latter is more like an unwanted step child that was a byproduct of the birth and thereby hangs a tale of confrontation that has lasted to this day.

Gandhi’s racism: The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant-Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the society in South Africa, Whites, Indians and Blacks based on the Hindu Caste system. Behold the “Enlightened One” that supported the British effort in World War one, and packed off thousands to the war effort to be used as cannon-fodder. Behold the pacifist that sent thousands to kill millions. Behold the “mahatma” that supported the British in World War 2 and encouraged the Indians to support the British war, thus perpetuating the colonial rule in the Subcontinent and supporting the Empire.

Horst Bucholtz plays Nathuram Gotse who actually managed to get up close and personal in 1948 to slay a man many regard as a 20th century saint. Though Gandhi’s facade of non-violent resistance worked to build a false image, it played a very insiginificant role in the daparture of the British from South Asia. The British had already decided to leave Britain and Prime Minister Atlee said that the decision to leave South Asia was not influenced by Gandhi all. The blunders of the Indian National Congress and their bigoted views could not keep the Muslim population from creating its own separate state of Pakistan.

China, Egypt, Pakistan and Iraq were the superpowers five thousands years ago: That world of pre-history defines today’s current affairs! The 7000 year old Pakistani Civilization

The Geographic 2 Nation Theory

The Geographical Two Nation Theory: Pakistan existed 5000 years ago as the “Indus Valley Civilization”

Visit http://www.pakhistorian.com for History of Pakistan

Pakistan as it existed 5000 years ago

Those years marked one of the bloodiest conflicts of the last century as Muslims were hounded out of India and and Hindus both migrated to Bharat. The RSS and other bigoted parties wanted to deport or convert all Muslims and could not tolerate an independent Muslim state on the borders. Gotse blamed Gandhi for conceding too much to the leader of the Muslim separatists Mohammed Ali Jinnah as did many.

Bucholtz does a good job in playing the fanatic. The film is dominated by J.S. Casshyap who portrays Mohandas Gandhi. Part of it in newsreel footage. The frustration of Jose Ferrer as the dedicated police inspector who knows there’s a real plot out there, but is helpless as Gandhi will not let him take the slightest kinds of precautions nor will Gandhi alter his schedule. And the scene where Congress Party politician Robert Morley is trying to wangle an endorsement from Mohandas Gandhi ever so gently turns him down is very amusing.

TIME (FEBRUARY 14, 2000 VOL. 155 NO. 6) W E B – O N L Y I N T E R V I E W

“His Principle of Peace Was Bogus”: Gopal Godse, co-conspirator in Gandhi’s assassination and brother of the assassin, looks back in anger–and without regret

Hemant Pithwa/India Today

Fifty-two years ago, on Jan. 30, 1948, Mohandas Gandhi was shot dead by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu extremist. Godse believed that the Mahatma, or great soul, was responsible for the 1947 partition of India and the creation of Pakistan. Godse and his friend Narayan Apte were hanged. His brother Gopal and two others were sentenced to life imprisonment for their part in the conspiracy. Gopal Godse remained in jail for 18 years and now, at 80, lives with his wife in a small apartment in Pune. He is still proud of his role in the murder. Although Godse is largely ignored in India and rarely talks to journalists, he agreed to speak with TIME Delhi correspondent Meenakshi Ganguly.

TIME: What happened in January 1948?

Godse: On Jan. 20, Madanlal Pahwa exploded a bomb at Gandhi’s prayer meeting in Delhi. It was 50 m away from Gandhi. [The other conspirators] all ran away from the place. Madanlal was caught there. Then there was a tension in our minds that we had to finish the task before the police caught us. Then Nathuram [Gopal's brother] took it on himself to do the thing. We only wanted destiny to help us — meaning we should not be caught on the spot before he acted.

TIME: Why did you want to kill Gandhi?

Godse: Gandhi was a hypocrite. Even after the massacre of the Hindus by the Muslims, he was happy. The more the massacres of the Hindus, the taller his flag of secularism.

TIME: Did you ever see Gandhi?

Godse: Yes.

TIME: Did you attend his meetings?

Godse: Yes.

TIME: Can you explain how he created his mass following?

Godse: The credit goes to him for maneuvering the media. He captured the press. That was essential. How Gandhi walked, when he smiled, how he waved — all these minor details that the people did not require were imposed upon them to create an atmosphere around Gandhi. And the more ignorant the masses, the more popular was Gandhi. So they always tried to keep the masses ignorant.

TIME: But surely it takes more than good publicity to create a Gandhi?

Godse: There is another thing. Generally in the Indian masses, people are attracted toward saintism. Gandhi was shrewd to use his saintdom for politics. After his death the government used him. The government knew that he was an enemy of Hindus, but they wanted to show that he was a staunch Hindu. So the first act they did was to put “Hey Ram” into Gandhi’s dead mouth.

TIME: You mean that he did not say “Hey Ram” as he died?

Godse: No, he did not say it. You see, it was an automatic pistol. It had a magazine for nine bullets but there were actually seven at that time. And once you pull the trigger, within a second, all the seven bullets had passed. When these bullets pass through crucial points like the heart, consciousness is finished. You have no strength.

When Nathuram saw Gandhi was coming, he took out the pistol and folded his hands with the pistol inside it. There was one girl very close to Gandhi. He feared that he would hurt the girl. So he went forward and with his left hand pushed her aside and shot. It happened within one second. You see, there was a film and some Kingsley fellow had acted as Gandhi. Someone asked me whether Gandhi said, “Hey Ram.” I said Kingsley did say it. But Gandhi did not. Because that was not a drama.

TIME: Many people think Gandhi deserved to be nominated TIME’s Person of the Century. [He was one of two runners-up, after Albert Einstein.]

Godse: I name him the most cruel person for Hindus in India. The most cruel person! That is how I term him.

TIME: Is that why Gandhi had to die?

Godse: Yes. For months he was advising Hindus that they must never be angry with the Muslims. What sort of ahimsa (non-violence) is this? His principle of peace was bogus. In any free country, a person like him would be shot dead officially because he was encouraging the Muslims to kill Hindus.

TIME: But his philosophy was of turning the other cheek. He felt one person had to stop the cycle of violence…

Godse: The world does not work that way.

TIME: Is there anything that you admire about Gandhi?

Godse: Firstly, the mass awakening that Gandhi did. In our school days Gandhi was our idol. Secondly, he removed the fear of prison. He said it is different to go into prison for a theft and different to go in for satyagraha (civil disobedience). As youngsters, we had our enthusiasm, but we needed some channel. We took Gandhi to be our channel. We don’t repent for that.

TIME: Did you not admire his principles of non-violence?

Godse: Non-violence is not a principle at all. He did not follow it. In politics you cannot follow non-violence. You cannot follow honesty. Every moment, you have to give a lie. Every moment you have to take a bullet in hand and kill someone. Why was he proved to be a hypocrite? Because he was in politics with his so-called principles. Is his non-violence followed anywhere? Not in the least. Nowhere.

TIME: What was the most difficult thing about killing Gandhi?

Godse: The greatest hurdle before us was not that of giving up our lives or going to the gallows. It was that we would be condemned both by the government and by the public. Because the public had been kept in the dark about what harm Gandhi had done to the nation. How he had fooled them!

TIME: Did the people condemn you?

Godse: Yes. People in general did. Because they had been kept ignorant.

The snapshot of this interview has been taken from the TIME Magazine’s Website

We have discuss Mr. Mohandas Gandhi in many articles on this site. For a clearer and more balanced view of the history of Paksitan, please visit http://www.pakhistorian.com

Gandhi Unmasked: Criticism of Mohandas Gandhi by his grandsons and other Indians, Nobel Committee & US Congress The Gandhi Page

Why Mohandas Gandhi didn’t win the Nobel Peace prize? U.S. CONGRESS CONDEMNS GANDHI’S RACIST WRITINGS Did Martin Luther King know about Gandhi’s racism?
GANDHI’s RACISM AGAINST BLACKS Seargnt Major Gandhi Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906

The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and nationalism

‘Gandhi used to systematically fool people. So we killed him’

The lights go off as you reach the dilapidated building in Santa Cruz, in Bombay’s western suburbs. With great difficulty you navigate the stairs and knock on a first-floor door. Gopal Godse.

“What do you want,” asks the lady who opened the door.

You tell her you have come to meet

“Yes, I’m here,” a voice comes from a corner of the dark room. The lady brings a lighted candle and you see the 76-year-old man who underwent 18 years imprisonment for conspiring in Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. Firdaus Syed Ashraf:

“I’m sorry the lights are off,” Nathuram Godse’s brother says, “You know, this is India and even after 50 years of Independence we have not improved.

“Since Independence our people are accustomed to forget history. Today no one is bothered about the Partition. And no one wants to reunite India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

“Gandhi systematically fooled the people by saying, ‘I’ll accept the Partition of the country over my dead body.’ But still he partitioned India. So we killed him…”

Godse, in an exclusive interview with

Do you ever regret Mahatma Gandhi’s killing?

Mahatma Gandhi No, never. Gandhi used to claim the Partition would be over his dead body. So after Partition when he didn’t die, we killed him. Usually an assassination of a leader is either for personal benefit or to acquire power. We killed Gandhi because he was harmful to India. And it was a selfless act. No one paid us a single penny for it. Our love for the motherland made us do it. We are not ashamed of it. Gandhi should have been honest to admit that his life was a failure.

You see, right from Pakistan and Bangladesh every Muslim is a converted Hindu. Gandhi’s appeasement attitude (towards the Muslims) went far too much. That was why we killed him. Two hundred and fifty thousand Hindus were killed in Noakhali in October 1946. Hindu women were forced to remove their sindhoor and do Muslim rituals. And Gandhi said, ‘Hindus must bow their heads if Muslims want to kill them. We should follow the principle of ahimsa (non-violence).’ How can any sensible person tolerate this? Our action was not for a handful of people — it was for all the refugees who came from Pakistan.

So, till this day, I have never regreted being one of the conspirators in Gandhi’s assassination. In fact, many of Nathuram’s friends told me after my release, ‘Nathuram ni gadhav pana kela, tyani majha chance ghalavla‘ (Nathuram did you an injustice. He made you miss your chance to kill Gandhi).

Did your family undergo any social pressure after the assassination?

Yes, very much. No one used to be ready to marry girls from my family. So we decided that the first thing we should put across to the bridegroom was that we are related to Nathuram Godse. It is only now that people appreciate our honesty. Now they are ready for marriage (into my family).

If the Muslim League could influence the Muslims in 1947, why was it that the Hindu Mahasabha could not influence Hindus?

(That was) because I don’t have any leadership quality. My talent is to write. And I have convinced my readers with my writing.

Unfortunately, the so-called secular Hindu leaders from the Congress have been ruling the masses since 1885. And they have ruled the country for another 50 years. It is only now that Hindus have become conscious (about the Congress). They have thrown the party out from Maharashtra and all over India.

You cannot gauge a nation in merely five decades. It took 500 years for the Christians to drive away Muslims from Europe. Muslims ruled right up to Spain and Portugal. I don’t know how many years it will take for Hindus to rule the entire Bharat. It may be a decade, or it may be a century.

Did you ever contest elections?

Yes, I contested from Ranchi in Bihar. People asked me why I was contesting there. I said my slogan is ‘Ab ke bar Ranchi se agli bar Karachi se‘. (This election I will contest from Ranchi and the next from Karachi). I was able to secure only 7,000 votes because I did not have any mass support.

Can Muslims and Hindus ever live together in peace?

Yes, if the Muslims give up their blind faith. It is written in the Koran that idol worship is not permitted. If Muslims don’t want Hindus to pray to their gods, how can they live together with them (the Hindus)? They want to convert Hindus to Islam not realising that their ancestors were Hindus. They must give up this attitude. Then only the two can live together.

And who created Pakistan? It wasn’t the Arabs but the Muslims of Bharat. Who was Jinnah? His grandfather was a Hindu. Benazir Bhutto is also a Hindu Rajput.

Every Muslim nation keeps away from modern science. And when they do that they are left far behind the rest of the world. When the telephone was invented, Muslim countries were not using it. They said it is not mentioned in the Koran, that it was un-Islamic!

Of the 140 million Muslims in India, how many would you say want to convert Hindus to Islam?

The number is not important. What’s important is that it is written in their religion. They have already shown that by creating Pakistan. No secular Hindu can go for Haj. Why is it so that only Muslims are allowed there? Is it because only Muslims are secular?

Who wants to expand Islam in India? Can you name them?

No. You have to understand one thing. Individually a Muslim may be good to the Hindus. But when in a group, he will be out of the national mainstream.

Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support? All of them. There wasn’t a war that the “prophet” of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army & won a medal for his combat service Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British in the Boer war, against the Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.