One of the best decisions made the PPPP in the past year is the formalization of the provincial status of of the Northern Areas as “Gilgit Baltistan”. The nomenclature change and the setup of a Governor, Chief Minsiter and a legislative council is the right think to do–something that should have been done severy decades ago.
President Zi Ul Haq had absorbed the Norhern Areas into Pakistan, totally separating them from the dispute of Kashmir. President Musharraf had made some stupid statments about the Northern Areas to Bharati journalists, but those unsubstantiated statements have been thrown into the dustbin of history. Islamabad will obviously ignore the howls from Delhi on consolidating the Northern Areas into the mainstream of Pakistani body politic.
Karakorum highway connected to highway to Tajikistan via Chitral
This bringe more democracy to the area and will help smooth the way for the construciton of the Gwader/Karachi highway which is being connected to Dushambe (Tajikistan) via Chitral.
Gilgit Baltistan’s assembly council with a total of 15 members has the status of a provincial assembly. There will be a governor, chief minsiter and six other ministers of Gilgit.
Gilgit in the Paksitani province of "Gilgit Waziristan"
Gilgit: The fourth distinct in the region is Gilgit which is known as Dardistan. The region includes the tributory states of Hunza, Nagar, Chilas, Punial, Ishkuman, Kuh and Ghizar. The people belong to the Dardic race and are closely connected with Chitralis in race, culture and language. They are mostly followers of Ismaili sect headed by the Agha Khan (Muslims). This region was conquered by Maharaja Gulab Singh’s son, Maharaja Ranbir Singh between 1846 and 1860. Thousands of Dogra soldiers lost their lives in the campaigns that led to the conquest of this inhospitable but strategically very important region. The whole Dardistan including Gilgit has been merged with Pakistan and is governed by the Pakistani Central Government. This area has not been included even in the so called “Azad-Kashmir” (literally means Free/Liberated Kashmir. That is what the Pakistanis call the portion of Kashmirunder their occupation).
Baltistan part of the province of "Gilgit Baltistan"
Baltistan Northern Areas: Pakistani President General Zia-ul-Haq had declared that these territories which includes the Silk Route that connects Pakistan to China, might have once been part of Jammu and Kashmir, but now they are a part of Pakistan. The Northern areas, which include Dardistan and Baltistan, have already been integrated fully with Pakistan. In a quiet behind the scene announcement the Pakistani Ministry of Kashmiri Affairs and Northern Areas has divided these areas into five civil districts – Gilgit, Skardu, Chilas, Gohkoch and Khalpo. The administration of these districts is under Pakistan’s direct control and now Pakistan’s laws are applicable.
The Northern Areas of Pakistan are liberated territory and include Gilgit, Skardu, Dir and other areas which were states that have been absorbed into Pakistan. These states were not part of the Dogra Kashmir and decided to join Pakistan in 1947. Today the Northern Areas have their own provincial assembly. Historically The Gilgit and Northern Areas have never been part of the Dogra or Bharati Jammu and Kashmir.
Kashmir map: Kashmir is part of Pakistan. The green area is the Pakistan province of "Gilgit Baltistan" (formerly known as Norhtern Areas)
In 1935, the British demanded J&K lease to them for 60 years Gilgit town plus most of the Gilgit Agency and the hill-states Hunza, Nagar, Yasin and Ishkuman. The leased region was then treated as part of British India, administered by a Political Agent at Gilgit responsible to Delhi, first through the Resident in J& K and later a British Agent in Peshawar. J& K State no longer kept troops in Gilgit and a force, the Gilgit Scouts, was recruited with British officers and paid for by Delhi.
On 31 July, the Governor arrived to find “all the officers of the British Government had opted for service in Pakistan”. The Gilgit Scouts’ commander, a Major William Brown aged 25, and his adjutant, a Captain Mathieson, planned openly to engineer a coup détat against Hari Singh’s Government. Between August and October, Gilgit was in uneasy calm. At midnight on 31 October 1947, the Governor was surrounded by the Scouts and the next day he was “arrested” and a provisional government declared.
Hari Singh’s nearest forces were at Bunji, 34 miles from Gilgit, a few miles downstream from where the Indus is joined by Gilgit River. The 6th J& K Infantry Battalion there was a mixed Sikh-Muslim unit, typical of the State’s Army, commanded by a Lt Col. Majid Khan. Bunji controlled the road to Srinagar. Further upstream was Skardu, capital of Baltistan, part of Laddakh District where there was a small garrison.
On 4 November 1947, Brown raised the new Pakistani flag in the Scouts’ lines, and by the third week of November a Political Agent from Pakistan had established himself at Gilgit. Brown had engineered Gilgit and its adjoining states to first secede from J&K, and, after some talk of being independent, had promptly acceded to Pakistan. His commander in Peshawar, a Col. Bacon, as well as Col. Iskander Mirza, Defence Secretary in the new Pakistan and later to lead the first military coup détat and become President of Pakistan, were pleased enough. In July 1948, Brown was awarded an MBE (Military) and the British Governor of the NWFP got him a civilian job with ICI~ which however sent him to Calcutta, where he came to be attacked and left for dead on the streets by Sikhs. Brown survived, returned to England, started a riding school, and died in 1984. In March 1994, Pakistan awarded his widow the Sitara-I-Pakistan in recognition of his coup détat.
NORTHERN AREAS WERE INDEPENDENT AND NEVER PART OF KASHMIR.
Many consider the Northern Areas, Shangrila, the mythical piece of pradise on earth
The accession of Gilgit, Hunza, and Dir to Pakistan was a simple act of accession to Pakistan and has nothing to do with the Kashmir dispute. Many incorrect maps show Norhtern Areas as part of Azad Kashmir
We first present map to show the exact loacation of Northern Areas. Then we present the historical proof why Northern Areas are part of Pakistan and not part of Kashmir.
This is a map of Pakistan. Northern areas are not shown as part of Kashmir
This is a map of the Kashmir area demarcating the Northern Areas as part of Pakistan not Kashmir.
This map shows Azad “liberated” Kashmir. Azad Kashmir was not part of Hari Singh jurisdiction. The forged article of accession was never submitted to the UN or to Pakistan. The original article of accession was lost, if it ever existed. The copy submitted to the media by the Indian Government has a date of August, which is crossed out and overwritten with an October date. There are many things that question the integrity of the document, when it was signed and who sighned it. The date when the article supposedly had been signed brings many things into question as outlined by Mr. Alister Lamb.
This map shows the Northern areas.The Northern areas are not part of Kashmir
These are incorrect maps and should be corrected.
“Kashmiris have never ruled Northern Areas; it was the Dogra Raja of Jammu who brought parts of the region under his sway that too well before the treaty of Amritsar was signed through which the Dogras purchased Kashmir valley from the British. And it is also true that it was the local people who fought their way out of the occupation in 1947 and decided to join Pakistan on their own sweet will, thereby, severing whatever symbolic relations they had with the princely state.”
These maps show the Karakoram highway route
According to Alister Lamb a noted historian of Kashmir, the actions of India have cast several doubts on the article of accession. The events as noted by several Indian historians do not make sense. Recently both the timing of the event as well as the intentions of the Indian National Congress have come under close scrutiny. India’s claim to accession is in dispute. The U.N. recognized the dispute, and treats Kashmir as disputed territory between India and Pakistan.
According to Alister Lamb, the Northern Areas rose up in revolt against the Dogra rule before the annexation that supposedly was signed between the Dogras and India. This makes them independent of the rest of Kashmir and the accession document does not apply to them. The article of accession was never given to Pakistan or the United Nations. India now claims that the “article of accession” is lost if it ever existed. There are several errors in the published version of the article of accession. The dates do not match and show that the Indian forces had moved into Srinagar before the article had been “signed”.
This is map of Indian Occupied Kashmir
Here is an excerpt from Alastair Lamb’s book Kashmir… A Disputed Legacy. (Capitalization emphasis is mine)
MAHAJAN’S NARRATIVE ALSO CONTAINS THE FASCINATING SUGGESTION THAT THE FIRST INDIAN TROOPS WERE LANDING AT SRINAGAR AIRFIELD BEFORE THE PROCESS OF ACCESSION HAD BEEN COMPLETED.
If so, then the intervention of the Indian Army in the Kashmir dispute could well be another of those episodes, of which Pearl Harbour is the supreme example, where the military course of events resulted in the opening act of war taking place before the politicians and diplomats were able to organize its formal legitimisation.
Even more intriguing, in this context, is the fact that Indian troops arriving at Srinagar airport on 27 Oct. 1947 found other Indian troops, in the shape of Patiala men, already established there and elsewhere in the State.
The Patiala forces had arrived, it seems, on about 17 Oct. 1947, that is to say before the tribal crossing of the bridge at Domel on 22 Oct.
These two questions, the timing of the precise moment of accession and the date of the arrival of the Patiala men, have for some reason not been touched upon by the Pakistani side in the Kashmir debate over all these years; and, not surprisingly, the Indian side has not gone out of its way to draw attention to the matter.
The chronology and interpretation of the events leading up to accession which have been set out in Chapter 7 above lead to a number of conclusions which certainly differ from the received opinion, at least as interpreted by Indian diplomats. We will confine ourselves here to two issues, the status of Azad Kashmir and the question of who were the “aggressors” in those crucial days from 21 to 27 Oct. 1947.
On 15 Aug. 1947 the State of Jammu and Kashmir became to all intents and purposes an independent state.
There is no other possible interpretation of the lapse of Paramountcy. On 24 Oct. 1947 the independence of the State of Azad Kashmir was declared, relating to the territory mainly in the old Poonch jagir in which the control of the Maharaja, apart from Poonch city itself, had completely disappeared. Azad Kashmir’s first president, Sardar Mohammed Ibrahim Khan, as an elected member of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly for a constituency in Poonch, could certainly be said to enjoy some measure of popular mandate, as least as much as the later claimed for Sheikh Abdullah.
On 26 or 27 Oct. 1947 the Maharaja formally acceded to India. Did he bring, even in theory, Azad Kashmir with him? This is certainly an interesting question which ought to occupy the minds of international lawyers.
The Northern areas are NOT part of Kashmir and it was wrong of General Pervez Musharraf to concede that the fate of the Northern Areas was up for grabs. If Kashmir is our “shehrug” then the Northern Areas are our lifeline to China.
The Siachen area:
The Pakistani position on Siachen is marked in red
These are pictures of the Siachen Galcier.
More Information on The Norhtern Areas of Pakistan
Junagarh and Manavdar are also Pakistani territory.
About Kashmir: (Northern Areas are not part of Kashmir)
This is the paper that supposedly exists. It was never presented to Pakistan and never presented to the United Nations. This paper does not stand the scrutiny of historian. The “original date” of this so called paper was listed as “August” which casts further doubt on the document.
“Whereas the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provides that as from the fifteenth day of August, 1947, there shall be set up an Independent Dominion known as India, and that the Government of India Act, 1935 shall, with such omission, additions, adaptations and modifications as the governor-general may by order specify, be applicable to the Dominion of India.
And whereas the Government of India Act 1935, as so adapted by the governor-general, provides that an Indian State may accede to the Dominion of India by an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof.
Now, therefore, I Shriman Inder Mahander Rajrajeswar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singhji, Jammu and Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbetadi Deshadhipathi, Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), in the exercise of my sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the governor-general of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes of the Dominion shall, by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession but subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Dominion, exercise in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as “this State”) such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in force in the Dominion of India, on the 15th day of August, 1947, (which Act as so in force is hereafter referred to as “the Act”) .”
On October 28th 1993, Robin Raphel stated that Washington did not recognise the Instrument of Accession to India as meaning that Kashmir is not forever more an integral part of India. She expressed the view that the whole of Kashmir is disputed territory, the future status of which must be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), based in Geneva, recently, passed a resolution proclaiming Kashmir’s accession to India as bogus and null and void. The ICJ went further by condemning the human rights violations in Kashmir.
These events serve to highlight the disputed status of Kashmir by focusing on the fraudulent nature of the Instrument of Accession which was ’signed’ by the Mahrajah of Kashmir on 26th October 1947.
The Indians claim that the Instrument of Accession was signed by Mahrajah Hari Singh on 26th October 1947, in which the Mahrajah agreed to accede to India in return for military assistance to put down the popular rebellion against him, seen at that time as an invasion by tribesmen from neighbouring Pakistan. The details of the accession were worked out between the Kashmiri Prime Minister, MC Mahajan and the Indian official, VP Menon, in Dehli. However, there are serious doubts about the signing of the document. Alastair Lamb (in his book, Kashmir – A disputed legacy 1846-1990) points out that the Instrument of Accession could not have been signed by the Mahrajah on 26th October as he was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 Km). There is no evidence to suggest that a meeting or communication of any kind took place on 26th October 1947. In fact it was on 27th October 1947 that the Mahrajah was informed by his MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar), the the Instrument of Accession had already been negotiated in Dehli.
The Mahrajah did not in fact sign the Instrument of Accession, if at all, until 27th October 1947. This sheds doubts on the actions of the Indian regime. Some Indian troops had already arrived and secured Srinagar airfield during the middle of October 1947. On 26th October 1947, a further massive airlift brought thousands of Indian troops to Kashmir – BEFORE the signing of the Accession. Therefore, this situation begs the question: would the Mahrajah have signed the Instrument of Accession had the Indian troops not been on Kashmiri soil?
No satisfactory original of the Instrument of Accession has ever been produced in an international forum; a published form has always been shown. Further, the document was not presented to Pakistan or to the UN. In the summer of 1995, the Indian authorities reported the original document as lost or stolen. This sheds further doubt on whether the Mahrajah actually signed the Instrument of Accession.
The Governor-General of India at the time, Lord Mountbatten, stipulated that the permanent accession of Kashmir to the Indian Union will only be accepted once the people of Kashmir had been consulted. He noted in a letter to the Mahrajah, “the question of the states’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people”. Furthermore, when the Kashmir crisis broke out in October 1947, the principle of reference to the people through plebiscite was already established as similar disputes in some other states had been resolved this way. The Indian Prime Minister J Nehru, accepted this principle and reiterated his position in a letter to the British Prime Minister on 25th October 1947, “our view, which we have repeatedly made public, is that the question of accession in any disputed territory must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people and we adhere to this view”. Therefore, at the time of the so-called accession, the Indian regime accepted the principle of reference to the people. Based on this principle, the Instrument of Accession should have been provisional and conditional upon the outcome of a plebiscite.
When India took the Kashmir issue to the UN in 1948, it did so under article 35 of Chapter VI which outlines the means for a peaceful settlement of disputes. It is interesting to note here that India did not present the Kashmir case under the UN Chapter VII which relates to acts of aggression as India was alleging Pakistan. Therefore, it is evident that by raising the issue under Chapter VI, India recognised the Kashmir issue as a dispute, thus conceding that the Instrument of Accession had not confirmed the state to be an integral part of India. India is still party to all the UN resolutions on Kashmir. Moreover, India and Pakistan accepted the UN resolutions of January 1948 calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir to exercise the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. India’s acceptance of the UN resolutions establishes beyond a doubt, that the future of status of Kashmir would be determined by its people. Therefore, the Instrument of Accession, even if genuine, is rendered null and void.
In the past, attempts to hold a plebiscite have been met with fierce opposition from India. India has known, right from the start, that the result of a plebiscite is a foregone conclusion – the population of Kashmir would have voted to rid themselves of Indian rule. This has been the case from 26th October 1947 to the present day. On the practicality of holding a plebiscite, a paper by the US state department, presented to the UN on 2nd December 1947, noted , “the dominion of India may attempt to establish the extant electoral rolls on the basis for the referendum. As these rolls are said to contain less than 7% of the population and were compiled on a basis which served the weight to the members of the wealthiest educated Hindu majority who would obviously vote for accession to India, it is important that the electoral body should in fact be composed on a basis of complete adult suffrage in order that the result of the referendum may be representative of the actual wishes of the people of Kashmir”.
In view of the above arguments, it is clear that the Indian case on Kashmir is politically, legally and morally unjustified. The commitment made by India and the UN to allow the people of the state to choose their own future are neither time bound nor do they provide an escape clause for the Indian regime. It is only through fraud and repression that India continues to forcefully occupy a large portion of Kashmir.
This site is maintained by Gharib Hanif (hanif@gharib.demon.co.uk). Comments and suggestions always welcome.
On January 16, 1954, Niharendu Dutt Mazumdar, a former minister of the West Bengal Government, sent the following draft resolution to the Congress president and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Mazumdar besseched that “it will be appropriate to place” the resolution “for consideration for the Working Committee…at your (Nehru’s) instance and then before the open session (of the Congress party) at Kalyani”.
Mazumdar proposed the formation of a “special fact-finding commission consisting of persons commanding public confidence in this behalf” invested with plenipotentiary powers to probe Bose’s fate and place the findings “before the Parliament and the people of India”.
Nehru curtly turned down Mazumdar’s appeal, saying “I really do not understand what more the Government of India can possibly do about finding facts in regards to Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.”
This Congress recalls the historic session held 25 years ago in Calcutta and the eventful and inspiring life and work of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose since then. It acclaims with a sense of national pride and gratitude the Azad Hind Government and the Indian National Army headed by Netaji, during the last Great War, as the forbears of the National Government of Free India and sends its salutations to Netaji to-day wherever he may be.
This Congress also considers it appropriate on this present occasion to record its grateful appreciation of the campaign on the INA as one of the most glorious episodes at the final and decisive stage of the history of India’s struggle for national liberation and pays its most respectful homage to the inspiring leadership and the immortal spirit of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose as the foremost and most unique among the most beloved national heroes and liberators of India, whom the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi paid his most affectionate tribute and christened him as the “Prince of Patriots”.
This Congress, however, in common with the entire people of India, shares a feeling of deep concern and anxiety about the facts relating to the whereabouts and the fate of Netaji since the capitulation of Japan at the end of the war in 1945, which facts have so far remained shrouded in mystery. This mystery deepens when one reflects on the fact that that the Government of the erstwhile belligerent powers, whether Allied or Axis, including the British Government, have quite unnaturally refrained from making any official announcements about the facts or the fate of Netaji, who, as the Head of the war time Azad Hind Government and the Army, certainly called for special official notice. Although, the story of the alleged plane crash at Taihoku appeared on the very day following that of the signing of the surrender terms by Japan, all the more significant because of the coincidence of dates in this context, this story has neither been officially corroborated by the Government of any of the wartime powers, all of whom have preferred to remain strangely and significantly silent so far, nor has this story even been believed by the people of India.
On the contrary, the conviction remains deep-seated in the mind of the people that Netaji did not die at Taihoku in 1945, as a result of the so-called plane crash, quite irrespective of the question as to whether he may be dead or alive today. Nevertheless, this Congress, as also the people of India, fondly hope and fervently wish that Netaji were alive and came back to his country at the present fateful hour to take his rightful place in the affairs of the nation.
In view of these circumstances and in view of the controversy over certain resent statements made in India about the “death” and “ashes” of Netaji, this Congress considers it essential and imperative that, without any further delay, all available facts and evidence relating to him should be collected by a competent high-powered Commission to place the same for information, along with a complete and authentic report on the subject, before the Parliament and the people of India.
In the opinion of this Congress, therefore, a special fact-finding commission on Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose should be set up as soon as possible by the Government of India, consisting of persons commanding public confidence in this behalf and be invested with plenipotentiary powers and rank of Ambassador, with a view to collect facts and evidence on the spot with the help of Government and the people of all friendly powers concerned, including Japan, USA, UK, USSR, China and others to whom also a request in this behalf should be made by the Government of India for their help and co-operation in the Commission’s work.
Among the many visions for the Subcontinent, the vision of the Quaid e Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah won out.
There are two major tectonic political events that shattered the trust between the Muslims and the Hindus of the Subcontinent. This that led to the re-creation of Pakistan:
1) The rejection of the 14 points of Jinnah by the Nehru report
2) The rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946 by the INC. The CMP would have created a Group “A” (Hindustan), Group “B” (Kashmir, Punjab, Sarhad, Sindh, Balauchistan), Group “C” (Bengal, Orissa, Asaam). Each would have 11 members in the center in a kind of a Senate.
Pakistan existed 5000 years ago. The Indus people lives on the banks of the Indus.The Indus people never lived with the Gangetic people. The Sindhis, Punjabis, Pathans, Baluchis, and Kashmiris have lived together for more than 5000 years. http://rupeenews.com/2007/11/27/why-we-created-pakistan-the-pakistan-ideology/
Pakistan (aka Indus Valley) exsited 5000 years ago
This was the British empire with hundreds of states in the Subcontinent.
Could the Indus people have joined the Gangetic people in 1947? Possibly! But the events before 1940s since 1947 teach us that the Gangetic people are fundamentally different from the Indus people, and could not have lived together. These are the maps of the Subcontinent over the past few centuries where the hundreds of states that existed in the Subcontinent exchanged hands and alliances on an ongoing basis.
These maps show Pakistan during the Persian and Taimurs empire– Pakistan centuries ago.
Lord Curzon’s British “On to the Oxus” (Amu Darya) policy and then the retreat to “Back to the Indus” policy.
The British Empire in 1857 shows hundreds of states in the Subcontinent.
The British Empire before Curzon and afterwards.
Lord Minto in the Subcontinent
There is a huge discussion of the One Nation Theory and the Two Nation Theory posted on it. Search for it.
These are the maps of the Pakistan that was proposed
The Hindus and the Muslims in the Subcontinent.
Proponents of the TNT were originally the Hindus and then the Muslims.Proponents of the ONT were the Muslims and then the Hindus. What happened and why did loyal Indian Muslims like Iqbal ask for Pakistan. Why did nationalist leaders like Jinnah leave the Indian National Congress and join the Mulims League. The reasons are discussed in many of my articles on this site. Here are some major milestones preceding independence in 1947.
In the 1937 Indian elections, Tharoor points out, Muslim voters failed to support the Muslim League – which later led Muslims to independence under Muhammad Ali Jinnah. But the popular, and integrated, Congress Party made the mistake of resigning from office to protest the British government’s lack of consultation over its 1939 war declaration.“
It was a huge political blunder because it left the field open for the British … to kick the Congress people out of office and put unelected Muslim Leaguers in power in a number of key provinces,” says Tharoor.Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India Movement, opposing British rule at the height of World War II, was also a mistake, he adds. The Congress protesters were jailed, later to re-emerge “completely out of touch.”
The Muslim League, later won a majority of the Muslim provinces.“Until that happened, partition was not inevitable.”Part of the problem, says Pakistani-born historian Ayesha Jalal, was the failure of Congress leaders Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to cut a power-sharing deal with the Muslim League.And, she says, Jinnah was astonished by the violence that overtook India in the final months of the British Raj:
“The complete absence of adequate security measures to tackle an unexpected breakdown of law and order has to be blamed for the sheer magnitude of the killings.“
CMP:The Cabinet Mission Plan proposed by Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and initially approved by Nehru was the last hope for the Subcontinent to stay as one country. After the Indian National Congress rejected the CMP both major parties the INC and the All India Muslim League had lost all trust in each other and went their different wasy. The INC was busy consolidating their power while the ML was busy consolidating its power in the Muslim majority areas.
In the 1937 Indian elections, Tharoor points out, Muslim voters failed to support the Muslim League – which later led Muslims to independence under Muhammad Ali Jinnah. But the popular, and integrated, Congress Party made the mistake of resigning from office to protest the British government’s lack of consultation over its 1939 war declaration.“It was a huge political blunder because it left the field open for the British … to kick the Congress people out of office and put unelected Muslim Leaguers in power in a number of key provinces,” says Tharoor.Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India Movement, opposing British rule at the height of World War II, was also a mistake, he adds. The Congress protesters were jailed, later to re-emerge “completely out of touch.”
The Muslim League, later won a majority of the Muslim provinces. “Until that happened, partition was not inevitable.”Part of the problem, says Pakistani-born historian Ayesha Jalal, was the failure of Congress leaders Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to cut a power-sharing deal with the Muslim League.And, she says, Jinnah was astonished by the violence that overtook India in the final months of the British Raj: “The complete absence of adequate security measures to tackle an unexpected breakdown of law and order has to be blamed for the sheer magnitude of the killings.”
The Cabinet Mission Plan proposed by Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and initially approved by Nehru was the last hope for the Subcontinent to stay as one country. After the Indian National Congress rejected the CMP both major parties the INC and the All India Muslim League had lost all trust in each other and went their different wasy. The INC was busy consolidating their power while the ML was busy consolidating its power in the Muslim majority areas.
Shameful Flight” by Stanley Wolpert
This book is about the last years of British rule of India – an unwise partition, an incompetent colonial government, and a botched up migration leaving bitter legacies. The author is UCLA’s Professor Emeritus teaching history with several other books about India to his credit.
The book is outstanding for many reasons: It is written in an easy style that would force you to read it one go, quite rarely seen in books covering history. Yet the book has sufficient background research that can only be expected from UCLA’s professor of history. It has a balanced presentation of facts by a scholar far removed by geography and time from the events.
Stanley Wolpert provides some interesting insights:
British rule of India is a tale of incompetence:In 1943, India produced 50 million tons of food grains – enough to feed its population of 400 million. Yet 1.5 million people died of starvation in Bengal that year primarily due to mismanagement.
Bengal’s governor Herbert and Viceroy Lord Wavell pleaded for food grains. Britain’s war transport minister Baron Frederick James Leathers kept 6 million tons stored in ships in Indian Ocean but did not spare it for the starving. Wavell’s report to an uninterested Prime Minister Churchill says “the famine in Bengal was largely due to ministerial incompetence”.
The incompetence was acknowledged in London as well. Churchill’s Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery confesses in a private letter to the Viceroy Linlithgow “nothing has convinced me more than the Cabinet meetings…. of the fundamental incapacity of a British cabinet to try and govern India”.
Viceroy Wavell condemns Churchill four years later after sitting in one cabinet meeting: “He hates India and everything to do with it. Winston knows as much of the Indian problem as George III did of the American colonies!” British rule of India is a tale of political insensitivity:The best example of this insensitivity is Winston Churchill’s peevish telegram to his Viceroy asking “why Gandhi has not died yet?” after releasing the Mahatma from prison because of medical conditions. Not a class-act in international politics.
Partition could have been avoided with greater wisdom in Indian/British leadership.
In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won clear majority in six of the eleven provinces. Jinnah’s Muslim league failed to win a single province. Jinnah appealed to Nehru to agree to a coalition Congress-League ministries in the multicultural provinces. Nehru refused and retorted that there were only two parties left: “the British and the Congress”. Jinnah devoted the next ten years to create Pakistan. If Nehru had pursued an “inclusive style of politics” there would have been no opportunity to “divide and rule”.
1946 offered another opportunity to unite. British Secretary of State, Lord Pethick Lawrence advocated a coalition cabinet (made up of Congress and Muslim League) that decides by consensus (as coalitions normally do) and not by majority vote. Nehru declined to cede parity to Muslim league and share power. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad sadly reflected in his autobiography that “Jawaharlal’s mistake in 1937 had been bad enough. The mistake of 1946 proved even more costly”. This resolved Jinnah to insist on partition.
Britain played the “divide and rule” card to the long term detriment of India. Viceroys were quick to ignore good examples. Chief Ministers Sikandar Hayat Khan and Fazl-i-Husain governed Punjab province by using local patriotism and common language to unify the multi-religious Punjab society. It was the same Punjab that recorded the largest death triggered by inept governing.
British rule had no strategy to deal with partition.
Britain, as a colonial ruler, has a history of shameful behavior. In 1942, when Britain exited Burma “the civil administration suddenly collapsed and those in charge sought their own safety. Private motor cars were commandeered for the evacuation of Europeans, leaving their owners stranded. …. The city of Rangoon was left at the mercy of …. hardened criminals”. There was no thought for life after British rule.
Months ahead of independence most of the British staff were evacuated to Britain leaving no credible law enforcement mechanism for the infant governments of India and Pakistan to deal with the migration induced violence and death.
Mountbatten was aware of the likely violence and the lack of a plan to deal with this. Though Cyril Radcliffe’s maps with the boundary lines of India and Pakistan were ready earlier, Mountbatten kept it under lock and key until the pageantry, splendor and photo opportunities of the Independence day were over and the British could no more be blamed for the violence or the ineptitude with which it was handled. His reasoning: “the earlier it was published, the more the British would have to bear the responsibility for the disturbances which would undoubtedly result”. Reasonable opportunity to manage the migration was denied for the sake of glory.
Says Bengal Secretary John Dawson Tyson, “Mountbatten’s focus was on withdrawal in fairly peaceful conditions….. the India after 15 August will not be the kind of country I should want to live in”
ear Admiral Viscount Lord Louis Francis Albert Victor Mountbatten expressed what he thought about the way he had done his job in India to BBC’s John Osmon in 1965. Thirty nine years later Osman says that though he dislikes using vulgar slang, the only honest way of reporting accurately what the last Viceroy said was “I fu….d it up”.
Stanley Wolpert concludes that both India and Pakistan are still saddled with the bitter legacies of Great Britain’s hasty, shameful flight.
Even after independence and even today the policies of India….Kashmir, East Pakistan, and now Baluchistan create more distance between the people of the Subcontinent. Had there been no issue of Kashmir, there would have been no wars. Think of the Subcontinent with 60 years of peace.
“Pakistan is a strong state held together solidly by the patriotism of its people and the strength of its civilian and military institutions. With a dynamic (7 percent) annual growth rate, significant foreign investment, the best performing stock exchange in Asia and the progressive reduction of poverty, all Pakistanis, including Pashtuns, Sindhis and Baluchis, are much better placed to achieve their aspirations within Pakistan, as they decided in 1947 through an irrevocable act of self-determination.
The machinations of external powers and their hired guns will not succeed.”
Munir Akram, Permanent Representative, Pakistan Mission to the U.N., New York, Feb. 1, 2008
Shair-e-Mashriq, Hakeem-e-Ummat Sir Dr. Alama Mohammed Iqbal
THREE PHASES OF A VISIONARY by Moin Ansari
(Note from author: I started this in 1997 and it remains “a work in progress”. I have included the unformatted discussion and feedback from our readers at the bottom of this article. As we move forward, all feedback will be included in the article.)
“Iqbal, that immortal poet of Islam, whose poetry served as a beaconlight in the darkest period of our history and whose message will ever help us on the way to our destiny” Choudhary Rahmat Ali (1947, ‘Pakistan’).
It was the best of times. Ras Tofari became the emperor of Ethiopia. The planet Pluto was discovered by C.W. Tombaugh. All’s quiet on the Western front was playing in the theaters.
It was the worst of times in the New World. In Germany, Nazis were gaining power. D.H. Lawrence the English novelist had died. The U.S. population was 122 million, and in the land of the Dollar the bottom had fallen out of the financial markets. Wall Street was is total disarray. The stock had crashed. Savings accounts had been wiped out. People had given up hope. Many Millionaires had lost their fortunes and flung themselves out of their windows to their death. Conspicuous consumption had taken its toll. America was in the midst of a depression. It was the year 1930.
And in the old world, in the Subcontinent a dreamer, was making a speech in the city of Allahbad. He was speaking at the session of the All India Muslim League.
“It cannot be denied that Islam regarded as an ethical ideal plus certain kind of polity by which expression I mean a social structure regulated by a legal system and animated by a specific ethical idea has been chief formative factor in the life history of the Muslims of India.”
Would you like me to see Islam as a moral and political ideal, meeting the same fate in the e world of Islam as Christianity has already met in Europe ” Is it possible to retain Islam as an ethical ideal and to reject it as polity in favor of national politics in which religious attitude is not permitted to play its part ?”
Iqbal was philosophizing about separating religion form politics. He maintained that one could not put Islam in a separate compartment, and deal with the political realities of the time. Iqbal maintained that Islam had to be part and parcel of everything a Muslim did. He refuted the secular claim that one could practice religion in the mosque and live in a United India. K. Ali a noted Pakistani historian states that “the construction of a polity on national lines, if it means the displacement of the Islamic principle of solidarity, is simply unthinkable to a Muslim.”
Iqbal, speaking as the President of the All Indian Muslim League was saying “Islam is in jeopardy“, and we must save it by creating a separate homeland for the Muslims of India. Perhaps he was saying that Islam is in jeopardy in India, and we must provide it a nurturing ground, in certain parts of India, where it can grow and prosper, and influence. Iqbal went on to announce his thoughts at the Allahbad session and I quote Iqbal
” India is a continent of human groups belonging to different races, speaking different languages and professing different religions …. To base a constitution on the conception of a homogeneous India …. is to prepare for a civil war.
The formation of a consolidated North West Indian State appears to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India”.
K. Ali writes, that “of a separate Muslim state in India appeared to a be a dream of a the poet Iqbal at that time, and it was bitterly criticized. Since 1930, the idea of a separate State was gaining ground in the hearts of the Muslims of India“
Iqbals’s idea was given the moniker of P-A-K-I-S-T-A-N by one Chaudry Rehmat Ali, an Indian Muslim student studying in England. Iqbal had been propagating the idea for a separate homeland for the Muslims. He had been writing to Jinnah, asking him to be the lawyer to defend the cause of the Muslims of India. Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammed Ali Jinnah took the challenge, and the rest as they say is history.
It is clear that earlier statements by Iqbal when the creation of Pakistan was still in the embryonic stage cannot be taken as his true endorsement of a united India. In the thirties almost the entire Muslim population was not entertaining the idea of separatism, and even the Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah and others were working for the unity of India.
Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammed Ali Jinnah said that:
” the differences in India, between the two major nations, the Hindus and the Muslims are a thousand times greater when compared with the continent of Europe.
India is not a national state, India is not a country, but a sub-continent composed of nationalities, the two nations being Hindus and Muslims whose culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, name and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, laws and jurisprudence, social and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions, outlook on life and of life are fundamentally different nay in many respects antagonistic”.
Any discussion of Iqbal becomes a discussion of Pakistan. That is a tribute to the poet dreamer. The discussion of Pakistan is incomplete without bringing up Iqbal, and the biography of Pakistanis is never complete without discussing the philosophy of ” The poet of the East “. FAIZ AHMAD FAIZ: Salute to a great Punjabi a fantastic Urdu poet and a giant Pakistani
The two nation theory was initially enunciated by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, dreamt by Iqbal, and preached by Mohammed Ali Jinnah. It was this enunciation of the two nation theory that appealed to the hearts and minds of Mussalmans all over the subcontinent. They in one voice voted for the Muslim League and Jinnah. Muslims from the Southern tip of Tamiland, to the Central India, to Eastern India accepted and fought for the Two nation Theory. It is incredible that the Pakistan movement began in the United Provinces of India (U.P, a conglomeration of independent princely states, that were railroaded into a province by the British) , and was led by Muslims of Northern India from Aligarh, Lucknow, and Delhi, Muslims who never had any hope of becoming part of Pakistan. Muslims all over the subcontinent voted, worked and died for the ideals dreamt by Iqbal, and preached by Jinnah.
Who was Iqbal? One of the first to advocate a separate homeland in India, Iqbal
(1876-1938) was the second crucial link in our independence struggle, the factor that took Sir Syed’s (1817-1898) ideals and passed the torch to Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah (1876-1948)
The Freedom Struggle Torch carried through generations:
Goals: To awaken the Muslims of India so that they could regain their lost glory and greatness. To wake up the Muslims and be more practical. To show the Muslim youth of India the path of truth and progress
Biography
Name: Mohammed Iqbal
Other names (Alaises) : Poet of the East, The Poet Thinker, The Poet who dreamt Pakistan, The poet who awakened the Muslims of India. Spiritual father of Pakistan.
Born: November, 1876 in Sialkot
Profession: Taught Philosophy and Law. Barrister at Law. Member Punjab Legislative Council 1926-1930. President of Muslim League 1930. Knighted by the British in 1992 for poetry
Hobbies and Passion, and claim to fame: Poetry in Urdu and Persian
Greatest influence:Surah e Nafas: Nietzsche and other German nation constructors
Publications:
Asrar-e-Khudi translated as the Secrets of Self, 1920, 1940
Piyam -e Mashriq. Message of the East 1930
The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam 1930
Education: M.A. Government College Lahore, Barrister at law England ,Doctorate in Philosophy Germany 1905-1908
Experience: Khilafat Movement: Alama Iqbal took part in the brief but important struggle that was carried out by the Muslims of the subcontinent for the restoration of the Khilifat headquartered in Turkey. In WW1 Turkey had allied itself with Germany against Britain. When Germany and Turkey were defeated in 1918 the British had abolished the Muslim caliphate at the Treaty of Versailles in 1920. The Muslims of the subcontinent (led by Mohammed Ali and Shaukat Ali, and Abul Kalam Azad ) were outraged, and led a nationwide campaign of agitation to protest the abolition of the Ottoman Empire Caliphate. To this day young Turks remember this movement, and think of Pakistanis as the natural successors of that movement.
All India Muslim league: He expressed great satisfaction at the formation of the Muslim League in 1906.
MPA Lahore: In 1926 Iqbal contested the election from Lahore, and won by a large majority
Nehru Report: In 1928 when the Nehru report came out, Iqbal was disappointed by the he Hindu attitude. At this juncture he made up his mind to form a separate homeland for the Muslims of India
Vision for Pakistan: In 1930 as President of the All India Muslim League, he enunciated the Two nation Theory. ” The Muslims wish to lead a life of freedom and honor. They want to live as a nation and this can be achieved if they have a separate Islamic state”.
AIML session 1936
Struggle for Pakistan: To his last day, Alama Iqbal was a sincere friend of Quaid-e-Azam, assisting him in putting together a coalition of Muslims together. Iqbal was coaxing the slumbering masses to wake up and demand a homeland. Iqbal was criticized by the orthodox religious right for his “shikwah” and “jawab-shiwah”.
1) HUM BULBULAIN HAIN IS CHAMAN KI , YEH WATAN HAI HUMARA. HINDUSTAN HUMARA
“Saare Jahan se Aachha/ Hindusthan Hamara“
The first phase of Iqbal was as an Indian nationalist. He believed that both the Hindus and the Muslims could live together to return the subcontinent of India to its pre-British Moghul glory. This belief was made under the hypothesis that the two-century British period was an aberration in the thousand year history of South Asia. Iqbal believed that after the British left, South Asians (‘Indians’) could live together in peace and harmony and make the country great again. In the Forties, the Muslims made up about 40% of the population of South Asia (‘India’) and Hindus were in slight majority. However the cultural and social centers of South Asia were in the hands of the Muslims. During this phase of his life Iqbal believed that South Asia is as big as Western Europe could compete as a great nation against Europe, America and China. Jinnah at the time also experimented with unity and was called “The ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity “.
Here is Iqbal clearly disassociating himself from the scheme of Pakistan though he still defends his Allahbad speech made four years earlier
Dr. Sir Mohd. Iqbal Kt. M. A., Ph.D. Barrister-at-Law, Lahore
4th March 1934 My dear Mr. Thompson
I have just received your review of my book. It is excellent and I am grateful to you for the very kind things you have said of me. But youhave made one mistake which I hasten to point out as I consider itrather serious. You call me [a] protagonist of the scheme called‘ Pakistan’. Now Pakistan is not my scheme. The one that I suggestedin my address is the creation of a Muslims Province–i.e. a province having an overwhelming population of Muslims–in the North west of India. This province will be, according to my scheme,a part of the proposed Indian Federation.
Pakistan scheme proposes a separate federation of Muslim Provinces directly related to England as a separate dominion. This scheme originated in Cambridge. The authors of this scheme believe that we Muslim Round Tablers have sacrificed the Muslim nation on the altar of Hindu orso called Indian Nationalism
Yours sincerely,
Mohammad Iqbal
SECOND PHASE OF IQBAL: PAN ISLAMISM
2) CHEEN – O ARAB HUMARA, HINDUSTAAN HUMARA, MUSLIM HAIN HUM, WATAN HAI SARA JAHAN HUMARA
Disappointed by the Hindu attitudes, Iqbal began to think himself as a Muslim first, and an ‘Indian’ second. During this stage of his thinking, Alama Iqbal began believing in Pan-Islamism. Iqbal worked with Mohammed Ali and Shaukat Ali and Abul Kalaam Azad. He actively wrote poems on his belief that all Muslims should think of themselves as Muslims first. Caste and Creed were to be given up, and nationalism was shunned for the crescent and star.
Cheen-o-Arab hamara, Hindustan hamara
Muslim main hum, watan hai sara jahan hamara
Tauheed ki amanat senon main hai hamarey
Asan nahin mitana naam-o-nishaan hamara
Duniya kay bu’t kadon main, wo pehla ghar Khuda ka
Hum uss kay pasban hain, wo pasban hamara
Baatil say dabney waley, aey Asman! nahin hum
Sou baar ker chuka hai Tu imtihan hamara
Salar-e-Karwan hai Meer-e-Hijaaz (PBUH) apna
Iss naam say hai baaqi, aaram-e-jahan hamara
Iqbal ka tarana baang-e-dara hai goya
Hota hai jada paima, phir karwan hamara
(Meanings: Cheen-o-Arab = China and Arabia; Hindustan = India; watan = homeland; jahan = world; Tauheed ki amanat = Islam; Senon = Insight; asan = easy; mitana = eliminate; naam-o-nishan = survival; bu’t kadon = idol temples; pehla ghar Khuda ka = Referring to Khana Kaaba; pasban = Protector; Baatil = Oppression; Dabney waley = Oppressed; Asman = Nature; Salar-e-Karwan = Leader of Caravan; Meer-e-Hijaaz (PBUH) = Muhammad (PBUH); Aaram-e-jahan = satisfaction; Tarana = Anthem; bang-e-dara = Voice of bell; jada paima = reactivate)
THE CONCEPT OF KHUDI (self)
Iqbal wrote on the concept of self.
” Khoodi ko kur bulund itna kai khuda bundai say khood poochay, buta teri ruzaa kiya hai “.
This concept of self asked the Muslims to improve their lot by themselves, and not be at the mercy of any other person or nationality.
THIRD PHASE OF IQBAL:PAKISTANI SEPARATISM
3) KHANJAR HILAL KA HAI QAUMI NITAAN HAMARAH
باطل سے دبنے والے اسماں نھیں سو بار کت چکا ھي امتھاں ھمارا
توشاھیں ھے بسيرا کر پھاڑوں کي چٹانوںپر
پلٹنا چھپٹنا چھپٹ کے پلٹنا
لھو گرمانے کا ھے بھانا
“Tu shaaheen hai, basaira kar pharaon kee chatanon pur”..
“Jhapatna palatna, palat kar jhapatna;
Lahu garm rakhne ka hai ik bahana”…..Alama Iqbal
This is the third and final stage of Iqbal’s’ thinking patterns. Influenced by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan writings, Iqbal changed his thinking. During this phase of his life, Iqbal worked for the All India Muslim League, whose sole purpose was the creation of a separate homeland for the Muslims of the Subcontinent
Of his different phases Iqbal himself wrote:
” I have myself been of he view hat religious differences should disappear from this country, and even now act on the principle, in my private life. But now I think that the preservation of their national identities is desirable for both the Hindus and the Muslims. The vision of a common nationhood for India is a beautiful idea, and has a poetic appeal, but looking to the present conditions and the unconscious trends of the two communities, appears incapable of fulfillment”.
By the year 1941 He was indeed a firm believer in Pakistan and the Two Nation Theory
” Cant you see that a Muslim, when he was converted more than a thousand years ago, bulk of them, then according to your hindureligion and philosophy, he becomes an outcast and he becomes aMalecha (an untouchable) and the Hindus ceased to have anythingto do with him socially , religiously , culturaly or in any otherway? He, therefore belongs to a different order not merely religiousbut social and he has lived in that distinctly separate and antagonostic social order, religiously, socially and culturally…can you posibally compare this with that nonsensical talk thatmere change of faith is no ground for a demand for Pakistan? Cantyou see the fundamantle difference ? “2 march 1941. Pres. address toPunjab Muslim Students Fed.
As can be seen from the above that the entire Muslim nation of India did not actually believe in “Pakistan” untill after the failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan. It was after the failure of the CMP that Quaid-e-Azam and the Muslim League had accepted that the MOVEMENT TOWARDS Pakistan or an independent Muslim state began. Earlier writings from Iqbal DO NOT DETRACT anything from Iqbal becasue as early as 1930 he WAS propogating a SEPERATE identity of the Muslims of India.Iqbal’s vs Goethe’s: Deja Vu in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan
Nikal kay sehra say jis nay Roma ki saltanat ko ulat diya tha
Suna hai qudsiyon say main nay, wo sher phir hoshyar ho ga
Khuda kay bandey tou hain hazaron, banon main phirtey hain marey marey
Main uss ka banda banon ga jis ko Khuda kay bandon say pyar ho ga
(Meanings: saltanat = State; ulat = to conquer; Qudsiyon = fortune tellers; sher = lion (referring to Sultan Salah ud Din Ayubi and other brave Muslims); hoshyar = Attention; banon = forests)
CRITICISM OF IQBAL
Any good writing on Iqbal must discuss his criticism. Here is an Indian author trying to shred the Pakistan ideaology:
Much is made of Iqbal as the philospher of Partition. In this connection his address to the Allahabad Muslim League Session 1930 is lavishly quoted. The reader is never informed that the British had split the League into Shafi Leag-ue and Jinnah League, after League president Jinnah had decided to boycott the Simon Commission.
Iqbal was only presiding over the pro-British Shafi League, attended by less than a hundred delegates. Nor is the reader told that, in his later years, Iqbal thought better of Jawaharlal than of Jinnah and that he wrote to Edward Thomson (vide ‘Enlist India for Freedom’, p. 58) that “the Pakistan Plan would be disastrous to the British Government, disastrous to the Hindu community, disastrous to the Muslim community. But I am the President of the (Shafi) Muslim League and it is, therefore, my duty to support it”.
This is what Sanjeev Sharma says about Iqbal:
“Iqbal never was for a total separate state for Muslimsof India, he wanted them to have a self-determinationin federal republic of India, and even until hedied nowhere in his poems or anywhere we have anyevidence of his support for the dominion of a Pakistan outside of India, matter of the fact is thatonly after he died in 1938, Muslim league passeda resolution in 1940 at Lahore for a seperate stateof Pakistan, at that Jinnah was its leader.Iqbal, was a great poet no doubt about it, buta politician! no way, and Jinnah ,not only he failed to realized what will happen 40 years down but alsohe was directly responsible of 4-10 million murders,and largest migration of this history on earth. Again Iqbal, was never for this blood shed and migration, he insisted on the federal states ofindia, unlike Jinnah, who wanted to have a statefor him”.Criticism from the Religious Right Mualvi establishment
Iqbal was severely criticized for attacking the establishment. His book Zarb-e-Kaleem was titled “Declaration of War against the establishment of Today“. His articles, poems and anthologies attacked the status quo and asked the Muslims to raise their lot. His poems “Shikwah” and “Jawab-e-Shikwah” were severely criticized by the maulvis of his day. In “Shikwah” Iqbal complains to god about the poor lot of the Muslims, and in “Jawab Shikwah” Iqbal plays God and answers man. Many orthodox Muslims called Iqbal a “kafir” for this innovation in his poetry.
I consider “shikwah” good poetry. I wouldn’t have had it memorized otherwise. For the firebrand ideologue Shikwah has great inspirational power. But “shikwah” (together with most of Iqbal’s excellent poetry) has limited ideological appeal. If you are a Hindu, you’ll be disgusted by “shikwah”. (Remember the “muNh ke bal gir kay hua Allah aHad kehtay thay” part.) In a larger context I see this as a conflict between the classic ghazal and what they call “maqsadi sha’iri”.
German influence in Iqbal’s writings (Doctorate in Philosophy Germany 1905-1908)
Iqbal was greatly influenced by the German philosophers of his time, Soren Kierkegaard, Fredrick Wilhelm Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer. During his stay in Germany the ‘country’ (the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Prussia) was going though its great nationalistic binge. …..The Nazis used Nietzsche for building a nation that was defeated in war, was disarmed, was occupied and was split up into small portions. German states were trying to come together as a nation.
Iqbal’s response was that his inspiration was “Surah Hashar” of the Quran and not any other.
Iqbal was greatly influenced by the German’s nation attempt to re-construct itself. He thought he could transfer the concept to his homeland India. Iqbal is said to have been particularly affected by the German philosopher Nietzsche. Some have even accused him of plagiarizing German concepts. In Nietzsche’s famous Thus Spake Zaratustra (1883-85) Nietzsche “introduced in eloquent poetic prose the concepts of the superman and the will to power …. such a heroic man of merit has the courage … to rise above the masses. Some scholars compare Iqbal’s concepts of Mard-e-Momin to the Nietzsche ‘superman’, and Iqbal’s Khudi to Nietzsche’s will to power. There is no denying the influence of Nietzsche on Iqbal poetry. Iqbal was intelligent enough to use the German concepts for a positive purpose for his own people.
Comparison with Ghalib and Profoundness of Poetry
American research scholars like Marcus and Vonetta Franda have called Iqbal “One of the greatest poets of the Indian subcontinent “. However some researches have compared Iqbal to other great Indian poets like Ghalib, and have found Iqbal’s’ poems trite in comparison. The depth of Ghalib can not be found in Iqbal’s poetry. One Pakistani poet said “Iqbal’s poetry conveys a profound message but is not profound.”Perhaps Iqbal was writing for the common man, and did not want to complicate the message. Iqbal was on a mission. Ghalib, like Wordsworth, and Tennyson and others were poets without missions.
IQBAL AS FOUNDER OF PAKISTAN
Awami National Party leader Wali Khan waved a document at a teachers’s function to prove that poet Mohammad Iqbal had not conceived the idea of Pakistan. The document was a letter from the late poet in which he said he had never provided any idea about the creation of Pakistan.
The same letter reveals that it was Sir Zafarullah Khan who originally mooted the idea of a separate homeland for the Muslims of the sub-continent.
Source: UNI, June 1, 1996
Iqbal was one of the greatest sons of the subcontinent. He was born in the social, and political backwaters of the subcontinent, Sialkot, and acheived greatness in spite of his humble beginings. He galvanized a subdued and defeated nation who were under the yoke of British colonialism. The Muslims of the subcontinent of had lost their Mughal empire to the British, and and lost the economic and educational battle against the Hindus. The Hindus had gained a status in India that was of greater importance. The Muslims were truly third class citizens of India. Iqbal attempted and succeeded in combining the Muslims of different creeds, castes, and nd linguistic groups into a concept of nationhood based on Islam. Pakistan was but the inevitable result of his efforts.
IHSAN IBN ASLAM says about Iqbal:
I promised recently that I’d deal separately with this subject. So here it is! Lovely, juicy myths. Contrary to a widely held belief, Allama Iqbal did NOT propose an independent Muslim State in 1930.That was the demand of Choudhary Rahmat Ali in 1933. I make my point by reference to original sources, including a vital letter of Iqbal dated 1934 in which he disowned and disassociated himself from the Pakistan scheme.-Ihsan
IQBAL’S 1930 ADDRESS:
1. INTRODUCTION
All people have a tendency to exaggerate and to create myths around their heroes and historical events. One such myth is that which surrounds Allama Iqbal’s address in 1930. In this address, Iqbal is widely quoted as proposing the creation of an independent Muslim State. Renowned historians such as Prof. S. Wolpert and Dr Ishtiaq H. Qureshi, as well as writers such as Rajmohan Gandhi and almost every Pakistani commenting on this address is of this view. However, this view is NOT based on fact and is not supported either by the full and original text or by other statements by Iqbal himself. The view is based on *misquotes* from the address and unsupported *interpretations*. Here I look at the original text of the address and provide other relevant sources, particularly a vital, but little-known (ignored?), letter of Iqbal dated 1934. Iqbal was a brilliant poet, but politics was not his strength.
2. IQBAL’S ALLAHABAD ADDRESS
a) OVERVIEW
The article concerns Iqbal’s presidential address at the annual session of the All-India Muslim League held at Allahabad on December 29, 1930. The text of the address stretches just over 19 pages and is
divided into the following sections:
Islam and Nationalism
Muslim India within India
Federal States
The Simon Report
Hindu Machinations
The Problem of Defence
The Alternative
The Conclusion
The famous (mis)quote is from the section “Muslim India within India”, which speaks for itself. Had people even made a cursory glance at this address they would have seen that Iqbal is talking throughout about Muslims *within* India, ie. a part of the country India.
b) IQBAL’S MUSLIM INDIA WITHIN INDIA: THE 1930 QUOTE
“…Personally I would go further than the demands embodied in it[resolution of All-Parties Muslim Conference at Delhi in 1928concerning Muslim India within India]. I would like to see thePunjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan*amalgamated* into a *single state*. Self-Government within theBritish Empire, or without the British Empire, and the formation ofa consolidated North-West Indian *Muslim state* appears to me to bethe final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India.The proposal was put forward before the Nehru Committee. Theyrejected it on the ground that, if, carried into effect, it wouldgive a very *unwieldy state*…Thus, possessing full opportunity ofdevelopment *within* the body-politic of India, the North-WestIndian Muslims will prove the best defenders of *India*…Nor shouldthe Hindus fear that the creation of *autonomous Muslim states*… I, therefore, demand the formation of a consolidated Muslim state inthe best interests of India and Islam…For India it meanssecurity and peace resulting from an *internal balance* of power…
c) COMMENTS BASED DIRECTLY UPON THE ADDRESS
The highlights in the quote above (*) have been added. Some points to bear in mind are the following:
(i) Though this was Iqbal’s presidential address to the Muslim League, he was not speaking *officially* for he prefixed his suggestion by “Personally I would…”. His personal proposal was not binding on the Muslim League, who never passed any resolution in support of it and did not adopt Iqbal’s idea as a policy.
(ii) The crucial misquote turns Iqbal’s “state” (small ‘s’) into “State” (capital ‘s’). Iqbal is using “state” as a synonym for “province” and not referring to State, as in an independent country. Note that he is speaking of “amalgamating” the four provinces for the “formation” of a larger “consolidated” “single state” within India.
(iii) In the proper context of the whole address the the “Self-Government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire” refers to India, of which Iqbal’s large Muslim province/state was an integral part of.
(iv) That he is talking of this province/state *within* India is quite obvious from the quote. Also, as noted above, this quote is headed “Muslim India within India”. Iqbal is speaking of Muslims “within the body-politic of India” and speaks of them defending India and the large Muslim province/state providing “internal balance of power”. It can only be “internal” if it was a part of India. The Nehru Committee rejecting this suggestion as an “unwieldy state”, obviously means a large, cumbersome province difficult to administer as a unit of India. A reading of the whole address bears this out. The section following this one is entitled “Federal States”, for example, which puts the proposal of the “redistribution of territory” for the formation large Muslim province/state into context: it’s a federal unit of India. In “Hindu Machinations” he mentions the Round Table Conference proposal for an “All-India Federation” for India.
3. IQBAL’S LETTER TO EDWARD THOMPSON
Crucial evidence clarifying Iqbal’s 1930 address came to light in 1979 with the publication of Iqbal’s letters to Edward Thompson of Oxford (Ahmad 1979). Almost all historians and writers have failed to refer to this vital source of information. Of the letters, one dated March 4, 1934 is the most important, since it deals directly with the issue. Without much ado, I’ll now let Iqbal speak for himself.
a) TEXT OF IQBAL’S LETTER OF 1934
—————————————————————-
Dr. Sir Mohd. Iqbal Kt. M. A., Ph.D.
Barrister-at-Law, Lahore
4th March 1934
My dear Mr. Thompson
I have just received your review of my book. It is excellent and I amgrateful to you for the very kind things you have said of me. But youhave made one mistake which I hasten to point out as I consider itrather serious. You call me [a] protagonist of the scheme called ‘Pakistan’. Now Pakistan is not my scheme. The one that I suggested in my address is the creation of a Muslims Province–i.e. aprovince having an overwhelming population of Muslims–in the North west of India. This province will be, according to my scheme,a part of the proposed Indian Federation. Pakistan scheme proposesa separate federation of Muslim Provinces directly related toEngland as a separate dominion. This scheme originated inCambridge. The authors of this scheme believe that we Muslim Round Tablers have sacrificed the Muslim nation on the altar of Hindu orso called Indian Nationalism
Yours sincerely,
Mohammad Iqbal
—————————————————————-
b) COMMENTS ON IQBAL’S LETTER OF 1934
(i) Note that he disassociates himself from the “serious” “mistake” of attributing the Pakistan idea to him.
(ii) This is the earliest evidence of Iqbal using the term “Pakistan”, which speaks of its wide and popular usage within a year of its invention (1933).
(iii) Iqbal clearly states that his 1930 proposal was to do with the “creation of a Muslim Province” as a “part of the proposed [Round Table Conference] Indian Federation“, i.e. not a separate Muslim State.
(iv) The Pakistan scheme “originated in Cambridge” and proposed a separate Muslim Federation of Muslim provinces. This proposal orginated in the Pakistan Declaration issued on January 28, 1933 from Cambridge and the movement launched by Choudhary Rahmat Ali (the only signatory of the Declaration from Cambridge). Iqbal must have read the Declaration. His last statement on the “Muslim Round Tablers“, of whom Iqbal was a *member*, comes from the Declaration, which condemned the Muslim members in no uncertain terms. Incidentally, Iqbal and Rahmat Ali met during Iqbal’s attendance of the Round Table Conferences in 1931 and 1932 (the Iqbal/Rahmat Ali relationship merits a separate post).
4. PAKISTAN DECLARATION (1933) ON IQBAL’S ADDRESS
In the letter above Iqbal comments on the 1933 Pakistan Declaration. Here is a relevant quote from the Declaration on Iqbal’s Address:
“This demand [for Pakistan, which included Kashmir] is basicallydifferent from the suggestion put forward by Doctor Sir MohammedIqbal in his Presidential address to the All-India Muslim League in1930. While he proposed the amalgamation of these Provinces into asingle state forming a unit of the All-India Federation, we proposethat these Provinces should have a separate Federation of theirown.” Self-explantory. 5. CONCLUSIONThere are other relevant sources which help understand Iqbal’s 1930 Address in the correct light (Ahmad 1942, Ali 1947, and see Aziz 1987 for detailed discussion). However, I think the above should be sufficient to dispel the myth that Iqbal proposed a separate Muslim State in his address. An explanation as to why the myth continues to be perpetrated lies party with the “founding party of Pakistan”, the All-India Muslim League, and partly with historians and other writers. Here is my interpretation, but first a list of important dates:
December 29, 1930: Iqbal’s Allahabad address
January 28, 1933: Rahmat Ali’s Pakistan Declaration
March 24, 1940: A-I Muslim League adopts Lahore Res.
August 14, 1947: Independence Day of Pakistan
After passing the Lahore (“Pakistan”) resolution in 1940, the League tried to find some sort of historical base for their decision after seven years of opposing Rahmat Ali’s Pakistan scheme.
Instead of acknowledging the 1933 Pakistan Declaration, which essentially remains unknown to this date, they jumped to Iqbal’s 1930 Allahabad address. Here, from their political perspective, they had two plus points: first, the address was by a renowned Muslim poet, who was later to be adopted officially as the “Poet of Pakistan”, and, second, the address was at the annual session of their party. As for their opposition to, and non-acknowledgement of, Rahmat Ali and his Movement, that is outside the scope of this article.The Allahabad myth is partly also due to poor scholarship, where reference is not made to original sources, and misquotes have led to misinterpretations or interpretations are made which are contrary to other relevant sources, including Iqbal’s own works. Iqbal did not “convert” to the idea of Pakistan until about 1937 when he wrote letters to the then President of the All-India Muslim League, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. It is said that about this time Iqbal expressed an interest to join Rahmat Ali’s Movement, but he died soon thereafter (Wasti 1982). In conclusion, then, Allama Iqbal did NOT propose an independent Muslim State in 1930. That is the stuff of the myth-makers.
REFERENCES
ALI, CHOUDHARY RAHMAT, 1933, “Now or Never: Are we to Live or Perish for Ever?”, Cambridge.
ALI, CHOUDHARY RAHMAT, 1947, “Pakistan: Fatherland of the Pak Nation”, Pakistan National Movement, Cambridge
AHMAD, KHAN A., 1942, “The Founder of Pakistan: From Trial to Triumph”, London. (The “Founder” referred to is Rahmat Ali.) AHMAD, S. HASAN, 1979, “Iqbal: His Political Ideas at the
Crossroads: A Commentary on Unpublished Letters to Professor Thompson”, Aligarh.
AZIZ, K.K., 1987, “A History of the Idea of Pakistan”, Vol.1, p.184-327, Vanguard, Lahore.
IQBAL, M., 1930, “Presidential Address”, _in_ RAIS AHMAD JAFRI (NADVI), (ed.), “Rare Documents”.
IQBAL, M., 1934, “Letter to E. Thompson dated March 4, 1934″ _in_Ahmad 1979, see above.
WASTI, S.M., 1982, “My Reminiscences of Choudhary Rahmat Ali”, Royal Book Co., Karachi, 175pp.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Cambridge University: The libraries of Emmanuel College, Centre of South Asian Studies, and the University. Shahid Karim
“The Muslims of India are suffering from two evils.The first is the want of personalities…By leadersI mean men who, by Divine gift or experience, possessa keen perception of the spirit and destiny of Islam,long with an equally keen perception of the trend of modern history. Such men are really the driving forces of a people, but they are God’s gift and cannot be made to order. The second evil from which the Muslims of India are suffering is that the ommunity is fast losing what is called the herd instinct.”
Source: Allama’s presidential address at the annual session of the All-India Muslim League held at Allahabad in 1930. Full text in “Rare Documents”.
POETRY OF IQBAL
From: abbas@seas.gwu.edu (Ali Abbas)
THE SlGNIFlCANCE OF ISLAMIC FREEDOM and SECRET OF THE KARBALA EVENT
Dr Mohammad Iqbal, the Poet of the East.
Whoever makes a covenant with the Omnipresent,
Is freed from the bondage of all (false) gods.
A believer’s existence is dependent on Love,
While Love, for its manifestation, is dependent on the believer,
What is impossible for mortals is rendered possible through Love.
Reason is ruthlessly sharp, but Love is sharper;
It is chaster, more shrewd, more daring.
Reason is lost in the maze of cause and effect;
Love is the champion in the field of action.
Love captures its prey through sheer strength;
While Reason captures through deceit by laying a snare.
Doubt and fear are the assets of Reason;
Self-Confidence and firmness of puryose are the integral
parts of Love.
Reason builds to destroy,
While Love destroys to re-create.
Reason has a little value like the air in this World,
Love is highly inestimable.
Reason is absorbed in questioss of how and how much;
Love in its purity transcends them.
Reason advises self-assertion,
While Love counsels self-examination.
Reason is indebted to other things for knowledge.
Love originates in grace (of God) and is contended with self
knowledge.
Reason says, Be happy and prosper,
While Love advises, Surrender thyself and be free.
Love finds both comfort and consolation in freedom,
Freedom is its source of guidance.
Have’nt you heard how summarily, on the occasion of the great conflict,
Love dealt with conceited Reason.
That Imam (Chief) of all lovers, the son of Fatima,
That cypress in the Prophet’s garden.
What a marvellous phenomenon ! (Husains) great
grand-father (Ishmael) set the first example of self sacrifice,
Whose meaning and significance became fully explicit
in him (Husain) the great grand-son.
For that Prince of ideal character (Husain),
The last Prophet offered his own shoulder as a substitute for
a camel’s back.
Love’s majestic visage glowing with pride because of
the blood of the martyred Husain,
The colourfulness of this line is due to the theme of martyrdom.
Husain’s unique position in the muslim community,
Is like the honoured place Occupied by the verse (Qul ho-Allah)
in the Quran.
Moses and Pharoah, Husain and Yazeed,
They are, but the conflicting forces of life.
Truth survives and triumphs because of Husain.
Falsehood is destined to meet with failure and grief.
At the moment when the leadership of the faithful broke the link with
the Quran,
Human freedom was poisoned in the blood.
There arose a man, the best of the best among nations,
Like a rain-laden eastern cloud, bringing water to a parched,
rocky soil.
This cloud rained for a moment on Karbala,
Causing the desert to bloom and passed on.
He (Husain) exterminated tyranny for ever,
From his martyred blood, there rose a new garden (of human values)
in the wilderness.
Writhing in dust and blood for defending truth,
He became the corner stone of “La Ilah”
Had Power been his objective,
He would have not set forth so ill-equipped.
His enemies were in multitude just like the sands of the desert,
While the number of his companions was equal to the numerical
value of the word Yezdan (72).
In him (Husain), the mystery of Abraham and Ishmael unfolds and expounds
itself.
He is the illustration of their faith.
His will was firm as a rock;
Swift and triumphant (like a river).
The sword was for him a weapon meant solely for the defence of the faith;
And the protection of the Divine Law.
The muslim owes allegiance to none but Allah.
His head never bows before a tyrant.
This was the secret that Husain unveiled with his blood.
And roused his people from slumber.
When he (Husain) unsheathed the sword of denial of false gods;
He caused the blood to flow from the veins of their supporters.
He inscribed the words Illallah on the desert sands of Karbala,
Thus, he imprinted the first line of the charter of our salvation.
It is from Husain that we have learnt the hidden meaning of the
Holy word (Quran).
The flames of burning faith we borrowed from his fire.
The splendour that was once Syria and Baghdad;
And the glory of Granada are all now a forgotten tale.
At the touch of Husain’s plectrum the strings of our being still vibrate;
His cry of Allah o Akbar still keeps our Faith alive.
O Wind! Thou messenger of far-flung people !
Present our tears to the sacred dust that covers Husain’s remains.
Shikwa-Jawab Shikwa Complaint and Answer Translated by:A.J. Arberry
This is what Khalid Muhammed Shahzad says about the poet of the East
The ‘Shikwa‘ and the ‘Jawab-i-Shikwa’, are among the most popular of Iqbal’s poems; they are deservedly celebrated, for they are among the first to bring their author fame as an advocate of Islamic reform and rebirth. The date of their compsition can be fixed very accurately by a reference to contemporary events contained in the second of them; when Iqbal wrote -
‘Now the onslaught of the Bulgars sounds the trumpet of alarm’ he was commemorating the invasion of Turkey by Bulgaria in the late autumn of 1912, an attack which threatened at one time to penetrate as far as Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Empire and the last home of the Caliphate.
These poems were therefore composed four years after Iqbal’s return from Europe. They mark the beginning of that remarkable career as philosopher and poet which brought Iqbal ever-increasing renown, until he was recognized as the leading thinker of ISLAM in India and the greatest figure in Urdu literature. It is all the more interesting to find him adumbrating in these early pieces that theory of Selfhood (Khudi) and Selflessness (Bekhudi) which later played such an important part in his religious and political philosophy.
The central theme of both poems is the decay of Islam from its former greatness, and the measures to be adopted if it was to re-establish its authority and regain its vitality. The subject was, of course, not a new one; ever since the decline and final extinction of the Moghul Empire, Muslims in India had been searching their minds and their consciences for the explanation of so lamentable a disaster. Nor were Indian Muslims alone in deploring the seeming collapse of Islamic civilization; their co-religionists further West, from Persia to Morocco, had been occupied with the same self-examination. But in these two poems Iqbal stated the problem in singularly arresting directness; the literary form chosen for its exposition, a dialogue between the poet, as a spokesman for Muslims the world over, and God – this dramatic presentation of the common dilemma made an immediate and compelling appeal to Iqbal’s public, an appeal moreover which has lost nothing of its force in the intervening years.
To make a worthy translation of these poems into English is certainly no easy task. To begin wuth, the translator ( A.J. Arberry) has to confess to a very inadequate knowledge of Urdu, the language used by Iqbal on this occasion. Left to his own devices, he would been obliged to abandon the attempt; but the publisher, Sh. M. Ashraf, procured for him a literal rendering of the originals into English prose, ably executed by Mazheruddin Siddiqi, to whom the grateful and cordial thanks of the writer are hereby expressed. But that is by no means the end of the matter; Iqbal naturally illustrated his discourse with metaphors and references familiar enough to those accustomed to read Urdu poetry, but in many instances utterly strange, indeed outlandish, to an English audience. Rather than impose on the poet transformations, of which he would certainly and justly have disapproved, the translator has preferred to reproduce his model as closely and as faithfully as he could, appending notes to his version to light up the dark passages wherever they are found.
Kiyu* ziya’ kar banu* sood framosh rahu* ?
(Why must I forever suffer loss, oblivious to gain ?)
Fikr-e-farda na karu* mehv-e-gham-edosh rahu*?
(Why think not upon the morrow, drowned in grief for yesterday ?)
Naale bubul ke sunu* aur hama tan gosh rahu*
(Why must I attentive heed the nightingale’s lament of pain ?)
Ham navaa! mai* bhi koi gul hoo* ke khamosh rahu* ?
(Fellow-bard! am I rose, dondemned to silence all the way?)
Jur’at aamoze miri taab-e-sukhan mujh ko
No; the burning power of song bids me be bold and not to faint;
Shikwa Allah(s.w.t.) se “khakam badahan” hai muhj ko Dust be in my mouth, but God – He is the theme of my complaint.
—————————————————————
The gallant Arab warriors were ready with their swords
The land of Syria was awaiting for them as a bride waits for
henna to be put on her
And also if Iqbal was not an Arab why he wrote a poem “Taariq ke Duaa”.
“The prayer of Taariq bin Ziyaad in the battlefield in Spain”. One verse
in that poem reads
KhayabaN mein hey muntazir lala kub sey
Qubaa chaheay iss ko khoon e arab se
The lala (a kind of flower) has been waiting for long in the garden
It needs its color from the blood of the Arabs
“Khitaab ba jawaanaan e Islam” in which he says to the young Muslim.
You have been reared by a nation
that crushed the crown of Darius under its feet
O what should I tell you of those desert dwellers
They were a people that overcame the whole world
They understood the world
They beautified the world
They took care of the wrold
They were the founders of the greatest civilization
They showed the world how to govern
And they were simply a people from the deserts of Arabia
i.e. the home of the camel herders
How dare Iqbal also says in one of his poems
I would let the hindu in India open his mouth
Only if he is not going to say anything derogatory about Arab leaders
Hasn’t our nation been taught the rule
To get close to Mohammad you have to get away from Abu Lahab
The world of Arabs is not founded on geographic boundaries
The world of Arabs is simply founded on belief in Mohammad
It is getting outrageous on part of Iqbal. Iqbal also said
If the Jews have a right over Palestine
Why don’t then the Arabs have a right over Spain
Iqbal said in one of his poems
I am descended from a pure Somnathi family.
My ancestors were true lovers and worshippers of Laat and Manaat
Note: Somnath was a big hindu temple about 1000 years ago.
Laat and manaat are names of two idols (gods) which have been
worshipped in some form or the other by all pagan people and
were the major attaraction in the Kaaba before Islam.
Here he talks about his Hindu lineage and that also from a pure Brahmin family.
So even though Iqbal’s ancestors had been stalwarts of Hinduism until a couple
hundred years ago the light of Islam had pentrated their hearts now. And there
is no turning back from the straight path once it has been found.
That is not all Iqbal also uses Khushaal Khan Khattak in a similar poem as “The advice of a Wise Baloch” to convey the message of self-respect and developing self-confidence in one’s self. The poem is titled “The advice of Khushaal Khan Khattak”. Also Iqbal has a whole set of twenty poems and ghazals under a section titled “Mehraab Gul Afghaan ke Afkaar”. Meaning “The thoughts of Mehraab Gul Afghaan”. I don’t know who Mehraab Gul was. But Iqbal uses his thoughts to teach something positive to everybody.So should we ask if Iqbal was a pure Pashtoon. If he was not then he cannot use the positive qualities of Pushtoons and teach them to others who lack them.In the world of people who are wrapped up in a shell of fake and hollow pride one human being cannot learn from another human being. In their world there are unpassable barriers to cultural interaction and social inter-course. But their fake world will not be able to withstand the onslaught of the true spirit of human civilization. If we would not be so blind to read our own histories of how our cultures have been formed. Culture is not something static. It is the most dynamic phenomenon known to man. If you come in the way of cultural intermingling you will only destroy yourself.Going back to Iqbal. Iqbal talked about ants, flowers, women, Turks, Arabs, Indians, Europeans, cows, goats, sqirrels, camels, mountains, rivers, Lenin, Mussolini and thousands of other things. And so has every other poet befor him and after him done the same, talk about things.I could talk about all the poets that have existed and because of their spirit of love and their preacing of cultural interaction their names (and message) will last till the end of the world. I could talk about Sachal Sarmast, Amir Khusro, Shah AbdulLatif Bhitai, Amir Karore, Bhulley Shah, Waaris Shah, Bahadur Shah. The message of all these people is the same. They use different words and different styles but they teach us the same message. That message is the brotherhood of mankind.I would use the words of Iqbal himself to conclude
BayaaN meiN nuktae tawheed to aa sakta hey
terey dimagh meiN butkhaana ho to kiya keheay
Yes! I can explain the idea of oneness of God to you
But if you have a whole temple full of idols in your head
what good it would do for me to explain allthat tawheed to you
This is what Nadeem Jamali says
Jang-e-yarmook… the poem is specifically about a certain warTariq bin Ziad… this is about what a particular person saidKhitab ba jawanaan….. here Iqbal is addressing MuslimsHindu…. Iqbal is expressing his feelingsPalestine… again Iqbal’s own feelingsIn the poem about the “Wise Baloch”, Iqbal is pretending to know how a wise Baloch thinks. He is not writing about one particular person… he’s trying to make a statement about the Baloch way of thinking in general. Unless he has based the poem on something, it is logical to raise the question. And mind you, I only asked if anyone knows the background.
This is what Khurram has contributed on Iqbal:
Majnun nay shehar chora tu sehra bhi chor dayNazaray ki havas ho to Laila bhi chor dayWa’iz kamal-i-tarak say milti hai ya’n muradDunya jo chor dee hai to Uqba bhi chor day
TRANSLATION:Majnun left the cities for the wilderness of the deserts, but you (O dervish) also renounce the latterIf you deire for ‘Mushahidas’ also give up your LailaO Preacher! Renunciation leads one to the goal on this path. Now that you have given up dunya also renounce the Hereafter
The essence of these verses is:
When a passionate desire (for his Lord) surges in the heart of a man
Then this wingless person gives birth to a Ruh-ul Amin within him
There’s a punjabi quadruplet on the same topic:
Zahid zuhd kamanday thakay rozay nafal namazaan HuAashiq gharq huay vich Wahdat fillah nal Muhabat razaan HuMakhi qaid shehad vich phati ki ur’si naal Shebazaan HuJinhan majlis naal Nabi Sarwar day Bahu O sahib raaz niazan HuThe ascetic died of rigorous prayers and attained paradise The Lover, in love for Allah, drowned in the ocean of Oneness and attained his LordA bee so caught in honey’s snares, how can it accompany the hawkBahu, those who attend the Holy Majlis of the Last messenger, they are the possessors of Divine knowledge
This is what Altaf Bhimji contibutes on Iqbal:
Excerpts from the Mysteries of Selflessness
A Philosophical Poem by Muhammad Iqbal
Translated, with Introduction and Notes by
Professor A.J.Arberry (First Edition 1953 –out of print)
Muhammad Iqbal (1876-1938) was not only the leading Urdu poet of his generation, but is considered by many as the spiritual founder of Pakistan. His writings were certainly most influential in preparing the way for the independence of Pakistan. As a philosopher and a thinker he is one of the greatest figures in modern Islam. In the Mysteries of Selflessness Iqbal puts forward his views on the relationship between the Individual and the State, of course from the Muslim standpoint, using the language and rich imagery of Persian poetry.
Dedication to the Muslim Community
You, who were made by God to be the Seal (i)Of all the peoples dwelling upon earthThat all beginnings might in you find end;Whose saints were prophetlike, whose wounded heartsWove into unity the soul of men;Why are you fallen now so far astrayFrom Mecca’s holy Kabba, all bemusedBy the strange beauty of the Christian’s way?The very skies are but a gatheringOf your street’s dust, yourselves the cynosureOf all men’s eyes; whither in restless hasteDo you now hurry like a storm-tossed wave,What new diversion seeking? No, but learn The mystery of ardor from the mothAnd make your lodgment in the burning flame;Lay Love’s foundation-stone in your own soul, And to the Prophet pledge anew your troth.My mind was weary of Christian company,When suddenly your beauty stood unveiled,My fellow-minstrel sang the epiphany (ii)Of alien loveliness, the lovelorn themeOf tresses and soft cheeks, and rubbed his browAgainst the saki’s door, rehearsed the chantOf Magian wenches. I would martyr beTo your brow’s scimitar, am fain to restLike dust upon your street. Too proud am ITo mouth base panegyrics, or to bowMy stubborn head to every tyrant’s courtTrained up to fashion mirrors out of words, I need not Alexander’s magic glass (iii)My neck endures not men’s munificence; Where roses bloom, I gather close the skirt Of my soul’s bud. Hard as the dagger’s steelI labor in life, my luster winFrom the tough granite. Though I am a sea,Not restless is my billow; in my handI hold no whirlpool bowl. A painted veilAm I, no blossom’s perfume-scattering, No prey to every billowing breeze that blows.I am a glowing coal within Life’s fire.And wrap me in my embers for a cloak.An now my soul comes suppliant to your doorBringing a gift of ardor passionate.A mighty water out of heaven’s deepMomently trickles o’er my burning breast,The which I channel narrower than a brookThat I may fling it in your garden’s dish.Because you are beloved by him I loveI fold you to me closely as my heart.Since Love first made the breast an instrumentOf fierce lamenting, by its flame my heartWas molten to a mirror; like a roseI pluck my breast apart, that I may hangThis mirror in your sight. Gaze you thereinOn your own beauty, and you shall becomeA captive fettered in your tresses’ chain.I chant again the tale of long ago,To be your bosom’s old wounds bleed anew. So for a people no more intimateWith its own soul I supplicated God,That He might grant to them a firm-knit life.In the mid watch of night, when all the worldWas hushed in slumber, I made loud lament;My spirit robbed of patience and repose,Unto the Living and Omnipotent GodI made my litany; my yearning heartSurged, till its blood streamed from my weeping eyes“How long, O Lord, how long the tulip-glow,The begging of cool dewdrops from the dawn?Lo, like a candle wrestling with the nightO’er my own self I pour my flooding tears.”I spend my self, that there might be more light,More loveliness, more joy for other men.Not for one moment takes my ardent breastRepose from burning; Friday does not shame (iv)My restless week of unremitting toil.Wasted is now my spirit’s envelope;My glowing sigh is sullied all with dust.When God created me at Time’s first dawnA lamentation quivered on the stringsOf my melodious lute, and in that noteLove’s secrets stood revealed, the ransom-priceOf the long sadness of the tale of Love;Which music even to sapless straw impartsThe ardency of fire, and on dull clayBestows the daring of the reckless moth.Love, like the tulip, has one brand at heart, And on its bosom wears a single rose;And so my solitary rose I pinUpon your turban, and cry havoc loudAgainst your drunken slumber, hoping yetTulips may blossom from your earth anewBreathing the fragrance of the breeze of Spring.
Notes:
(i) Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) being commonly called the Seal of the Prophets because in him God concluded His series of revelations to manking. Iqbal borrows the term and refers to the
Islamic community as the Seal of the Peoples.
(ii) The reference is to the continuing fashion among Urdu poets to imitate the conventional love-lyrics of Persia in which the images mentioned are very common.
(iii) Alexander the Great is said in Persian legend to have possessed a magic mirror in which he saw the whole world at a glance.
(iv) Friday being the day for Muslim congregational prayer.
ADDITION TO IQBAL
“Jang-e-yarmook ka aik waaqiah”.
The first verse of that poem can be translated as:
The gallant Arab warriors were ready with their swords
The land of Syria was awaiting for them as a bride waits for henna to be put on her
“The prayer of Taariq bin Ziyaad in the battlefield in Spain”. One verse in that poem reads
KhayabaN mein hey muntazir lala kub sey
Qubaa chaheay iss ko khoon e arab se
The lala (a kind of flower) has been waiting for long in the garden
It needs its color from the blood of the Arabs
“Khitaab ba jawaanaan e Islam” in which he says to the young Muslim.
You have been reared by a nation that crushed the crown of Darius under its feet
O what should I tell you of those desert dwellers
They were a people that overcame the whole world
They understood the world
They beautified the world
They took care of the wrold
They were the founders of the greatest civilization
They showed the world how to govern
And they were simply a people from the deserts of Arabia i.e. the home of the camel herders
Iqbal also says in one of his poems
I would let the hindu in India open his mouth
Only if he is not going to say anything derogatory about Arab leaders
Hasn’t our nation been taught the rule
To get close to Mohammad you have to get away from Abu Lahab
The world of Arabs is not founded on geographic boundaries
The world of Arabs is simply founded on belief in Mohammad
Iqbal. Iqbal also said
If the Jews have a right over Palestine
Why don’t then the Arabs have a right over Spain
The people who ask such questions about who was who should first come out of their shell of fake ethnic pride and unfouded sense of superiortity.
Iqbal was a poet and a sensitive human being. You donot have to be a flower to talk about a flower. You donot have to be an ant to talk about an ant.
You donot have to be a horse to talk about a horse. You do not have to be god to talk about god.
A poet uses everyday things to convey his message to us. That is why Iqbal used the “Wise Baloch” to teach us the wise stuff.
Going back to Iqbal being an Arab for a moment. Iqbal said in one of his
poems
I am descended from a pure Somnathi family
My ancestors were true lovers and worshippers of Laat and Manaat
note: Somnath was a big hindu temple about 1000 years ago.
Laat and manaat are names of two idols (gods) which have been
worshipped in some form or the other by all pagan people and
were the major attaraction in the Kaaba before Islam.
Here he talks about his Hindu lineage and that also from a pure Brahmin family. So even though Iqbal’s ancestors had been stalwarts of Hinduism until a couple hundred years ago the light of Islam had pentrated their hearts now. And there is no turning back from the straight path once it has been found.
That is not all Iqbal also uses Khushaal Khan Khattak in a similar poem as “The advice of a Wise Baloch” to convey the message of self-respect and developing self-confidence in one’s self. The poem is titled “The advice of Khushaal Khan Khattak”. Also Iqbal has a whole set of twenty poems and ghazals under a section titled “Mehraab Gul Afghaan ke Afkaar”. Meaning “The thoughts of Mehraab Gul Afghaan”. I don’t know who Mehraab Gul was. But Iqbal uses his thoughts to teach something positive to everybody.
So should we ask if Iqbal was a pure Pashtoon. If he was not then he cannot use the positive qualities of Pushtoons and teach them to others who lack them.
TAWHID
I would use the words of Iqbal himself to conclude
BayaaN meiN nuktae tawheed to aa sakta hey
terey dimagh meiN butkhaana ho to kiya keheay
Yes! I can explain the idea of oneness of God to you
But if you have a whole temple full of idols in your head
what good it would do for me to explain all that tawheed to you
Excerpts from the Mysteries of Selflessness By Muhammad Iqbal
Translated by A. J. Arberry.
The story of Bu Ubaid and Jaban, in Illustration of Muslim Brotherhood
A certain general of King Yazdajird
(i) Became a Muslim’s captive in the wars;A Guebre he was, inured to every trickOf fortune, crafty, cunning, full of guile.He kept his captor ignorant of his rankNor told him who he was, or what his name,But said, ” I beg that you will spare my lifeAnd grant to me the quarter of Muslims gain.”The Muslim sheathed his sword. “To shed thy blood”,He cried, “were impious and forbidden sin.”When Kaveh’s banner had been rent to shreds,
(ii)The fire of Sasan’s sons turned all to dust
(iii)It was disclosed the captive Jaban was,Supreme commander of the Persian host.Then was his fraud reported, and his bloodPetitioned of the Arab general;Bu Ubaid, famed leader of the ranksFrom far Hejaz, who needed not the aidOf armies to assist his bold resolveIn battletide, thus answered their request.“Friends, we are Muslims, strings upon one luteAnd of one concord. Ali’s voice attunes With Abu Dharr’s, although the throat be that of Qanbar or Bilal. Each one of us
(iv)Is trustee to the whole CommunityAnd one with it, in malice or in truce.As the Community is the sure baseOn which the individual rests secure,So is its covenant his sacred bond.Though Jaban was a foeman to Islam,A Muslim granted him immunity;His blood, O followers of the best of men,May not be spilled by any Muslim sword.”____
i) Yazdajird was the last Sassanian king of Persia
ii)Kaveh, a smith of Isphan, raised the standard of revolt against the usurping tyrant Zahhak and established Feridun on the throne of Persia.iii)Sasan was the eponymous founder of the Sassanian dynasty,overthrown at the Arab conquest of Persia.iv)Qanbar, formerly a slave, was manumitted by caliph Ali. Bilal, formerlyan Abyssinan slave, was taken by the Prophet at the muezzin.
Excerpts from the Mysteries of Selflessness By Muhammad Iqbal Translated by A. J. Arberry.
The story of Sultan Murad and the Architect, in Illustration of Muslim Equality
An architect there was, that in Khojand Was born, a famous craftsman of his kindWorthy to be an offspring of Farhad.Sultan Murad commanded him to buildA mosque, that which pleased not his majesty,So that he waxed right furious at his faults.The baleful fire flared in the ruler’s eyes;Drawing his dagger, he cut off the handOf that poor wretch, so that the spurting bloodGushed from his forearm. In such hapless plightHe came before the cadi, and retoldThe tyrant’s felony, that had destroyedThe cunning hand which shaped the granite rock.‘O thou whose words a message are of Truth”He cried, “whose toil it is to keep aliveMuhammad’s Law, I am no ear-bored slavePatient to wear the ring of monarchs’ might.Determine my appeal by the Quran!”The upright cadi bit his lips in ireAnd summoned to his court the unjust kingWho, hearing the Quran invoked, turned paleWith awe, and came like any criminalBefore the judge, his eyes cast down in shame,His cheeks as crimson as the tulip’s glow.On one side stood the appellant, and on oneThe high exalted emperor, who spoke.“I am ashamed of this that I have wroughtAnd make confession of my grievous crime.”“In retribution”, quoth the judge, “is life,And by the law life finds stability.The Muslim slave no less is than free menNor is the emperor’s blood of richer hueThan the poor builder’s.” Listening to these words Of Holy Writ, Murad shook off his sleeveAnd bared his hand. The plaintiff thereuponNo longer could keep silence. “God commandsJustice and kindliness,” recited he.“For God’s sake, and Muhammad’s,” he declared,“I do forgive him.” Note the majestyOf the Apostle’s Law, and how an antTriumphantly outfought a Solomon!Before the tribunal of the QuranMaster and slave are one, the mat of reedsCoequal with the throne of rich brocade.QUAID
>*16 November: Choudhary Rahmat Ali Day*
Munir M. Pervaiz contributions on Iqbal’s humor:
Shaikh sahib bhi to pardey kay ko’i haami naheeN
Muft meiN college kay larkey unn say bad zan ho gaey
Wa’az meiN farma diya kal aap nay yeh saaf saaf“
Parda aakhir kiss say ho jab mard hi zan ho gaey”
*******Woh miss boli iraada khood kushi ka jab kiya meiN nay
Mohazzab hay to ay aashiq, qadam bahar na dhhar had say
Na jur’at hay na khanjar hay,to qasd e khood kuushi kaisa
Yeh maana dard e naa kaami gaya tera guzar had say
Kaha meiN kay” ay jan e jahaaN kuchh naqd dilwa do
Kiraaey par manga loonga ko’i afghaan sarhad say”
****************Takraar thhi mazaar’e o maalik meiN aik rauz
Dono yeh keh rahey thhey mera maal hay zameeN
Kehta thha woh, karey jo zaraa’at ussi ka khait
Kehta thha yeh, kay aql thikaaney teri naheeN
Pochha zameeN say meiN kay , hay kiss ka maal too
Boli mujhhey to hay faqat iss baat ka yaqeeN
Maalik hay ya mazaar’a e shoreeda haal hayJ
o zeir e aasmaaN hay woh dharti ka maal hay —-Ta abad aadmi ko dunya meiN
Zindigi ka khiraaj deina hayTifl e nau za’ida ko kal say mujhhey
Zehr e rasm o riwaaj deina hay
Another poem from Allama Iqbal’s Baal e jibra’eel for lovers of great Urdu poetry:
PANJAB KAY PEER ZAADON SAY
Hazir hua meiN sheikh e mujaddid ki lehd par
Woh khaak kay hay zeir e falak matla e anwaar
Iss khaak kay zarroN say heiN sharminda sitaarey
Iss khaak meiN posheeda hay woh sahib e israr
Gardan na jhukee jiss ki jahaangir kay aagey
Jiss kay nafas e garm say hay garmi e ahraar
Woh hind meiN sarmaya e millat ka nigehbaaN
Allah nay bar waqt kiya jiss ko khabardaar
Ki arz yeh meiN nay kay ata faqr ho mujhh ko
AankheiN meri beena heiN wa lekin naheeN baidaar
Aaee yeh sada silsila e faqr hua bandHei
N ahl e nazar kishwar e punjaab say baizaar
Aarif ka thikaana naheeN woh khitta kay jiss meiN
Paida kulah e faqr say ho turra e dastaar
Baqi kulah e faqr say thha walwala e haq
TurroN nay charhaya nasha e khidmat e sarkaar
Merey jism o rooh to kab kay, dhoop meiN jal kar raakh huey
Tuum jinn say miltey rehtey ho, woh to merey saaey heiN
PUNJABI MUSSALMAN
Mazhab meiN bohat taaza pasand iss ki tabi’atKar lay kahiN manzil to guzarta hay bohat jaldTahqeeq ki baazi ho to shirkat nahiN kartaHo khail mureedi ka to harta hay bohat jald !Taaweel ka phanda koi sayyad lagaa dayYeh shaakh e nasheman say utarta hay bohat jald !
GADAAI
Maikaday meiN aik din ik rind e zeerak nay kahaHay hamaaray shehr ka waali gadaa e bay hayaTaaj pehnaya hay kiss ki bay kulaahi nay ussayKiss ki uryaani nay bakhshi hay ussay zarreeN qabaUss kay aab e laala gooN ki khoon e dehqaaN say kasheedTerey merey khait ki matti hay uss ki keemyaUss aky nemat khaaney ki har cheez hay maangi hoeeDeney waala kaun hay ? mard e ghareeb o bay nawaMaangnay waala gada hay sadqa maangey ya khiraajKoi maaney yaa na maaney meer o sultaN sab gada
The following is a reproduction in toto of a letter written by Iqbal to the editor of the London Times, dated October 15, 1931. //
NORTH-WEST INDIA- MOSLEM PROVINCES
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES
Sir,-Writing in your issue of October 3 last, Dr. E. Thompson has torn the following passage from its context in my presidential address to the All-India Moslem League of last December, in order to serve as evidence of “Pan-Islamic plotting”:- /
I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind, and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Moslem State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Moslems, at least of North-West India./
May I tell Dr. Thompson that in this passage I do not put forward a “demand” for a Moslem State outside the British Empire, but only a guess at the possible outcome in the dim future of the mighty forces now shaping the destiny of the Indian sub-continent. No Indian Moslem with any pretence to sanity contemplates a Moslem State or series of States in North-West India outside the British Commonwealth of Nations as a plan of practical politics.
Although I would oppose the creation of another cockpit ofcommunal strife in the Central Punjab, as suggested by some enthusiasts, Iam all for a redistribution of India into provinces with effective majorities of one community or another on lines advocated by the Nehru and the Simon reports. Indeed, my suggestion regarding Moslem provinces merelycarries forward this idea. A series of contented and well-organized Moslem provinces on the North-West Frontier of India would be the bulwark of India and the British Empire against the hungry generations of the Asiatic highlands.
Yours faithfully,
MUHAMMED IQBAL.
St. James’s court, S.W.1, Oct. 10.//
The delegation is led by Khalid Jaffar, Press Assistant to the Malaysian Deputy Prime MinisterAnwar Ibrahim,Raja Rajaratnam,N.V.Raman and Anwar Tahir who are all members of theResearch Institute. Briefing the newsmen on Saturday, Rajaratnam said the Conference will be the second of the seriesdesigned to highlight the accomplishments of the Asian scholars and intellectuals. He said the title of the upcoming conference is ‘Muhammad Iqbal and the Asian Renaissance.’ Rajaratnam said experts drawn from various countries will read papers on Iqbal and hisworks.Some of the topics are Iqbal:Worldview,Metaphysics and Mysticism,Iqbal onReform,Justice,Polity & Ethnic Relations, Iqbal and the Muslim World,Iqbal:East,West and the Renaissance.
Malaysia organising conference on Iqbal LAHORE (APP) — The Institute for Policy Research, Malaysia,is organising an internationalconference on poet philosopher Allama Muhammad Iqbal at Selangor from June 3 to 5. The three-day conference will highlight the works and achievements of the poet of the East . A four-member delegation of the Institute for Policy Research is currently visiting Pakistan to seekthe Government’s help in procuring various works of Iqbal for display during the conference.
He said the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been invited to deliver keynote address on the openingday of the conference. The Malaysian scholar disclosed that an exhibition will also be organised on the occasion, displayingAllama Iqbal’s publications, books, manuscripts and photographs. Rajaratnam said Iqbal was a well known figure in his country especially among the Muslims and theconference has been designed to project him as an Asian thinker in the East Asia. ‘ The occasion will provide an excellent opportunity for scholars from other countries to exchange
Guftaar-e-syasat main watan aur hi kuch hai
Irshaad-e-Naboo’at (PBUH) main watan aur hi kuch hai
(Meanings: Guftaar-e-syasat = inpolitical terms; Irshad-e-Naboo’at (PBUH) = Sayings of Muhammad (PBUH))
*. Apney parwanon ko phir zoq-e-khud afrozi dey
Barq-e-daireena ko farman-e-jigar sozi dey
(Praying to God) (Meanings: Parwanon = Believers; zoq-e-khud afrozi = sense of self respect; Barq-e-daireena = Strength of old times; farman-e-jigar sozi = Faith)
*. Aankh ko baydaar ker dey wada-e-deedar say
Zinda ker dey dil ko soz-e-johar-e-guftaar say
(Praying to God) (Meanings: Aankh = vision; baydaar = conscious; wada-e-deedar = Promise of keeping true Faith; soz-e-johar-e-guftar = Faith)
*. Shab guraizan ho gi aakhir jalwa-e-khursheed say
Ye chaman mamoor ho ga naghma-e-Tauheed say
(Meanings: Shab guraizan ho gi aakhir jalwa-e-khursheed say = Sunshine will dominate the darkness of night eventually; chaman = referring to Islam; mamoor = blessed; naghma-e-tauheed = Islam)
*. Dilon ko markez-e-mehr-o-wafa ker
Hareem-e-Kibriya say aashna ker
Jissey nan-e-jaween bakhshi hai Tu nay
Ussey bazo-e-Haider bhi ata ker
(praying to God) (Meanings: Dilon = Hearts/insights/thoughts; markaz-e-mehr-o-wafa = Center of love and loyalty; Hareem-e-Kibriya = God; aashna = Familiar; Nan-e-jaween = determination; Bazu-e-Haider = Strength and faith of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him))
*. Zameer-e-lala main roshan chiragh-e-aarzu ker dey
Chamman kay zarrey zarrey ko shaheed-e-justaju ker dey
(Praying to God) (Meanings: Zameer-e-lala = Insight of Muslims; roshan = enlighten; chiragh-e-aazru = Lamp of hopes; zarrey = each part; shaheed-e-justaju = strive to be stronger)
*. Bazu tera Tauheed ki quat say qawi hai
Islam tera des hai, tu Mustafawi hai
Nizara-e-daireena zamaney ko dikha dey
Aey Mustafawi! khaak main iss bu’t ko mila dey
(Meanings: Qawi = strong; des = country; Mustafawi = Referring to Muslims here; Nizara-e-daireena = Old times when Muslims used to be the most united and strong power)
*. Phir dilon ko yaad aa jayey ga paigham-e-sajood
Phir jabeen khaak-e-Haram say aashna ho jayey gi
Aankh jo kuch dekhti hai, lab pay aa sakta nahin
Mehw-e-hairat hon kay duniya kya say kya ho jayey gi
(Meanings: paigham-e-sajood = Message of Muhammad (PBUH); jabeen = foreheads; khak-e-Haram = referring to worship of Allah; lab = lips; mehw-e-hairat = amazed)
CONCEPT OF KHUDI
Nigah-e-faqr main shaan-e-sikandari kya hai?
Khiraaj ki jo gada ho, wo qaiseri kya hai?
Falaq nay ki hai ata un ko khaajgi kay jinhain
Khabar nahin rawish-e-banda parwari kya hai?
Kissey nahin hai tamanna-e-sarwari lekin
Khudi ki mout ho jis main, wo sarwari kya hai?
Buton say tujh ko umeedain, Khuda say no meedi
Mujhey bata tou sahi aur kaafri kya hai?
(Meanings: Nigah-e-Faqr main shan-e-sikandari kya hai = What is the worth of kingdom in eyes of a saint?; Khiraj ki jo gada ho, wo qeseri kya hai = Such a rule in which ruler is always worried about keeping it secure, is worthless; Falaq = Nature; Khaajgi = Ruling class; Khabar nahin = Ignored; rawish-e-banda parwari = Sense of serving humanity; tamanna-e-sarwari = Desires to rule; Khudi ki mout ho jis main wo sarwari kya hai = Such rule is insulting to gain which, self respect is required to be sacrificed; Buton = Idols (referring to fellow human beings here); umeedain = Expectations; no meedi = Disappointment; Kaafri = Non Muslim who donot believe in Oneness of God)
*. Aey Tair-e-Lahooti, uss rizq say mout achi
Jis rizq say aati ho, parwaz main kotahi
Aain-e-jawanmardi, haq goi-o-bay baaqi
Allah kay sheron ko, aati nahin rubaahi
(Meanings: Tair-e-Lahooti = Simile, addressing to Muslim youth; Rizq = food/income; Kotahi = Laziness, denotatively and connotatively referring to slavery here; Aain-e-Jawanmardi = Conditions to live with dignity; Haq goi = Honesty; Bay Baaqi = Bravery; Rubaahi = cunningness, hypocrisy)
*. Hai Fikr mujhey misra-e-saani ki zyada
Allah karey tujh ko ata Fuqr ki talwaar
Jo haath main ye talwaar bhi aa jayey tou Momin
Ya Khalid-e-Janbaaz hai, Ya Haider-e-Karrar
(Meanings: misra-e-saani = proceeding verse; Fuqr ki talwar = Strong Faith; Khalid-e-Janbaaz = Khalid Bin Waleed (May Allah be pleased with him); Haider-e-Karrar= Ali Ibn-e-Abu Talib (May Allah be pleased with him))
*. Wo kal kay gham-o-aish per kuch Haq nahin rakhta
Jo aaj khud afroz-o-jigar soz nahin hai
Wo qaum nahin laiq-e-hangama-e-farda
Jis qaum ki taqdeer main imroz nahin hai
(Meanings: gham-o-aish = thick n’ thin; khud afroz-o-jigar soz = A person with motivation and determination; Laiq-e-hangama-e-farda = worthy to survive anymore; imroz = Present)
*. Paani paani ho gaya sun ker Qalander ki ye baat
Tu jhuka jab ghair key aagey, na tann tera na mann
Apney mann main dub kay pa ja suragh-e-zindagi
Tu agar mera nahi banta, na ban, apna tou bann
(Meanings: paani paani ho gaya = ashamed of oneself; Qalander = Saint; Ghair = Stranger (British here); tann and mann = Body and Soul; suragh-e-zindagi = Connotatively referring to secrets to live prestigious life)
(Meanings: Khana-e-sheesha-e-farang = Referring to British here; Sifaal-e-Hind = Referring to former united India (sub contient) here; Meena-o-jaam = Referring to necessities of life here; Chasshmey = Denotatively means fountains but connotative meanings here, referring to obstacles; Sang-e-rah = Track/path; Phootey = Emergence; Zarb-e-Kaleem = Powerful Strike)
*. Nahin tera nash-e-mann kasr-e-sultani kay gumband per
Tu Shaheen hai basera ker paharon ki chatanon per
(Meanings: nash-e-mann = home; kasr-e-sultani = denotatively, it stands for royal palace but here, it means ease and laziness; Basera = Shelter; Chatanon = Rocks)
*. Aghyaar kay ufkaar-o-takhayyul ki gadai
Kya tujh ko nahin apni khudi tak bhi rasai?
(Meanings: Aghyaar = Referring to British; Ufkaar = Policies; Takhayyul = Theories; Gadai= to beg; rasai = access)
*. Khudi ko ker buland itna kay her taqdeer say pehley
Khuda bandey say khud poochey bata teri raza kya hai
*. Ghulami main na kaam aati hain shamsheerain, na tadbeerain
Jo ho shok-e-yaqeen paida tou cut jaati hain zanjeerain
Koi andaza ker sakta hai iss kay zor-e-bazu ka?
Nigha-e-mard-e-momin say badal jati hain taqdeerain
(Meanings: Ghulami = Slavery; Shamsheerain = Swords; Tadbeerain = Plannings; Shok-e-yaqeen = Sense of self respect; Zanjeerain = restraints; Andaza= Guess; Zor-e-Bazu= Strength; Nigah-e-Mard-e-Momin = Glare of a Muslim (connotatively referring to strength of a strong faith Muslim); Taqdeerain = Destiny)
MESSAGE FOR MUSLIMS
Quran main ho ghota zan, aey mard-e-Msualman
Allah karey tujh ko ata jiddat-e-kirdaar
Jo harf-e-Qul il afw main posheeda hai ab tak
Iss dour main shayad wo haqeeqat ho namudaar
(Meanings: ghota zan = Referring to read, consult and understand; Jiddat-e-Kirdaar = Strong faith/strong character; Harf-e-Qul il afw = Words of Quran; Posheeda = Hidden; Namudar = To expose)
*. Aashna apni Haqeeqat say ho, aey dehqan zara
Dana tu, kheti bhi tu, baran bhi tu, haasil bhi tu
Khauf-e-batil kya hai, kay hai ghaarat-e-batil bhi tu
(Meanings: Aashna = Familiarity; Dehqan = Hard worker/ ploughman; Dana = Fruit; Kheti = Final product; Baran = Blessed rain; Haasil = Reward; Justaju = Struggle denotatively but referring to “wait” here; awara = useless; Rah = Passage; Rahru = Passenger; Rehber = Guide; Manzil = Destination; Kanpta = To shiver; Andesha-e-tufan = Fear of thunder; Nakhuda = Sailor; Beher = Ocean; Kashti = Ship; Sahil = Bank of ocean; Shola = Flame; phoonk dey = Eliminate; Khashak-e-ghair Allah = Enemies of God; Khauf-e-batil = Fear of Oppression; Ghaarat-e-Batil = One who eliminates oppressor and oppression)
*. Aaj bhi ho jo Baraheem ka Imaan paida
Aag ker sakti hai andaz-e-gulistan paida
(Meanings: Baraheem = Abraham (PBUH); Imaan = Faith; Andaz-e-gulistan = Referring to miracle of Prophet Ibraheem (Abraham PBUH), who was thrown in fire and fire was converted into the roses)
*. Baykhatar kood para aatish-e-namrood main Ishq
Aqal hai mehw-e-tamasha-e-lab-e-baam abhi
Shewa-e-Ishq hai Azadi-o-deher aashubi
Tu hai zannari-e-bu’t khana-e-ayyam abhi
(Meanings: Baykhatar = Fearlessly; Kood para = Jumped in; Aatish-e-Namrood = Referring to fire of Namrood in which, prophet Abraham (PBUH) was thrown; Ishq = Referring to strong Faith and devotion of Prophet Abraham (PBUH); Aqal = Wisdom; Mehw-e-tamasha-e-lab-e-baam = Stunned/shocked/in state of disbelief; Shewa-e-Ishq = Strong Faith; Azadi = Freedom; Deher Aashubi = To get rid of slavery; Zannari-e-bu’t khana-e-ayyam = Under influence of idol worshipers)
*. Dekh ker rang-e-chamman ho na pareshan maali
Kaukab-e-ghuncha say kirnain hai chamakney wali
Khas-o-khashaak say hota hai gulistan khali
Gul ber andaz hai khoon-e-shuhda ki lali
Rang gardun ka zara dekh tou, unnabi hai
Ye nikaltey huey Suraj ki ufuk taabi hai
(Meanings: Rang-e-chamman = Referring to downtrodden enslaved Muslim nation; Pareshan = Worried, Maali = Referring to worried Muslims; Kaukab-e-ghuncha = Referring to new buds; Kirnain = Ray of shining light; Chamakney = Brightness; Khas-o-Khashaak = Trash/garbage; Gulistan = Referring to Muslim circle here; Gul ber Andaz = About to blossom; Khoon-e-Shuhda ki lali = Blood/sacrifices of martyrs; Gardun = Sky; Unnabi = Golden/colour of rising dawn; Nikaltey huey Suraj = Rising dawn; Ufuk taabi = Signs)
*. Hai jo hangama bapa yorish-e-balghari ka
Ghafilon kay liyey paigham hai baydari ka
Tu samjhta hai, ye saman hai dil azaari ka
Imtihan hai terey eesaar ka, khuddari ka
Kyon hirasan hai saheel-e-fars-e-aada sey?
Noor-e-Haq bujh na sakey ka nafs-e-aada sey
(Meanings: Hangama bapa yorish-e-balghari ka = Inclination of world towards atheist culture; Ghafilon kay liyey paigham hai baydari ka = Message to get up from slumber for ignored ones; Saman = Matter; Dil Azaari = To offend, to hurt; Imtihan = Test; Eesaar = Sacrifice; Khuddari = Self Respect; Hirasan = Scared of; Saheel-e-fars-e-ada = Oppressor; Noor-e-Haq = Ligh of Truth; Nafs-e-aada = Struggle of oppressor)
*. Misl-e-bu qaid hai ghncey main, pareshan ho ja
Rakht ber dosh hawa-e-chaminstan ho ja
Hai tinak maya, tu zarrey say byabaan ho ja
Naghma-e-moj say hangama-e-tufan ho ja
Quat-e-Ishq say her past ko bala ker dey
Deher main Ism-e-Muhammad (PBUH) say ujala ker dey
(Meanings: Misl-e-bu = Referring to true faith here; Qaid= Bound; Ghunchey= Bud; Rakht ber dosh hawa-e-chamnistan = Advising to start making efforts against oppressor; zarrey say bayaban = From zero to hero; Naghma-e-moj = Unity; Hangama-e-tufan = Revolutionary strength; Quat-e-Ishq = Referring to strong faith; past = Low/slave; Bala = Respected; Deher = Times of slavery; Ism-e-Muhammad (PBUH) = Advising to follow teachings of Muhammad (PBUH); Ujala = End of oppression)
*. Aqal hai teri saper, Ishq hai shamsheer teri
Merey derwesh! khilafat hai Jahangir teri
Ma siwa Allah kay liyey aag hai takbeer teri
Tu Musalman ho tou taqdeer hai tadbeer teri
Ki Muhammad (PBUH) say wafa tu nay, tou Hum terey hain
Ye Jahan cheez hai kya, loh-o-qalam terey hain
(Meanings: Aqal = Wisdom; Ishq = Faith; Shamsheer = Strength/tool/sword; Derwesh = Innocent man; Khilafat = System of Pious Caliphs of Islam; Jahangir = Way out; Ma siwa = Except; aag hai takbeer teri = Your destiny is hell fire; Taqdeer = Luck; Tadbeer = Policy; Wafa = Sincerity/loyalty; Hum = Referring to Allah as Dr. Iqbal is assuming that Allah is addressing His creature; Jahan = World; Loh-o-Qalam = Universe)
*. Uth kay ab bazm-e-jahan ka aur hi andaaz hai
Mashriq-o-maghrib main terey dour ka aghaaz hai
(Meanings: bazm-e-jahan = Present era; Mashriq-o-Maghrib = Across the globe; Aaghaz = Beginning)
*. Yaqeen muhkam; amal paiham, mohabbat fath-e-alam
Jihad-e-zindagani main hain ye mardon ki shamshirain
(Meanings: Yaqeen muhkam= Confidence; Amal paiham = Hard work with strong motivation; Mohabbat fath-e-Alam= Strive for excellence; Jihad-e-zindagani = Life; Mardon = Men; Shamshirain = Tools)
*. Fard Qaim Rabt-e-Millat say hai, tanha kuch nahin
Moj hai darya main, aur berun-e-darya kuch nahin
(Meanings: Fard = Individual; Qaim = to survive; Rabt-e-Millat = Unity of a nation; tanha = Alone; Moj hai darya main aur berun-e-darya kuch nahin = Simile, giving example of a wave which can’t survive out of ocean. Similarly, individual is strong as long as he is part of a nation. Together we stand, divided we fall)
*. Baykhabar! Tu johar-e-aina-e-ayyam hai
Tu zamaney main Khuda ka aakhri paighaam hai
(Meanings: Baykhabar = Ignored; Johar-e-aina-e-ayyam = Jewel of the time)
*. Nahin hai na umeed Iqbal apni kasht-e-weeran say
Zara namm ho tou ye mitti bari zerkhaiz hai saaqi
(Meanings: Na umeed = Disppointed; Kasht-e-weeran = Muslim youth; namm = Soft; mitti = referring to Muslim youth; zerkhaiz = productive)
*. Jo naghma zan thay khalwat-e-oraaq main tayyur
Rukhsat huey wo terey shajr-e-saya daar say
Shaakh-e-barida say sabaq andoz ho kay tu
Na-aashna hai qaida-e-rozgaar say
Millat kay saath rabta-e-ustawar rakh
Paiwasta reh shajar say, umeed-e-bahar rakh
(Meanings: Naghma zan = Singers; Khalwat-e-oraaq= referring to glory of ancestors; tayyur = birds; Rukhsat = to leave; shajr-e-sayadaar = Shady tree; Shaakh-e-barida = Ancestors; Sabaq andoz = To Learn lesson; Qaida-e-rozgar = Formula of success; Rabta-e-Ustawar = Being continuously in touch; Paiwasta = Hopeful; Shajar = Fruit (outcomes); Umeed-e-bahar = Good time)
*. Agar manzur ho tujh ko khizan na-aashna rehna
Jahan-e-rang-o-bu say pehley qata-e-aarzu ker ley
issi main dekh, muzmir hai kamal-e-zindagi tera
Jo tuj ko zeenat-e-daman koi aina ru ker ley
(Meanings: Khizan na aashna = Not familiar with downfall; Jahan-e-rang-o-bu = World; qata-e-aarzu = To be determined to achieve something; mizmir = hidden; kamal-e-zindagi = formula of success)
*. Bandagi main ghut kay reh jaati hai ik ju-e-kam aab
Aur azadi main behr-e-baykaran hain zindagi
Kulzam-e-hasti say tu ubhra hai manind-e-hibab
Iss zayan khaaney main tera imtihan hai zindagi
(Meanings: Bandagi = Slavery; ghut = Exploitation; ju-e-kam aab = large amount of water; behr-e-baykaran = powerful strength; Kulzam-e-hasti = Humanity; Ubhra = Emerged; Manind-e-Hibab = Like a saviour; zayan khaaney = Referring to world)
*. Ye ghari mehsher ki hai, tu arsa-e-mehsher main hai
Paish ker ghaafil, amal koi agar daftar main hai
(Meanings: ghari = Time; mehsher = Day of resurrection; arsa-e-mehsher = Era of destruction; paish = to present; ghaafil = ignored; amal = something on one’s credit)
*. Rabt-o-zabt-e-millat-e-baiza hai mashriq ki nijaat
Asia waley hain iss nuktey say ab tak baykhabar
Phir syasat chor ker daakhil hisaar-e-deen main ho
Mulk-o-dolat hai faqat hifz-e-haram ka ik samar
Nas’l Muslim ki agar mazhab per muqaddam ho gayi
Urr gaya duniya say tu manind-e-khaak-e-reh guzar
Aik hon Muslim, Haram ki paasbani kay liyey
Neel kay saahil say ley ker ta-ba-khaak-e-Kashghar
Ta Khilafat ki bina duniya main ho phir ustawaar
La kaheen say dhoond ker islaaf ka qalb-o-jigar
Aey kay nashnasi khafi ra az jali, hoshyaar baash
Aey giraftar-e-Abu Bakar-o-Ali, hoshyaar baash
(Meanings: Rabt-e-zabt-e-millat-e-baiza = unity of Muslim nation; nijaat = freedom; nuktey = point; baykhabar = ignored; syasat = politics; hisaar-e-deen = Islam; hifz-e-haram = by product of religion; Nas’l = Race; muqaddam = priority; manind-e-khaak-e-reh guzar = Like dust of the road/being worthless; pasbanai = protection; Ta ba khak-e- Kashghar = Land of Kashghar; Ta Khilafat ki bina = Referring to Pious Caliphs and their system; ustawaar = reactivation; Islaaf = Ancestors; qalb-o-jigar = Strength and Faith; giraftar-e-Abu Bakar-o-Ali = Referring to those Muslims who always praise Abu Bakar and Ali for their bravery, but never follow them; hoshyar baash = Attention)
*. Kitaab-e-millat-e-baiza ki phir shiraza bandi hai
Ye shakh-e-Haashmi kerney ko hai phir barg-o-ber paida
Agar Usmanion pay toota koh-e-gham, tou kya gham hai?
Kay khoon-e-sad hazaar anjum say hoti hai seher paida
(Meanings: Kitaab-e-millat-e-baiza = Holy Quran; Shiraza bandi = Unity, integrity; Shaakh-e-Hashmi = Muslim Nation; Barg-o-ber = Roses and Jewels; paida = to produce; Koh-e-gham = Bundle of troubles; khoon-e-sad hazar anjum = Lots of sacrifices; Seher = Rising of Dawn)
*. Sabaq perh phir sadaqat ka, adalat ka, shujaat ka
*. Butan-e-rang-o-khoon ko torr ker millat main guum ho ja
Na turani rahey baaqi, na Irani, na Afghani
Mitaya qaiser-o-kisra kay istabdad ko kis nay?
Wo kya tha? zor-e-Haider, Faqr-e-Bu Zar, Siqd-e-Salmani
(Meanings: Butan-e-ran-o-khoon = those traditions or practices which are forbidden in Islam; Turani/Irani/Afghani = Regional status of Muslims; Mitaya = To eliminate; Qaiser-o-Kisra = Curel rulers who had been hard on Muslims; Istabdad = Cruelty; Zor-e-Haider = Strength of Ali (m.Allah.b.p.w.him); Faqr-e-Abu Zar = Faith of Abu Zar (m.Allah.b.p.w.him); Sidq-e-Salmani= Truth of Salman (m.Allah.b.p.w.him))
*. Jab iss angara-e-khaaki main hota hai yaqeen paida
Tou ker leta hai ye baal-o-per-e-rooh ul Amin paida
(Meanings: Angara-e-Khaaki = Human being; Yaqeen = Faith; baal-o-per = Qualities; Rooh ul Amin = Angel Gabriel (Jibraeel))
(Meanings; Narm ru qasid = Muhammad (PBUH); payam-e-zindagi = Guide to live life in correct manner; Khabar deti thin jin ko bijliyan = Those who claimed that they are gods or most poweful; baykhabar = ignored; Ahl-e-Imaan = People of Faith (Muslims))
*. Yaqeen Afrad ka sarmaya-e-tameer-e-millat hai
Yahi qu’at hai jo surat-e-ger taqdeer-e-millat hai
(Meanings:Yaqeen = Faith; Afrad = People; sarmaya-e-tameer-e-millat = Assets of a nation; Qu’at = Strength/tool; surat-e-gar taqdeer-e-millat = fortune of Muslim nation)
*. Amal say zindagi banti hai Jannat bhi, Jahannum bhi
Ye Khaaki apni fitrat main na noori hai, na naari hai
Khrosh amoz-e-bulbul ho girah ghunchey ki wa ker dey
Kay tu iss gulsitan ka wastey baad-e-behari hai
(Meanings: Amal = Deeds; Khaaki = Human bening; fitrat = Nature; noori = saint; naari = evil)
*. Hawas nay ker diya hai tukrey tukrey no-e-insan ko
Akhu’at ka bayan ho ja, mohabbat ki zuban ho ja
Ye Hindi, wo Khurasani, ye Afghani, wo Turaani
Tu, aey sharminda-e-saahil! uchal ker baykaran ho ja
Khudi main doob ja ghaafil, ye sirr-e-zindagani hai
Nikal kay halqa-e-shaam-o-seher say Jawadan ho ja
(Meanings: Hawas = Lust; tukrey = pieces; no-e-insan = Human race; Akhu’at = Integrity; bayan = Advocate; Hindi/Khursani/Afghani/Turaani = Referring to regionalism and racism; sharminda-e-saahil = Muslim; uchal ker baykaran = getting united disregard of race/colour/region; Khudi = Self respect; sirr-e-zindagani = Secret of success; Halqa-e-shaam-o-seher = thick n’ thin; Jawadan = Ever living on the basis of some unique work)
DILEMA OF MUSLIM WORLD AND ITS CAUSES
(Meanings: Shorida = Desperately in love; Khab gah-e-Nabi (PBUH) = Tomb of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH); Misr-o-Hindustan = Egypt and India; Banay-e-Millat = Unity of Muslim nation; Mita = To eliminate; Un say wasta = Concern with British; na-ashna= Not Familiar; Anjuman = System/thoughts; Nayey Zamaney = Modern Era (Connotatively, referring to secular thoughts); Purani = Old, outdated (Connotatively, a taunt on Muslims who ignored Islamic teachings and followed British traditions due to inferiority complex of being slave of British)
*. kal aik shorida khab gah-e-Nabi (PBUH) per ro ro kay keh raha tha
Kay Misr-o-Hindustan kau Muslim banay-e-Milat mita rahey hain
Ye zairan-e-hareem-e-maghrib hazar rehber banain hamarey
Hamain bhala un say wasta kya, jo tujh(PBUH) say na-ashna rahey hain
Suney ga Iqbal, koun in ko, ye anjuman hi badal gayi hai
Nayey zamaney main hum ko purani batain suna rahey hain
* Masjid tou bana di shab bhar main, Iman ki hararat walon nay
Mann apna purana papi hai, barson main Namazi ban na saka
Kya khoob ameer-e-faisal ko sanawasi nay paigham diya
Tu naam-o-nasab ka Hijazi hai, per dil ka Hijazi ban na saka
Iqbal bara updeshak hai, mann baton main mo leta hai
Guftar ka ye ghazi tou bana, kirdar ka ghazi ban na saka
(Meanings: Masjid = Mosque; Shab bhar = Within a night; Iman ki hararat walon = Men with strong Faith; Papi = Sinner; Barson = Years; Namazi = Worshiper (referring to man of strong faith here); Ameer-e-Faisal = Leader of Muslims; Sanawwasi = Air; Paigham = Message; Naam-o-nasab = Race and Culture; Hijaazi = Muslim; Updeshak = Man with speaking power; mann mo lena = To impress; Guftar = Speeches Kirdar = Character)
*. Mata-e-Aql-o-Danish lutt gayi Allah walon ki
Ye kis Kafir ada ka ghamza-e-khunrez hai Saaqi
(Meanings: Mata-e-Aql-o-Danish = Creative thoughts and wisdom; Lutt = Robbed; Allah Walon = referring to Muslims here; Kafir = non Muslim; ghamza-e-khunrez = Evil planning; Saaqi = Friend)
*. Mujhey Tehzeeb-e-Hazir nay ata ki hai wo azadi
Kay zaahir main tou azaadi hai, baatin main giraftari
Tu, aey Maula-e-Yasrab (PBUH)! aap meri chara sazi ker
Meri Daanish hai afrangi, mera Imaan hai zannari
(Meanings: Tehzeeb-e-Hazir = Present Civilisation; Azadi = Freedom; Zaahir = Physical existence or denotation; Baatin = In reality or connotation; Giraftari = Bondage; Maula-e-Yasrab (PBUH) = Prophet Muhammad (PBUH); Chara Sazi = Treatment of ailments; Daanish = Wisdom; Afrangi = Inspired by British; Zannari = Adulterate)
*. Azab-e-Daanish-e-Hazir say ba khabar hon main
Kay main iss aag main phainka gaya hon misl-e-Khalil (PBUH)
(Meanings: Azab-e-Danish-e-Hazir = So called present civilisation; ba khabar = Informed, updated; phainka = Thrown; Misl-e-Khalil (PBUH) = Like Abraham (PBUH))
*. Barh kay Khyber say hai ye marka-e-deen-o-watan
Iss zamaney main koi Haider-e-Karrar bhi hai?
Manzil-e-rehrawan dur bhi dushwaar bhi hai
Iss kaafley main koi kaafla salaar bhi hai?
(Meanings: Barh kay = More than; Khyber = A place where Ali (m.Allah.b.p.w.him) won a historical fight; Marka-e-deen-o-watan = Challenge of raising the flag of Islam; Haider-e-Karrar = Ali (m.Allah.b.p.w.him); Manzil-e-Rehrawan = Destination; Dushwar = Tough; Kaafley = Caravan; Kaafla Salaar = Leader of Caravan)
*. Ye Dour apney Baraheem ki Talash main hai
Sanam Kada hai Jahan La ILa ha IL Allah
Kiya hai tu nay Mata-e-gharoor ka soda
Fareb-e-sod-o-ziyan La ILa ha IL Allah
Agarchey Bu’t hai Jamat ki aastino main
Mujhey hai Hukm-e-Azan La ILa ha IL Allah
(Meanings: Dour = Era; Baraheem = Abraham (Peace Be Upon Him); Talash = Search; Sanam Kada = Temple where idols are placed; Mata-e-gharoor = Referring to Faith here; Fareb-e-sod-o-ziyan = An agreement of loss; Agarchey = Although; Bu’t = Idol; Jamat = Group of worshipers who say prayers in Mosque; Aastino = Referring to insight faith here; Hukam-e-Azan = Command (from Allah) to speak truth)
*. Kiya gaya hai ghulami main mubtala tujh ko
Kay tujh say ho na saki Fuqr ki nighebani
Misaal-e-maah chamakta tha jis ka daagh-e-sajood
Khareed li hai farangi nay wo Musalmani
(Meanings: Mubtala = Imposition; Fuqr = Faith; Nighebani = Protection; Misaal-e-Mah = As graceful as crescent; Daagh-e-Sajood = A graceful mark on the forehead of worshipers; Khareed = Purchased; Farangi = British)
*. Sheeraza hua millat-e-merhoom ka abtar
Ab tu hi bata tera Musalman kidhar jayey?
Iss raaz ko ab faash ker, aey Rooh-e-Muhammad (PBUH)!
Ayaat-e-ILahi ka nigheban kidher jayey?
(Meanings: Sheeraza = Organisation; Millat-e-Merhoom = Referring to downtrodden Muslim nation here; Abtar = Worst; Faash = Expose; Rooh = Soul; Ayaat-e-ILahi = One who believes and follow Quran; Nigheban = Protector)
*. wo faqa kash kay mout say derta nahin zara
Rooh-e-Muhammad (PBUH) uss kay badan say nikal dou
Fikr-e-Arab ko dey key farangi takhayyulaat
Islam ko Hijaz-o-Yaman say nikaal dou
Afghanion ki ghairat-e-deen ka hai ye ILaaj
Mullah ko un kay koh-o-daman say nikaal dou
Ahl-e-Haram say un ki riwayaat cheen lo
Aahu ko murghzar-e-hatan say nikaal dou
Iqbal kay nafs say hai laaley ki aag tez
Aisey ghazal sira ko chamman say nikaal dou
Dr. Iqbal is assuming here that Satan is addressing to his followers.
(Meanings: Faqa kash = Poor man but of strong Faith; derta = Scared of; Badan = Body; Fikr = Thoughts; Takhayyulat= Concepts; Ghairat-e-deen = Strong Faith; ILaaj = Cure; Mullah = Referring to strong faith Muslim here; Koh-o-daman = Country (Afghanistan here); Ahl-e-Haram = Muslims; Riwayaat = Traditions; Aahu = Deer; Murghzar-e-Hatan= Land of Faith and peace; Nafs = Thoughts; Laley = Garden; Ghazal Sira = Reformer here)
*. Kabhi aey haqeeqat-e-muntazir, nazar aa libas-e-majaz main
kay hazar sajdey tarap rahey hain, meri jabeen-e-nyaz main
Jo main sir basajda hua kabhi, tou zameen say aney lagi sada
Tera dil tou hai sanam aashna, tujhey kya miley ga namaz main
(Meanings: Haqeeqat-e-Muntazir = Referring to God Almighty here; Libas-e-Majaz = Being Visible; Sajdey = To prostrate; Jabeen-e-nayaz= Forehead; sir basajda = ToProstate; Sada = Voice; Sanam Aashna = Beloved of idols)
*. Tamaddun, tasawwuf, shariat, kalaam
Butaan-e-Ajam kay pujari tamam
Haqeeqat khurafaat main kho gayi
Ye ummat riwayaat main kho gayi
(Meanings: Tamaddun = Traditions; Tasawwuf = Mysticism; Shariat = Islamic Law (referring to fake Islamic law created by so called scholars in self interest, in name of Islam); Kalam = To praise (referring to hypocrisy of such Muslims, whose worship is to impress people instead of pleasing God. Those for whom, last three verses of Surah Maa’on in Noble Quran have been revealed); Butaan-e-Ajam = gods of other religions; Pujari = Worshipers; Haqeeqat = Truth (referring to original teachings of Islam); Khurafaat = Senseless things; Ummat = (Muslim) Nation; Riwayaat = Traditions)
*. Haath bayzor hain, ILhaad say dil khugar hain
Ummati bais-e-ruswai-e-paighambar (PBUH) hain
Bu’t shikan uth gayye, baqi jo rahey Bu’t ger hain
Tha Baraheem Pidr, aur ye Pisr-e-Aazr hain
Koi qabil ho tou HUM shan-e-kai detey hain
Dhoondney waley ko duniya bhi nayi detey hain
(This verse is taken from poem “Jawab-e-Shikwa” and Dr. Iqbal is assuming that Allah Himself is addressing to Muslims)
(Meanings: Bayzor = Weak; ILhaad = Apostasy; Khugar = Convinced; Ummati = Muslims; Bais-e-ruswai-e-paighambar (PBUH) = Matter of depression for Prophet (PBUH); Bu’t Shikan = True and determined Muslims; Bu’t ger = Lovers of idols; pisr-e-aazar = Followers of Aazar, an idol maker; Qabil = Competant; Shan-e-Kai = Success; Dhoondney = Search)
*. Kis qadar tum pay garan subha ki baydari hai
Hum say kab pyar hai, haan neend tumhain pyari hai
Taba-e-azad per qaid-e-ramzan bhaari hai
Tumhi keh dou, yahi aain-e-wafadari hai?
Qaum Mazhab say hai, Mazhab jo nahin tum bhi nahin
Jazb-e-baham jo nahin, mehfil-e-anjum bhi nahin
(Meanings: Qadar = Extent; Garan = Tough; Subha ki baydari = Referring to get up for morning prayers; Hum = Referring to God here as Dr. Iqbal is assuming that God is addressing Muslims; Neend = Referring to preferring other things over prayers by Muslims; Taba-e-Azad = Written in taunting way, referring to careless nature of Muslims; Qaid-e-Ramzan = Taunting again, referring to Muslims who take holy month of Ramadan as a burden or liability to be released unwillingly; Ain-e-wafadari = Rule of submission and sincerity; Mazhab = Religion; Jazb-e-baham = Joint efforts; Mehfil-e-Anjum = Success and fruitful results)
*. Jin ko aata nahin duniya main kli fun, tum ho
Nahin jis qaum ko parwa-e-nash-e-mann, tum ho
Bijliyan jis main hon aasuda wo khurmen, tum ho
Baich khaatey hain jo Islaaf kay madfan, tum ho
Thay tou A’ba wo tumharey hi magar tum kya ho?
Haath per haath dharey muntazir-e-farda ho?
(Meanings: Funn = Skill; Parwa-e-nash-e-mann = Strive for excellence and prosperity; Bijliyan = Referring to creative and constructive ideas; Islaaf = Forefather; Madfan = Coffins; A’ba = Ancestors; Muntazir-e-Farda = Waiting for some help)
*. Manfia’t aik hai iss qaum ki nuqsaan bhi aik
Aik hi sab ka Nabi (PBUH), Deen bhi, Imaan bhi aik
Harm-e-Pak bhi, Allah bhi, Quran bhi aik
Kuch bari baat thi hotey jo Musalmaan bhi aik?
Firqa bandi hai kahin, aur kahin zaatain hain
Kya zamaaney main pinapnay ki yahi batain hain?
(Meanings: Manfia’t = Profit; Nuqsaan = Loss; Harm-e-Pak = Referring to Khana-e-Kaba; Firqa bandi = Sectarian culture; Zaatain = Caste System; Pinapney = To progress)
*. Koun hai tarak-e-Aain-e-Rasool-e-Mukhtar (PBUH)?
Maslehet waqt ki hai kis kay amal ka mayaar?
Kis ki aankhon main samaya hai sha’ar-e-aghyaar
Ho gayi kis ki nigah tarz-e-salaf say bayzaar
Qalb main soz nahin, rooh main ihsaas nahin
Kuch bhi paighan-e-Muhammad (PBUH) ka tumhain pass nahin
(Meanings: Tarak-e-Aain-e-Rasool-e-Mukhtar (PBUH) = Those who have rejected/ignored teachings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH); Maslehet = Compromise; Sha’ar-e-aghyaar = Impressed by non Muslims; Nigah = Vision; Tarz-e-Salaf = Practices of Ancestors; bayzaar = tired of/ fed up; Qalb = Heart; Soz = sense of responsibility; Rooh = Soul; Ihsaas = sensibility; Paigham-e-Muhammad (PBUH) = Message of Muhammad (PBUH); pass = care)
*. Shor hai ho gayey duniya say Musalman nabood
Hum yeh kehtey hain kay thay bhi kahin Muslim mojud?
(Meanings: Zoq-e-may-e-mast-e-tan aasani = Lazy/ dull/ leisure minded; Andaz-e-Musalmani = Ways of Muslims; HaideriFuqr = Spiritual values of Ali (m.Allah.b.p.w.him); Dolat-e-Usmani = Wealth of Usman (m.Allah.b.p.w.him); Islaaf = Ancestors; Nisbat-e-rohani = Spirutual inheritance; Wo = Referring to companions of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH); Mo’aziz = Respected; Khawar = Insulted; Tarak-e-Quran = Those who rejected/ignored Quran)
Inspite of Allama Iqbal being the most influential Muslim scholar of the 20th century throughout the Muslim World, his true message and ideas have never before been brought out as strongly and clearly as Zaid Hamid has.
BT-72 Iqbal The Mysterious 1: Google
BT-74 Iqbal the Mysterious 2: YouTube-1
BT-75 Iqbal The Mysterious 3: YouTube-1
BT-76 Iqbal The Mysterious 4: YouTube-1
BT-77 Iqbal The Mysterious 5: BlipTV-2
BT-91 Iqbal The Mysterious 5: BlipTV-2
BT-93 Iqbal The Mysterious 6: BlipTV-2
BT-94 Iqbal The Mysterious 7: BlipTV-2
BT-106 Iqbal The Mysterious 8: BlipTV-2
BT-107 Iqbal The Mysterious 9: BlipTV-2
BT-109 Iqbal The Mysterious 10: BlipTV-2
BT-112 Iqbal The Mysterious 11:
BT-113 Iqbal The Mysterious 12: YouTube-1YouTube-2
BT-114 Iqbal The Mysterious 13: YouTube-1
BT-115 Iqbal The Mysterious 14: YouTube-1
BT-117 Iqbal The Mysterious (Future) 15: YouTube-1
BT-119 Iqbal The Mysterious (Last) 16: YouTube-1
Whatever motives Jaswant Singh had for writing the book on Quad e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah are the subject of intense scrutiny and analysis. The so called liberals in Pakistan have taken Singh’s monographs to again attack the basis of Pakistan and misrepresent the life and prestige of the father of the nation. It is not surprising that dawn.com has published a litany of article by Bharati authors on Mohammad Ali Jinnah. As if Pakistanis needed history lessons from the Hindu Mahasabah and discredited leaders of the Bharatay Janata Party and the RSS. The BJPhas repeatedly threatened Pakistan with total annihilation. Akhand Bharat remains its agenda. The RSS since its inception in the 1940s has been clamoring for “Shuddi” and “Sangtram” (conversion or expulsion) of Muslims from South Asia.
Shahid M. Amin makes some good points in his article but in a very subtle manner he undermines the ideology of Pakistan. Like many other authors of dawn.com Mr. Amin takes up the flag of the RSS and written an article which selectively picks up Iqbal’s message, ignores his speech at Allhabad in 1930 and sidelines the a lifetime of his work which called for a Muslim state “khanjar hilal ka ho qaumi nishan hamara”. It is disgusting to see dawn.com set forth a steady drumbeat of anti-Pakistan articles which gnaws at the sensitivities of the Pakistan nation. We discuss all misquotes of Iqbal here: http://rupeenews.com/2007/11/27/shair-e-mashriq-hakeem-e-ummat-sir-dr-alama-mohammed-iqbal-three-phases-of-a-visionary/
“…Personally I would go further than the demands embodied in it [resolution of All-Parties Muslim Conference at Delhi in 1928concerning Muslim India within India]. I would like to see thePunjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan*amalgamated* into a *single state*. Self-Government within theBritish Empire, or without the British Empire, and the formation ofa consolidated North-West Indian *Muslim state* appears to me to bethe final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India.The proposal was put forward before the Nehru Committee. Theyrejected it on the ground that, if, carried into effect, it wouldgive a very *unwieldy state*…Thus, possessing full opportunity ofdevelopment *within* the body-politic of India, the North-WestIndian Muslims will prove the best defenders of *India*…Nor shouldthe Hindus fear that the creation of *autonomous Muslim states*… I, therefore, demand the formation of a consolidated Muslim state inthe best interests of India and Islam…For India it meanssecurity and peace resulting from an *internal balance* of power… Alama Iqbal 1930
Iqbal, speaking as the President of the All Indian Muslim League was saying “Islam is in jeopardy“, and we must save it by creating a separate homeland for the Muslims of India. Perhaps he was saying that Islam is in jeopardy in India, and we must provide it a nurturing ground, in certain parts of India, where it can grow and prosper, and influence. Iqbal went on to announce his thoughts at the Allahbad session and I quote Iqbal
” India is a continent of human groups belonging to different races, speaking different languages and professing different religions …. To base a constitution on the conception of a homogeneous India …. is to prepare for a civil war.
The formation of a consolidated North West Indian State appears to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India”.
Jaswant Singh was foreign minister in India’s last BJP government that held power for nearly five years until 2004, and was regarded as a stalwart of the party.
He has just published a laudatory biography of Mohammad Ali Jinnah that has created quite a sensation in India and beyond. Over the years, not only Hindu extremists but probably also a cross-section of Indian society have demonised Jinnah in the context of the partition in 1947.
Jinnah has been described as a communal-minded, fanatical and obstinate Muslim leader who had a personal agenda of his own in breaking up India. Moreover, Hindu fundamentalists have always considered the 1,000-year Muslim rule over India as a period of national humiliation. Many continue even now to view Muslims with suspicion.
The BJP is a fundamentalist party and the political face of the Sangh Parivar, a loose collection of parties and organisations in which the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has been a kind of spiritual leader. The Parivar has had a philosophy of glorifying Hinduism and denigrating Muslims.
It is against this background that Jaswant Singh’s book has come like a bombshell. He is full of praise for Jinnah and describes him as a fascinating but complex character of great integrity and honesty. Jaswant Singh argues that Jinnah was a secular-minded leader who did his best to promote Hindu-Muslim unity. Though never anti-Hindu, Jinnah sought to protect the rights of Indian Muslims within a united country.
Mr. Amin’s wild assed assertion that “Pakistan” was a “bargaining tactic” is nonsensical garbage. The entire Muslim elite, students and the Muslims from all corners of South Asia voted for the Muslims League which had a platform for the creation of Pakistan. Mohammad Ali Jinnah was not secular
Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammed Ali Jinnah said that:
” the differences in India, between the two major nations, the Hindus and the Muslims are a thousand times greater when compared with the continent of Europe.
India is not a national state, India is not a country, but a sub-continent composed of nationalities, the two nations being Hindus and Muslims whose culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, name and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, laws and jurisprudence, social and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions, outlook on life and of life are fundamentally different nay in many respects antagonistic”.
Chaudry Rehmat Ali’s “Pakistanproposal asked for SEVERAL MUSLIM STATES in the subcontinent.” The map was published by Rahmat Ali in 1934 and came to be widely circulated in his pamphlet called “Now or Never” among the Muslims of 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.
The demand for Pakistan and the partition of India were basically bargaining tactics that Jinnah was willing to abandon, even as late as 1946 when he had persuaded the Muslim League to accept the Cabinet Mission Plan that conceded Muslim rights within a united India. It was Jawaharlal Nehru, the Congress leader, who rejected the plan. In fact, Nehru had all along refused to accept the minimum demands of Muslims for the protection of their political, cultural and economic rights.
Expressing his views on Hindu-Muslim relations in the twentiethth 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. Amin cannot explain away the words of Mohmmad Ali Jinnah or negate the words spoken by Jinnah at the establishment of the State Bank of Pakistan. Neither can Jaswant Singh.
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 codeforeveryMuslim, which regulates his life and conduct in even politics and economics and the like.”
Thus, Jaswant Singh argues, the onus for the division of India must be laid mainly on Nehru, though he also puts some blame on Sardar Patel and Mahatma Gandhi. Jaswant Singh is, therefore, critical of the persistent demonisation of Jinnah by many Indians, which he thinks is based on a lack of information and objective analysis.
Jaswant Singh’s book has been strongly denounced by the BJP and led to his immediate expulsion from the party. In effect, he has questioned the validity of the long-held beliefs of the party. If Jaswant Singh’s thesis is accepted, then it would seem that extremists in the Hindu community have been barking up the wrong tree. They also stand to lose at least some of the ammunition that has long fuelled their anti-Muslim feelings.
But the real question is: why has Jaswant Singhchosen to write this book? He says he was drawn to Jinnah’s fascinating personality and found, on research, that Jinnah had been largely misunderstood. This might well be the truth. But then, there are the political realities. Jaswant Singhmust have known that telling this kind of truth would be akin to stirring up a hornet’s nest and could cause him serious harm. Still, he thought it worthwhile to take the risk.
In writing this book, I suspect, he had two motives. Firstly, he wanted to discredit Jawaharlal Nehru whose personality cult remains strong in India and has all along benefited the Congress party, the main rival of the BJP. The love affair of the Indian people with Nehru as yet shows no sign of ending. He is seen not only as the hero of Indian independence but also as a leader who gave the country a solid start.
The Congress has all along cashed in on Nehru’s popularity. It has also kept the Nehru dynasty in power: his daughter Indira Gandhi, followed thereafter by Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and the-soon-to-come Rahul Gandhi. If Jaswant Singh’s book does damage Nehru’s political standing, that would be to the BJP’s advantage.
The second motive of Jaswant Singh in writing this book might have been to create an uproar and divisions inside Pakistan. Following his expulsion from the BJP, he did remonstrate, ‘I thought this book would set Pakistan on fire.’ Jaswant Singh evidently thought that his book would lead to a deep controversy in Pakistan about the rationale for the creation of Pakistan as also about the thinking of its founder, and that such a controversy might shake the very foundations of the country.
The fact of the matter is that many in Pakistan have lost track of the rationale for the creation of Pakistan. There has been a systematic distortion of facts and a rewriting of history with a view to impose religion in matters of the state. The historical record shows that ever since the Muslims started their political struggle in the latter half of the 19th century during the British colonial period, their demand was for the protection of their political, cultural, religious and economic rights in a united India.
Mr. Amin’s assertion that “no Muslim leader of note ever demanded the establishment of a Muslim state” is not only a distortion of facts, it is a blatant and unadulterated lie. Almost all Muslim leaders wanted self rule for the Muslims. The only difference between the religious and moderate parties was the mechanism. The Jamat e Islami and the Jamiat e Ulema Hind wanted to rule all of South Asia, while Quaid e Azam and the Muslim League wanted a separate state for the Muslims of South Asia. It is amazing that Mr. Amin could write this without being challenged by the “Quality Assurance” department of dawn.com. Oh yes! None exists at dawn.com. They only publish anti-Pakistan garbage. Why we created Pakistan? One Nation Theory vs Two Nation Theory:
The All India Muslim League session of 1936
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.
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.”
By the year 1941 He was indeed a firm believer in Pakistan and the Two Nation Theory
” Cant you see that a Muslim, when he was converted more than a thousand years ago, bulk of them, then according to your hindureligion and philosophy, he becomes an outcast and he becomes aMalecha (an untouchable) and the Hindus ceased to have anythingto do with him socially , religiously , culturaly or in any otherway? He, therefore belongs to a different order not merely religiousbut social and he has lived in that distinctly separate and antagonostic social order, religiously, socially and culturally…can you posiballycompare this with that nonsensical talk thatmere change of faith is no ground for a demand for Pakistan? Cantyou see the fundamantle difference ? “2 march 1941. Pres. address toPunjab Muslim Students Fed.
Mr. Amin’s assertion fly in the face of facts.
However, it is notable that no Muslim leader of note, since the days of Sir Syed, ever demanded either the division of India or the establishment of a Muslim state based on the rule of Sharia. Some people think that in the Allahabad address of 1930, Allama Iqbal had demanded the creation of a Muslim state in the northwest, but Iqbal himself had clarified that ‘Pakistan is not my scheme. The one that I suggested in my address is the creation of a Muslim province i.e. a province having an overwhelming population of Muslims in the northwest of India. This new province will be, according to my scheme, a part of the proposed Indian federation.’
The question arises as to why then was the demand for the division of India made by the Muslims in 1940? This happened because all of their efforts for reaching a national consensus failed due to the persistent refusal of the Congress to accept the minimum Muslim demands, notably one-third representation in the central legislature and in jobs.
The final blow was the shocking treatment of Muslims under Congress rule (1937-39). That forced Muslims to demand, in the Lahore Resolution of March 1940, the breakup of India and creation of independent Muslim states in the northwest and eastern zones of India where Muslims were in numerical majority. The truth is that the division of India (and creation of Pakistan) was not the first preference of the Indian Muslims. It was rather the last preferred option.
It is also notable that the Lahore Resolution made no mention of the proposed Muslim states being based on the rule of the Sharia. Jinnah was undoubtedly a secular leader.
Jaswant Singh is right to bring out some of these facts in his book. However, his motives are questionable since he seems to think that an internal debate in Pakistani society on the rationale behind the creation of the country and the secular ideas of Jinnah would set Pakistan on fire and presumably destabilise it. Jaswant Singh’s bombshell By Shahid M. Amin Wednesday, 26 Aug, 2009 | 10:08 AM PST |
India had 400 million people. The Muslims were a minority, and because of colonialism had lost the political power in the Subcontinent. The British had taken actions to snatch the control from the Muslims at all echelons of power. The Muslims were demoralized, penury-stricken and were unable to compete with the the more affluent and more educated Hindus. Separate electorates allowed them to elect their own representatives, but the fear of “majoratarianism” scared the minority. Indian “democracy” still does not have any safeguards to prevent “majoratarianism” from dictating to the minority. Requests for one third seats in parliament were not acceptable to the Indian National Congress, and though on many occasions agreements were reached, pressures within the Congress did not allow the agreements to materialize.
The Cabinet Mission Plan was the closest the INC came to an agreement with the Muslim League. It was under these circumstances that they marched for freedom. The following narrative helps us remember the historical chronology and the ideological battles that were waged then and are being waged now over the internet.
The supporters of the TNT won the elections and won the arguments, and the believers of the ONT lost the elections. The INC and the Jamat e Islami were rejected by the Muslims. The TNT became fact and the ONT remains a fascination by many. These pages will distinguish the origins of the ONT and the TNT.
Listen to Mr Jinnah before the formation of Pakistan, raising the spectre of Hindu majoritaranism: “We Muslims have got everything – brains, intelligence, capacity and courage- virtues that nations must possess. But two things are lacking, and I want you to concentrate your attention on these. One thing is that foreign domination from without and Hindu domination here, particularly on our economic life that has caused a certain degeneration of these virtues in us.”
Or listen to him after a meeting with Egyptian and Palestinian Arab leaders in 1946: “I told them of the danger that a Hindu empire would represent for the Middle-East … If a Hindu empire is achieved, it will mean the end of Islam in India, and even in other Muslim countries.”
At the same time, it is true that Mr Jinnah felt short changed by the Congress. On 26 July 1946, Jinnah and his working committee spoke about Muslim India having “exhausted, without success, all efforts to find a peaceful solution of the Indian problem by compromise and constitutional means; and whereas the Congress is bent upon setting up Caste-Hindu Raj in India with the connivance of the British…” (BBC. Why the Hindu right wing loves Mr Jinnah. Soutik Biswas | 08:35 UK time, Tuesday, 18 August 2009)
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 becauseJinnahwas a hypocrite, but because he understood his constituency. Jinnah would not have been surprised by the creeping Islamisation that came with Zia’s amendments.
Jinnah and Liaqat at the 1940 Lahore Resolution (Pakistan Resolution)
The Pakistanphobia against Pakistan plus the the paranoia against all Pakistanis is the root cause of the hatred emanating from Delhi. The history taught in Bharat is really the history of the Indian National Congress (INC). Thus all those who opposed the INC are put into a docket (Bose, Jinnah, Khan etc).
Murtaza Razvi is only partially right about the Quaid e Azam, however he does bring out some potent points about those that have written biographies about the greatest polititican of Asia. His poignant question to both Ayesha Jalal and Akbar S. Ahmed add value to the discourse. The abscence of Stanley Worlpert’s name from those who wrote about Jinnah is surprising.
Even Strobe Talbott, the chief US interlocutor tasked with interfacing with Mr Singh over the years, and whom the latter calls his friend, could not get over Singh’s vitriolic view of Pakistan, including its foundation. Why then this sudden change of heart and mind?
The answer lies in Singh’s well know erudition, and his quest to get to the bottom of matters that have bothered him. His research into the life and times of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and probe into partition of India, which remains the starting point of any Indian response – be it academic or political – to its historically dogged relations with Pakistan, comes across as intellectual honesty and bravery. More so, because what has emerged went against his own hitherto held convictions. Singh is a man steeped in Rajasthan aristocratic mannerism; as a chess enthusiast, he is used to doing a lot of thinking before he makes his moves.
Not surprisingly, the BJP has reacted to the book with a lack of vision and moral courage to own up to its – now expelled – leader’s revisionist stance on the creation of Pakistan.
Mr Singh goes on to say that India misunderstood Mr Jinnah “because we needed to create a demon”. He insists the Congress party’s majoritarian instincts were responsible for the federalist Mr Jinnah turning away from the idea of India and asking for a separate nation for Muslims.’
That said, the redeeming factor in India is that democracy as an uninterrupted process will continue to cough up whistleblowers on historical and political myths created by ‘patriotic’ historians of the past—and that too from the least expected quarters. By comparison, in Pakistan, our academics can be seen to have lacked similar moral courage or the conviction with which to lay historical facts bare; that is, even if someone is able to see the reality from a non-established viewpoint.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah with Liaqat Ali Khan
Now, with the help of Singh’s authoritative, thoroughly researched book, would Ahmed consider revising his script? He won’t be that lonely anymore in supporting his own conviction – if conviction is the right word in this context – of Jinnah’s role in partition of India
. Murtaza Razvi is the Editor, Magazines of Dawn.
The young Jinnah
Consider Ayesha Jalal’s monumental work on Jinnah; she only sheepishly tries to apportion blame on Congress for the partition of India. Akbar S. Ahmed, the decorated British-Pakistani scholar, was even more evasive when, in the movie Jinnah – supposedly a tribute to the founder of Pakistan – he literally put Jinnah in the dock in the hereafter. Shying of giving an unequivocal verdict, the case is resolved by God giving Jinnah the benefit of the doubt and sending him to paradise, simply because some of his papers have gone missing from divine records! God is truly forgiving.
Presidential address by Muhammad Ali Jinnah to the Muslim League March 23rd 1940
This is conceding more than what Mr L K Advani did on his visit to Jinnah’s mausoleum in Karachi some four years ago. He had called Jinnah the only truly secular leader of stature in India’s freedom movement, and caused a similar uproar in India. What is this popular, negative reaction in India to the book and its author if not the very kind of majoritarian tyranny that Jinnah feared for his Muslims? Singh has now also testified to it by saying that most Indians still consider Muslims as somewhat alien to India.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah in Peshawar
Singh has minced no words in analysing the results of his probe into Partition and the role of India’s all time favourite demagogue, Jinnah. And he has been vociferously defending his conclusions. Soutik Biswas, a BBC blogger who has been following the debate in the Indian media since the launching of Singh’s book, documents:
Mohammad Ali Jinnah painting as he is known in Pakistan
Jinnah out of the docket in Bharat. Finally. Or is he? This time the verdict absolving him of the many charges Indian historians have heaped on him comes from Jaswant Singh, until recently a top BJP leader who, if you were to ask Madeline Albright, the former US Secretary of State, was someone single-mindedly obsessed with Pakistan’s role in destabilising India as the Clinton administration opened up American diplomacy to forge a new strategic partnership with New Delhi in the 1990s.
Why Nehru haters like Jinnah? Loving Jinnah in the land of Gandhi
As an ardent student of history we track and trends in the historical development of points of views. There is a subtle transformation that is happening in Bharat. From a historian’s point of view two seminal events have happened in Bharat in recent times:
Demonizing Mohammad Ali Jinnah is Bharat (aka) is a national past time at all levels of the government, media and academic institutions. The electoral and constitutional defeat of the Indian National Congress (INC) towards the All India Muslim League got translated into the perpetual enmity towards Mohammad Ali Jinnah and for his creation “Pakistan“. By association, all those who believed in Jinnah’s dream were seen as enemies of Hindustan. For the past 60 years, the INC has been the vanguard of leading the charge against Jinnah. The INC made colossal mistakes by not accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan and not giving Separate Electorates to the Dalits. Both these actions were opposed by Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru. These actions led to the alienation of the Muslims and the Dalits and continue to be the cracks in present day Bharat. Was Pakistan inevitable? The INC made major mistakes before and after 1947
At the other end of the spectrum from the Indian National Congress is the RSS. It was an RSS man that killed the spiritual leader of the INC, Mr. Mohandas Gandhi. The RSS revered Mr. Sarawak and Mr. Rai and hated Mr. Nehru and Mr. Gandhi. When Mr. Gandhi was murdered, the INC used it an an excuse to ban the RSS. Under popular pressure a couple of decades ago the RSS was unbanned. The BJP rose to power and actually formed a government undr Mr. Vajpayee.
A strange phenomenon is emerging in Bharat, home of the right wing BJP and and Ultra right wing RSS. Internal politics in Bharat is now rethinking Jinnah. At least the right wing is. The denials of the official BJP not withstanding, the fact of the matter is that several BJP leaders have eulogized Jinnah in the recent past. This was unthinkable in the land of the Ganges where is almost universal consensus on hating Jinnah.
1) The leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Mr. L.K Advani praised the founder of Pakistan during a visit to the country. For his “sins” he had to resign as the leader.
2) Now Mr. Jaswant Singh, a senior party leader of the BJP and a former Finance and External affairs minister has been defending Jinnah and praising him. The BJP officially disassociates itself from his recent book “Jinnah: India-Partition- Independence”. Mr. Singh’s book should be seen in the context of the Pakistani perspective on the creation of Pakistan.Why we created Pakistan? The Pakistan Ideology. ONT vs TNT
Soutik Biswas in an prodigiously effulgent article published on the BBC (BBC. Why the Hindu right wing loves Mr Jinnah. Soutik Biswas | 08:35 UK time, Tuesday, 18 August 2009) tries to tackle the increasingly vocal question in Bharat ”Why the Hindu right wing loves Mr Jinnah“. Mr. Biswas gets it partially. However the question that he has raised is as pertinent today as it was in 1946.
Mr. Biaswas has made some good points in pointing out the “Liberal” credentials of Mr. Jaswant Singh but the writing does not really get into the dynamics of why right wing Hndu parties love Jinnah. The following excerpts inform us about the charged atmosphere in South Asia.
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. Lal Hardiyal. Excerpted from Dr. Ambedkar’s book “Pakistan”.
Soutik Biswas quotes the reactions of Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah but he he does not quote the writings of Mr. Savarkar. Dr. Ambedkar discusses Swaraj in his book “Pakistan” and quotes Mr. Savarkar. Firstly, the retention of the name Hindustan as the proper name for “lndia”. “The name “Hindustan” must continue to be the appellation of our country. Such other names as India, Hind, etc., being derived from the same original word Sindhumay be used but only to signify the same sense—the land of the Hindus, a country which is the abode of the Hindu Nation. Aryavarta, Bharat-Bhumiand such other names are of course the ancient and the most cherished epithets of our Mother Land and will continue to appeal to the cultured elite. In this insistence that the Mother Land of the Hindus must be called but “Hindustan,” no encroachment or humiliation is implied in connection with any of our non-Hindu countrymen.
Our Parsee and Christian countrymen are already too akin to us culturally and .arc too patriotic and the Anglo-indianstoo sensible to refuse to fall in line with us Hindus on so legitimate a ground.
So far as our Moslem countrymen are concerned it is useless to conceal the fact that some of them are already inclined to look upon this molehill also as an insuperable mountain in their way to Hindu-Moslem unity. But they should remember that the Moslems do not dwell only in India nor are the Indian Moslems the only heroic remnants of the Faithful in Islam. China has crores of Moslems. Greece, Palestine and even Hungary and Poland have thousands of Moslems amongst their nationals. But being there a minority, only a community, their existence in these countries has never been advanced as a ground to change the ancient names of these countries which indicate the abodes of those races whose overwhelming majority owns the land. The country of the Poles continues to be Poland and of the Grecians as Greece. The Moslems there did not or dared not to distort them but are quite content to distinguish themselves as Polish Moslems or Grecian Moslems or Chinese Moslems when occasion arises, so also our Moslem countrymen may distinguish themselves nationally or territorially whenever they want, as “Hindustance Moslems” without compromising in the least their separateness as Religious or Cultural entity. Nay, the Moslems have been calling themselves as “Hindustanis” ever since their advent in India, of their own accord. “But if in spite of it all some irascible Moslem sections amongst our countrymen object even to this name of our Country, that is no reason why we should play cowards to our own conscience. We Hindus must not betray or break up the continuity of our Nation from the Sindhus in Rigvedic days to the Hindus of our own generation which is implied in “Hindustan,” the accepted appellation of our Mother Land. Just as the land of the Germans is Germany, of the English England, of the Turks Turkistan, of the Afghans Afghanistan—even so we must have it indelibly impressed on the map of the earth for all times to come a “Hindustan”—the land of the “Hindus.”
Mr. Adhvani and Mr. Singh cannot be anomalies. They pretty much represent the thinking of the Right Wing Hindus. The reason for the “:Love Jinnah” phenomenon can be traced back to the origins or the RSSand its relationship with the likes of Mr. Gandhi. The RSS hated Gandhi for many reasons. One reason was that the RSS did not believe that the appeasement policies of Mr. Gandhi was value added activities. The RSS and others has originally propounded the Two Nation Theory (TNT)espousing a land for the Hindus. Iqbal and Jinnah were later converts to the TNT. When the INC opposed the Jinnah they opposed the TNT. The BJP and the RSS want to bring about Ram Rajha in Bharat so that it can be extended from Kabul to Raj Kalhani in the East. Opposing Jinnah, and fealty to a secular ideology runs against the very foundation of the BJP thinking.
WE REQUEST ALL OUR READERS TO WRITE TO webmaster@daily.pkto ask them to stop plagiarizing our original conent from Rupee News.
TO GET HITS AND GET REVENUE FROM ADVERTISERS THE DAILY HAS BEEN STEALING AND PUBLISHING OUR ARTICLES ONE DAY AFTER WE PUBLISH THEM. It has no original content. Almost all their articles are stolen from other sites.
. THE DAILY HAS BEEN STEALING OUR STORIES AND POSTING THEM ON THEIR SITE WITHOUT ANY LINK BACK OR CREDIT TO THE AUTHORS. To make the theft worse than it is, they have delete the names of our authors and added their own authors to the stories on the Dalits and on Mig 35 fighters. Accept no substitute, visit http://www.rupeenews.com. We update our stories after publishing them —to keep our original content safe from piracy and to ensure that our readers get the best content.
All material on these sites is copyrighted, Rupee News, Pakistan Historian, The Dawn, Pakistan Ledger, Military Strategy, Pakistan Punch, The Turth about Mohandas Gandhi, Strategic Thinking and Policy Institute, and American Joint Multifaith Association sites
Mr. Singh discusses Federalism versus state rights. The discussion of Pakistani was exactly that, a discussion of majoritarianism and Muslim rights. It is very true that Mr. Jinnah’s primary concern was to secure the rights of the Muslims and the minorities of the Subcontinent.
The best evidence of this was the Cabinet Mission Plan. The Cabinet Mission Plan was the best hope for a multiethnic and multireligious South Asian confederation which would have prevented the majoritariansim in Bharat, or in Pakistan for that matter. Today the same majoratarianism is an issue for Lanka, Bangladesh and even the Maldives. The British parliamentary system of government does not allow security for the minorities–as evidenced by the unicameral legislature of the United Kingdom. The impotent and selected House of Lords cannot be really considered as a house representing the people–it represents the aristocracy and the wealthy. The bi cameral system of government in Bharat would have railroaded the rights of the minorities—as evidenced in the past 60 years. Mr. Jinnah’s Cabinet Mission Plan (CBM) showed a way to the Hindus to avoid the alienation of the Muslims. Mr. Gandhi approved the Cabinet Mission Plan. Nehru accepted it briefly, but then he couldn’t go through with it. In this sense the Cabinet Mission Plan was the last hope of preventing Pakistan. Mr. Nehru by torpedoing the CBM in fact destroyed any chance of the Muslim Hindu reconciliation.
Why are some of India’s Hindu nationalist leaders in love with Mohammed Ali Jinnah? The founder of Pakistan is a much reviled man in India, treated as a minor conspiratorial figure, and considered to be the architect of the bloody partition of the country on religious lines in 1947. Even the secular Congress party abhors him.
So when leaders of the Hindu right sing praises for Mr Jinnah, they stir up a hornet’s nest. Four years ago, the leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) LK Advani, who led a successful Hindu revivalist movement in the early 1990s, praised the founder of Pakistan during a visit to the country. This raised the hackles of Hindu fellow travellers and invited scorn from the Congress party. The BJP leader even offered to put in his papers after the kerfuffle.
Now Jaswant Singh, a doughty senior party leader and former finance and external affairs minister, who counts people like Strobe Talbott as his friends and chess, golf and polo as his pursuits, has praised Mr Jinnah as a “self made man” who “created something out of nothing and single-handedly stood up against the might of the Congress party and against the British who didn’t really like him.” He has expanded on his thesis in his new, unimaginatively titled 669-page book Jinnah: India-Partition- Independence, which released this week.
What is surprising is Mr Singh’s defence of Mr Jinnah in a TV interview in the run-up to the book release where he is even more effusive in his praise of the Quaid-e-Azam (Great Leader) as Mr Jinnah is remembered as in his homeland. He demolishes the popular Indian historiography of Mr Jinnah being a Hindu-basher and a born demagogue. “That certainly he was not,” says the BJPleader. “His principal disagreement was with the Congress party. Repeatedly he says and he says this even in his last statements to the press and to the constituent Assembly of Pakistan.”
Indian historiography has come full circle. The past six decades have been spent in demonizing the Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, Mr. Jinnah. By using Mr. Jinnah as an escape goat, the Indian National Congress (INC) has tried to hide the inadequacies and blunders of its leaders. By avoiding to identify the mistakes of the INC the Bharati historians have done a great disservice to world history and to the fabric of South Asia. By using Mr. Jinnah as as escape goat the Bharati intellectuals have been unable to identify the error of their ways. This paradigm continues to haunt the Delhi politicians and has led to the huge tensions and wars. Soutik Biswas does a good job or highlighting the points made by Mr. Singh about the ambassadorial credentilas of Mr. Jinnah
Then Mr Singh goes on to say that India misunderstood Mr Jinnah “because we needed to create a demon”. He insists the Congress party’s majoritarian instincts were responsible for the federalist Mr Jinnah turning away from the idea of India and asking for a separate nation for Muslims.
Yet Mr Jinnah began his political career with the Congress and until after World War I remained India’s best “ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity”. Biographer Stanley Wolpertsays he was as “as enigmatic as Gandhi, more powerful than Nehru, and one of the most charismatic leaders and least known personalities”. Historians like Patrick French believe that though Mr Jinnah “remained a secularist of sorts until his death, but also at times… willing to use communal antagonism in a strategic way.”(BBC. Why the Hindu right wing loves Mr Jinnah. Soutik Biswas | 08:35 UK time, Tuesday, 18 August 2009)
Listen to Mr Jinnah before the formation of Pakistan, raising the spectre of Hindu majoritaranism: “We Muslims have got everything – brains, intelligence, capacity and courage- virtues that nations must possess. But two things are lacking, and I want you to concentrate your attention on these. One thing is that foreign domination from without and Hindu domination here, particularly on our economic life that has caused a certain degeneration of these virtues in us.”
Or listen to him after a meeting with Egyptian and Palestinian Arab leaders in 1946: “I told them of the danger that a Hindu empire would represent for the Middle-East … If a Hindu empire is achieved, it will mean the end of Islam in India, and even in other Muslim countries.”
At the same time, it is true that Mr Jinnah felt short changed by the Congress. On 26 July 1946, Jinnah and his working committee spoke about Muslim India having “exhausted, without success, all efforts to find a peaceful solution of the Indian problem by compromise and constitutional means; and whereas the Congress is bent upon setting up Caste-Hindu Raj in India with the connivance of the British…”
In Mr Singh’s book, JawaharlalNehru and the Congress emerge as some of the principal architects of the partition. He writes that the Congress “overestimated its strength, its influence, and its leaders were extremely reluctant to accept Jinnah as the leader of just not the Muslim League but eventually of most Muslims in India”.
There is some truth in all this. But in trying to say that Mr Nehru and Congress were largely responsible for partition, Mr Singhis possibly ignoring the larger political realities of the time. Mr Jinnah positioned himself as the “sole spokesman of Pakistan”, but his party Muslim League which led the Pakistan movement, won the last election in 1946 in British India with the number of Muslim voters at significantly no more than 10 to 12% of the total Muslim population in that year. As many historians say, the nation of Pakistan came into being “even before its mass base was established.” The fault lines have widened since.
But to return to the original question, why did Mr Singhwrite this book? Does it have to do withhis wider political ambitions? He is a self professed liberal in a party of hawks. In 1992, at the zenith of the BJP’s rathyatra (motorised chariot) movement to whip up support for a temple at Ayodhya, Mr Singh did not attend a single function on the road. His induction into the cabinet in the late 1990s was vetoed once by the party’s ideological fountainhead, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
With his mentor and BJP’s only pan-Indian leader and former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee fading out and Mr Advani himself weakened by political defeat and party infighting, is Mr Singh trying to position himself as a liberal party leader-paterfamilias that Mr Vajpayee once occupied? It is difficult to say.
In a sense, one could argue, Mr Singhkills two birds withone stone withhis revisionist take on the partition – as a senior leader of the main opposition party, he goes for the Congress’s jugular by holding it responsible for the partition along with Mr Jinnah; and by heaping encomiums on Mr Jinnah, he endears himself to Indian Muslims, who have been lukewarm to the BJP’s overtures. Is Mohammed Ali Jinnah a way for Mr Singh to reach out to Muslims and push his political ambitions in a party which appears to have lost its way in modern India? We will know in the days ahead. BBC. Why the Hindu right wing loves Mr Jinnah. Soutik Biswas | 08:35 UK time, Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Apparently the BJP-RSS hatred of Gandhi and dislike for Nehru has been converted to love for Jinnah. What implications does this have for Bharat and Pakistan now? A better understanding of Jinnah in Bharat will surely have a positive impact on the discourse of history. The BJPs love for Jinnah has not translated into a love for Muslims and it never will. But perhaps the books like the one written by Mr. Singh will improve the Bharati understanding of Pakistan and why it was created. Surely this may translate into better relations between the two countries.
===========================================
WE REQUEST ALL OUR READERS TO WRITE TO webmaster@daily.pkto ask them to stop plagiarizing our original content from Rupee News, Pakistan Historian, The Dawn, Pakistan Ledger, Military Strategy, Pakistan Punch, The Turth about Mohandas Gandhi, Strategic Thinking and Policy Institute, and American Joint Multifaith Association sites.
. THE DAILY HAS BEEN STEALING OUR STORIES AND POSTING THEM ON THEIR SITE WITHOUT ANY LINK BACK OR CREDIT TO THE AUTHORS. To make the theft worse than it is, they have added their own authors to the stories on the Dalits and on Mig 35 fighters. Accept no substitute, visit http://www.rupeenews.com. We update our stories after publishing them —to keep our original content safe from piracy and to ensure that our readers get the best content.
While another BJP leader has come out and praised Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The physical and spiritiual progeny of Mohammad ALiJinnah in Pakistan are discussion the legacy of Jinnah and what he believed in. One one side is the Paksitanipeople. One the other sideis the so called English speaking elite “the so called liberals” allied with the power brokers in Delhi usually led by the protagonists of the INC. Pakistan’s founder Quaid e Azam Mohmmad Ali Jinnah was not secular.
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 these quoteshas 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. SaleenaKarim 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.
Those allied with the elite in Bharat somehow see Jinnah through the same prisim. Ayesha Jala’s book “the Sole Spokesman” on the Pakisani sideand Mr. M.J. Akbar’s book about Jinnah on the Indian side portray the same demonized picture of Jinnah that Mr. Singh has tried to rebut. Justice Munir (who approved the illegal actions of Ayub Khan under the Doctrine of necessity) did more harm to the Pakistani psyche by defining Jinnah in his own image than he did when he approved the illegal actions of Ayub Khan. Between the protagonists and the antagonist, one of the best biographies of Mohammad Ali Jinnah remains the book written by Stanley Wolpert.
WE REQUEST ALL OUR READERS TO WRITE TO webmaster@daily.pkto ask them to stop plagiarizing our original conent from Rupee News.
TO GET HITS AND GET REVENUE FROM ADVERTISERS THE DAILY HAS BEEN STEALING AND PUBLISHING OUR ARTICLES ONE DAY AFTER WE PUBLISH THEM. It has no original content. Almost all their articles are stolen from other sites.
. THE DAILY HAS BEEN STEALING OUR STORIES AND POSTING THEM ON THEIR SITE WITHOUT ANY LINK BACK OR CREDIT TO THE AUTHORS. To make the theft worse than it is, they have delete the names of our authors and added their own authors to the stories on the Dalits and on Mig 35 fighters. Accept no substitute, visit http://www.rupeenews.com. We update our stories after publishing them —to keep our original content safe from piracy and to ensure that our readers get the best content.
All material on these sites is copyrighted, Rupee News, Pakistan Historian, The Dawn, Pakistan Ledger, Military Strategy, Pakistan Punch, The Turth about Mohandas Gandhi, Strategic Thinking and Policy Institute, and American Joint Multifaith Association sites
Jawswant Singh’s epiphany about Quaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah has surprised most Bharatis. The reaction is sad reflection of the illiteracy of the Bharati press and media about the life and accomplishments of Mohmmad Ali Jinnah. The furore over the books is also a commentary of the condition of the educaiton system of Bharat which doles out the old Congress “companyline” as history of the Subcontinent. Of course what he said is common knowledge in Pakistan. This is basic history of the Subcontinent and serious students of the history of South Asia know these basics well. Much of this is summarized in Why we created Pakistan? One Nation Theory vs Two Nation Theory an article we wrote about thirty years ago.
Jinnah and Gandhi in a heated debate
The Daily Times is run by Najam Sethi, a very pro-Indian publisher in Pakistan. Both the Friday Times and the Daily Times constantly publish articles in favor of Delhi. The Daily Times also publishes Anti-Pakistan articles. However this article by Najmuddin A Shaikh caught our eye. It has kernels of truth in it so we reproduced it on our site.
We must not allow ourselves to be held hostage by false or mistaken notions about the part our religion played in the creation of our country and the consequent assertion that we have to see ourselves as a centralised state under theocratic rule
The publication of Jaswant Singh’s new book has caused a furore in India. Ostensibly, the decision of the BJP to expel Singh, a veteran BJP leader of 30 years standing and a former foreign minister who won high praise from his American interlocutor, Strobe Talbott, was attributed to his departure in his book from the BJP’s public stance of holding the Quaid responsible for the partition (or more vividly the vivisection) of India.
A BJP spokesman, speaking to a Pakistani channel, explained that that in holding Nehru and more particularly Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel responsible for partition, Singh had contradicted a basic tenet of the BJP’s interpretation of the tumultuous political developments that led to the emergence of Pakistan on the world map.
What Singh found after his five years of research is nothing new. Political scientists the world over have long acknowledged that the Quaid, a long time advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity in the struggle for independence from British rule, had been forced to seek a separate homeland for the Muslims of South Asia only after Nehru and his even more hard-line colleague Sardar Patel refused to agree to any equitable power sharing arrangement between Hindus and Muslims in an independent India.
If there were any doubts, they were settled by the publication of The Sole Spokesman. This meticulously researched book by Ayesha Jalal, which was published some 25 years ago … made it clear that it was the obsession of the Indian Congress leaders, Nehru and Patel, to maintain the same centralised control that the British had used in India that forced the Quaid to depart from his much praised role as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity and become the leader of the movement for an independent Pakistan.
Subash Chandra Bose and Mohammad Ali Jinnah: Quaid e Azam agreed with Bose’s ideas which opposed those of Mohandas Gandhi
Khuswant Singh in an interesting article on Indian Muslims says the
following:
“Long before Chaudry Rehmat Ali propounded his views on Pakistan, and
Mohammed Ali Jinnah put forwarded the TNT, as early as 1924 Lala Lajpat Rai, the most prominent nationalist leader of Punjab and a pillar of the National Congress endorsed the view of the Bhai demand of the Hindu Mahasaba that ‘Punjab should be partitioned into two provinces, Western Punjab with a large Muslim majority to be a Muslim-governed province and the same principle can be applied in Bengal’.
He went on to add:
‘Under my scheme Muslims will have four provinces, the NWFP, West Punjab, Sindh and Eastern Bengal.’ Lajput Rai elaborated: ‘It should be distinctly understood that this is not a united India. It seems a clear partition of India into Muslim India and non-Muslim India. ‘
The mistrust of the Muslims was exploited by the Hindu leaders who dwelled on the fact that the Muslims were aliens in India. Here is an excerpt of Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore’s fears about the divided loyalty of Muslims published in th ’Times of India’ April, 18, 1924.
“…. A very important factor which is making it almost impossible for
Hindu-Muslim unity to become an accomplished fact is that the Muslims cannot confine their patriotism to any one country. I had frankly asked many Muslims whether, in the event of any Mohammedan Power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land. I was not satisfied with the reply I got from them. I can definitely state that even such men as Mr. Muhammad Ali has declared that under no circumstances it is permissible for any Mohammedan whatever be his country to stand against any Mohammedan. …….” Gurudev was also quoted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his “Pakistan”, see page
272-273.
The above is parhaps one of the best reasons for the creation of Pakistan,
for as long as India was one country all Muslims would be aliens in their own
land. Today’s Indian Muslims are suspected of loyalties to Pakistan. Facing
Iran or Arabia or Afghanistan, Muslim loyalties would always be under
suspicion in a united India.
Here is another quote by Lala Lajpat Rai in “Muslim Leaders cannot override
Quranic and Hadic injunctions?”Lala Lajpat Rai wrote to C.R. Das (in 1924):
“……….I am not afraid of seven crores (of Muslims) of Hindusthan but I
think the seven crores of Hindusthan plus the Armed hordes of Central Asia,
Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Turkey will be irresistible. I do honestly and
sincerely believe in the necessity or desirability of Hindu-Muslim Unity. I
am also prepared to fully trust the Muslim leaders, but what about the
injunctions of the Quran and Hadis? The leaders cannot override them. Are we then doomed? I hope not. I hope your learned mind and wise head will find some way out of this difficulty. …….” “Pakistan”, by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, page 274.
It was the Hindu Mahasaba type of communal thinking that which wanted to
impose the Rajha Rama in India that planted the seeds of the TNT in the minds of the Muslims of that era.
Najmuddin A Shaikh goes on to describe the reasons behind Mr. Singh’s recent decision to praise the Qauid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah
It is clear, however, that there is much more to the BJP decision than this acknowledgement by Jaswant Singh of what has been long accepted by impartial political scientists. Singh had for long been a thorn in the side of BJP hardliners, especially the extremist organisations that have provided the bulk of the BJP’s electoral strength but have been forced to operate from behind the scenes because of the perceived need of the BJP to find support among the more moderate sections of the Indian electorate. For these hardliners the partition of “Mother India” and the “villainous role” that the Quaid played in bringing this about is an article of faith.
Any departure was not to be tolerated, as LK Advani, the parliamentary leader of the BJP, discovered when during his visit to the city of his birth, Karachi, he uttered a few words of tepid praise for the Quaid and then had to offer his resignation to quiet the storm that this had occasioned. Advani of course was forgiven his trespasses after he had offered a half-hearted apology.
Earlier, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a former prime minister and an iconic figure in the BJP, suffered, I was told by Indian friends, a considerable loss of political support when as part of the now much praised Yatra to Lahore in 1999, he visited the Minar-e-Pakistan and acknowledged in his remarks in the visitors book that Pakistan was a reality, and with whom India would seek good neighbourly relations. Again while Vajpayee paid a political price, this was seen as no more than a hiccup from which he soon recovered.
Admittedly Jaswant Singh’s book, which one assumes will become available in Pakistan soon, is of much greater consequence in the eyes of the hardliners than the misdoings of Vajpayee or Advani, but the strength of the reaction owes much to the disdain with which this Rajasthani aristocrat, with increasingly strong intellectual credentials, has treated many of the BJP’s other leaders. Words of high praise for Jaswant’s negotiating skills and Jaswant’s vision in Strobe Talbott’ book Engaging India, written after his long and tedious negotiations with Pakistani interlocutor Shamshad Ahmad and Indian interlocutor Jaswant Singh, only served to increase the irritation of the lesser BJP stalwarts who had secured no such recognition for their intellectual prowess and who, more often than not in private conversations, termed Singh as a charlatan who often sacrificed India’s interest to further his own image.
In India, the ruling Congress party has also condemned the book but that was to be expected given the Nehruvian heritage of the party and the fact that his heirs still provide the leadership for the party. That it will affect the party’s attitude towards Pakistan appears unlikely at least for the moment. The BJP will suffer a further decline in popularity not because the popular sentiment will be to endorse …ANALYSIS: Singh’s book and its repercussions —Najmuddin A Shaikh. Daily Times
This map is the basis of the Cabinet Mission Plan and defines how the Muslims majority provinces would balance the Hindu majority provinces. The beauty of Jinnah’s plan was the fact that both the Muslim majority and the Hindu majority areas would still have sizable minorities and their rights would be protected becuase of the simply fact that the “majoirty” was a “minority” in the other area.
This map shows the struggle of the Muslims of South Asia. Continent of Dinia and dependencies Ch. Rehmat Ali map depicting Muslim rule in South Asia after the British left. The Muslim homeland that was part of the struggle for independence. Rehmat Ali and the Muslims wanted the region returned to Muslim rule as it was before the British arrived
Our article discusses the details of the Cabinet Misison Planand. Quaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s stature and principled stand does not need any vindication from either the likes of Jaswant Singh or the research of Ayesha Jalal. Both are only partially right about the father of the nation of Pakistan. Both say what they wanted to say–and both have an exe to grind. Mr. Singh is using the Quaid to malign his biggest nemesis the Nehru family. Ms. Jalal puts forward a theory about the Quaid based on the Bharati theory for the separation of Pakistan–according to the Jalal theory, Jinnah’s Pakistan was created by the landlords of the Muslim provinces. Of course Jalal’s theory has as many holes as a seive. The fact of the matter is that all the landlords of the Punjab and Sindh actually opposed the Qauid and the Saheed e Millat, Khan Liaqat Ali Khan. The Noon, the Tiwanas and the Hyatts all belonged to the Zamindara Party of Sir Choutto Ram which later changed its name to the Unionist Party. The Unionist Party in the Punjab was the biggest nemesis of the Muslim Leage–the party of the Quaid.
We wrote the following in 1996–it is as valid today as was a decade ago.
HISTORICAL BASIS FOR THE SOVERIGINITY OF MUSLIM PROVINCES
Throughout history, the struggle for the independence of the Subcontinent has been struggle against centralism and the struggle has been waged to create for provincial autonomy.
The Government of India Act of 1919 set out in clear terms the subjects which were to belong to the provincial sphere and those to the Central sphere. But both the Congress and the Muslim League boycotted the elections to the provincial and Central Legislatures held in November 1920 under the Act, because they felt that the Central Government had still retained too much of power over the provinces. When the Congress Party appointed a Committee to prepare a blueprint of the future Constitution for India under the chairmanship of Motilal Nehru, the then Congress President M.A. Ansari spelt out the fundamental principles on which the future Constitution was to be founded. Speaking at the annual session of the Congress on 28 December 1927 at Madras, Ansari had said:
“Whatever be the final form of the Constitution, one thing may be said with some degree of certainty that it will have to be on federal lines providing for a United States of India with existing Indian States as autonomous units of the Federation taking their proper share in the defence of the country, in the regulation of the nation’s foreign affairs and other joint and common interests.”
The Muslims cooperated with the Congress as long as they felt that the sovereignty of the Muslim majority provinces would be kept. When the Muslims felt that their sovereignty would not be honored, they deserted the ranks of the Congress and joined the Muslim League
The Nehru Committee Report submitted on 10 August 1928, reiterated the principles of provincial autonomy and reorganisation of the States on the basis of linguistic homogeneity
The Congress vehemently opposed the powers of the Governor General to override the Central Legislative as well as the powers granted to the provincial governors to rule directly during emergencies. The Congress first decided to boycott the election in protest but later decided to take part.
During the war years the Cripps Mission arrived in India in March 1942 with a draft declaration on the future government of India. Recognizing the possibility of irreconcilable differences among Indians on the Constitutional future, the Mission proposed the following guarantees to accommodate them.
It conceded:
1. “The right of any province of British India that is not prepared to accept the new Constitution to retain its present Constitutional provision and for its subsequent accession if it so desired.”
2. “With such non-acceding provinces, should they so desired, His Majesty’s government shall be prepared to agree upon a new Constitution giving them the same full status as the Indian Union….”
The Congress Working Committee in a resolution adopted on 2 April 1942 while objecting to the right of non-accession given to provinces, however, made the following significant point: “The Committee cannot think in terms of compelling the people of any territorial unit to remain in an Indian Union against their declared and established will… Each territorial unit should have the fullest possible autonomy within the Union, consistently with a strong national State.”
The Cripps Mission failed.
Elections to Provincial Assemblies were held towards the end of 1945 following termination of the war. Then arrived the Cabinet Mission in March 1946 to discuss with the Indian leaders the Constitution and the political modalities to be evolved for them to realize the goal of self government for Indians. After eliciting views from all the political parties and the groups, the Mission proposed a plan of government which was finally accepted by the Congress, the Muslim League and the Sikhs. There was to be, under the plan, a Union of India embracing both the British and the princely States.
The Union was to deal with Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications and to have the power to raise finances required to administer these subjects.
All other subjects and residuary powers were to vest in the provinces which were to constitute themselves into groups with common executives and legislatures, and each group assuming such provincial subjects to administer in common as the provinces joining the group desired. Within this broad framework the Constitution for the Indian Union was to be framed by a body to be constituted by the provincial legislators in the ratio of one member to a million and choosing their representatives for the communities – Hindu, Muslim and Sikh – in the ratio proportionally representative of their population strength. The Constituent Assembly was to have the total strength of 350. The Cabinet Mission Plan also conceded the right to provinces to change their Constitutions after 10 years by the majority vote of their assemblies.
Both the Congress and the Muslim League accepted the Mission Plan. The Sikhs also accepted the Mission Plan and agreed to join the Constituent Assembly, under persuasion by both the Cabinet Mission and the Congress, as has already been explained.
The Cabinet Mission Plan had been devised to avert the partition of India.
However, Nehru and Vallabhai Patel, having first accepted it, sabotaged the scheme after coming around to the view that it was better to give away a part of India to become sovereign Pakistan, and then to rule the rest of the subcontinent with a totalitarian hold instead of presiding over a democratic federation with provinces being virtually autonomous. With this view they, together with Mountbatten, worked out the partition plan. Punjab was truncated.
It is amazing that that the events of sixty years ago are so fresh in the minds of at least two generations of South Asians. The happenings of the British Raj are being discussed like Americans discuss sport events or Indians dissect the last soap or movie out of Bollywood.
Vibrant democracies project different opinions and create possibilities about the future. Fascist societies spout one “company line”that is then shoved down the throat of a docile and subjugated populace. Only one version of history exists in Bharat (aka India). All opinions contrary to the events transcribed by the Congress are rejected and sidelined. The fact that there is only one book written in Bharat in the past fifty years that provides some semblance of balance about the life and times of Mohammad Ali Jinnah is ample proof of the bigotry and racism that exists in the Brahmanic society that rules from Delhi.
“The writing of the book was not the only, but one of the several reasons, for his expulsion by the party,” …He too indicated that Jaswant Singh’s criticism of the party after the parliamentary poll debacle was also among the issues that led to his expulsion.
In June, Jaswant Singh stated at the party’s core group meeting at the residence of party veteran L.K. Advani that there should be a connect between ‘parinaamaurpuraskar’ (results and rewards) in the aftermath of the party’s disastrous performance in the Lok Sabha elections.
His reference was to Arun Jaitley who was the chief poll manager for the party and was later made the leader of the opposition in the upper house of parliament, a post which Singh held before being elected to the Lok Sabha. The BJP earlier in the day expelled Singh from the primary membership of the party. BJP president Rajnath Singh on “Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence”. IANS. August 20th, 2009 – 1:01 am ICT by IANS -
Loving Jinnah in BJP is hazardous to your career. The expulsion of Mr. Singh may be tied to the series of expulsions from the BJP.
There has been a series of expulsions of BJP leaders over the years, including of Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti, Babulal Marandi and Shankersinh Waghela. BJP expels Jaswant Singh Neena Vyas, Parliamentary Board’s stern message against ideological deviation, The Hindu
It is amazing that those who opposed the Quaid in the 40s are now being discarded by their own people. It is fantastic that the most ardent opponents of Jinnah are now being targeted for eulogising him. The ghost of Mohammad Ali Jinnah has already ended the political aspirations of one Bharatya Janata Party leader, Mr. L.K. Adhvani. This week the ghost of Quaid e Azam destroyed the ambitions of another leader of the BJP.
“I think we have misunderstood him because we needed to create a demon,” … “We needed a demon because, in the 20th century, the most telling event in the subcontinent was the partition of the country.”the book’s author, Jaswant Singh, a veteran politician, told the CNN-IBN
Jawant Singh’s book is not available in Pakistan and is not available in the US yet, so the response to the book from Pakistan has been muted and is based on reports in the Bharati press.
‘Jinnah gets approval from an unlikely Indian admirer’
“a significant addition to material on Partition.”
‘Book on Jinnah likely to change discourse in India.’ “Conventional wisdom in India that holds Mohammed Ali Jinnah as a communal leader who caused the bloody partition of the subcontinent is expected to receive a body blow when a new book on the Quaid-i-Azam by former Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh is released here,” Dawn frontpaged a story
‘A new look at Jinnah,’ … “Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a man whose true character appears to have become lost through the chapters of history, has re-emerged in a new light in the pages of a book, Jinnah – India, Partition, Independence, by none other than BJP leader Jaswant Singh. This is particularly ironic given that Mr Singh’s own party and its ‘mother organization’ so to speak, the RSS, have for the past six or so decades painted Jinnah as India’s greatest villain.” …”Any fresh look at history and the characters who played a part in its making is always welcome. This is perhaps especially true in the case of Jinnah. Jaswant Singh’s book will, undoubtedly, create waves in India. But it may also help to create some much-needed balance. Writing a fully objective history is difficult – some argue impossible. The beliefs and biases of the writer always play a part. For this reason, having as many different points of view as possible is important. They offer an opportunity to break free of uniformity and reach conclusions after examining various possibilities. For this reason the book is a significant addition to material on Partition,” The News International said that
”an apt corrective by a top BJP leader to the make-believe history of Partition. Without mincing his words, Jaswant Singh has squarely put the blame for partition of India in 1947 on Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhai Patel and the Congress rather than Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.” N Sattar of the Dawn
“When the BJP is in government, it is far more Pakistan friendly. But once, in opposition, its attitude becomes totally different,” Nusrat Javed, a well known TV anchor.
similarly, BJP was also critical of L K Advani when he visited Minar-i-Pakistan in Lahore when he came to Pakistan. The reaction which BJP has shown by sacking Jaswant Singh from the party membership has proved how it thinks. Secretary General of Pakistan Muslim League, Quaid-i-Azam (PML-Q) Mushahid Hussain Syed.
Some Pakistani historians also share Singh’s line that Nehru was responsible for the partition of India. To justify their argument, they quote Abul Kalam Azad’s book — India wins freedom, in which he argued that partition of India could have been avoided if Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel had shown some flexibility over the Cabinet mission plan.
Political analyst Amir Mateen has a different view on the issue. Being critical of BJP’s extreme step, Mateen said, “The book endorses BJP’s viewpoint of greater India. I don’t understand why there is so much of resentment among BJP ranks over the book written by Jaswant Singh.” ‘Major saab’ and his tome are the toast of Pakistan media, TNN 20 August 2009, 03:33am IST
It is amazing that the country that bills itself “the worlds largest democracy” has been unable to have a civilized discussion on one of the greatest leaders of Muslims anytime anywhere. No Muslim leader in the history of mankind has been able to guide and affect the destiny of of more than 450 million Muslims and about 450 million Dalits and Untouchables. Those who listened to the Quaid gained independence and and liberation. Those who did not remain in bondage, slavery and Untouchability.
AHMEDABAD: On a day the BJP leadership expelled senior leader Jaswant Singh from the party, Narendra Modi’s government banned the book ‘Jinnah India, Partition, Independence’, in Gujarat. The book, released on Monday, lauds the founder of Pakistan and holds India’s first PM JawaharlalNehru and its first home minister Vallabhbhai Patel responsible for the country’s partition in 1947.
A notification issued by the Gujarat home department on Wednesday banned the book on the grounds that it tarnishes the image of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. According to the notification, the book presents incorrect historical facts regarding the partition and questions Patel’s patriotism.
“The book aims to tarnish the image of the architect of the country’s unification and son of Gujarat. The state government has decided to ban the book in public interest,” says a press release issued by the state government. Patel is held in high esteem by people across Gujarat and rest of India for his role during India’s freedom struggle against the British rulers. The move came as a surprise for many as Modi had remained completely silent when L K Advani made favourable comments about the creator of Pakistan while on a visit to the neighbouring country some years back.
Modi was in Shimla to attend BJP’s three-day brainstorming session, ‘chintan baithak’, starting Wednesday. While the party had distanced itself from Singh’s views expressed in the book soon after it was released, Modi has gone a step ahead. Modi bans Jaswant’s book over Sardar insult TNN 20 August 2009, 03:45am IST
The manner in which Mr. Jaswant Singh has been ignominiously drummed out of the BJP says a lot about how the party treats its leaders. But that is Bharat today. The new pantheon worthy of Hinduist worship is the troika of Mohandas Gandhi, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and of course Jawaharlal Nehru. Like the Fascists of Italy and the Nazis of Germany, only those leaders belonging to the Indian National Congress have a right to be inducted into the Bharati Hall of fame. In today’s Bharat those who oppose them are worse than Belzebub and those who supported him are the arch angels of love and saintliness. This should not have been the only book on Mohammad Ali Jinnah. There should have been others that portray him in black, shades of grey and in white. No such spectrum exists in Bharat. There is universal condemnation of a man, his dream and his spiritual progeny.
The urbane and cultivated Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League, has most often been cast as the villain, unyielding in his demand that the Muslims required a separate country.
Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of the British Indian empire, whose wife is widely believed to have had a long-running affair with Nehru, once remarked: “I tried every trick I could play to shake Jinnah’s resolve. Nothing would move him from his consuming determination to realise the dream of Pakistan.”
But the 71-year-old Singh, a former foreign minister, argues that far from being set on a separate Pakistan, Jinnah’s overwhelming concern was the well-being of his fellow Muslims. He wanted to ensure Muslims would have “space in a reassuring system”.New Zealand Herald. Hindu overhauls Jinnah’s legacy 4:00AM Thursday Aug 20, 2009
All South Asian freedom fighters like Subash Chandra Bose, Dr. Ambadekar and Jinnah are either marginalized or simply demonized by the Bharati historians, politicians and the media. It is rumored that Jaswant Singh was thrown out to the party not because he loved Jinnah, but because he criticised the spiritual leader of the BJP Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.
“Kya karein, naseeb mein jab yahi likha tha (What can I do if this was destined)… I got a call from Rajnath Singh who informed me about the decision, but that’s hardly the way to treat someone who was once described as Hanuman to Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Have I suddenly become Ravan in today’s BJP?”Jaswant Singh told The Indian Express.
“Thirty years of my political life with the BJP and (being expelled) on this note… saddened me and on the ground for writing a book, that saddened me even more, immensely more… The day India starts questioning thought, it starts questioning reading, writing, publishing, we are entering a very very dark alley,” Indian Express
According to news reports emanating from the land of the Ganges the expulsion of Mr. Jaswant Singh heralds the break of the party into smaller factions that cater to the moderate and extremists elements of the party. This report from the Indian Express describes the inner workings of the BJP and how the loss in the recent elections have affected the bearings of the party.
More than praising Jinnah, it’s Jaswant Singh’s criticism of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel that’s touched many a raw —and politically strained — BJP nerve.
For, while the Congress has always tried to appropriate the legacy of the national movement, it’s through the strand in the Congress represented by India’s first Home Minister, Sardar Patel, that the BJP has tried to connect itself to the freedom movement. Sardar Patel was referred to as the Iron Man — for uniting the princely states. This was the imagery L K Advanitriedto invoke with portrayals of him being a Loh Purush as India’s Home Minister during the NDA rule.
Subsequently, in Patel’s home state, Chief Minister Narendra Modi has always cultivated the image of Chhote Sardar. JaswantSingh’s 669-page book (Jinnah — India, Partition, Independence) refers to Patel at about six places, the theme being that Jinnah’s interpretation (false, in JaswantSingh’s opinion) of India being two nations, was finally acceded to by both Nehru and Patel.
The key excerpts from Jaswant Singh’s references to Patel:
1. Page 417: Leaders like Patel accepted partition “in order to seek relief from the torments of the past many years and in the process offering many ingratuitous suggestions.” Singh quotes from a letter written by Sardar Patel to Kanti Dwarkadas on March 4, 1947: “I am not, however, taking such a gloomy view as you… before next June, the Constitution must be ready, and if the League insists on Pakistan the only alternative is the division of Punjab and Bengal.”
Patel, in the letter, goes on to say that in his view, the British would not agree to such a division and would not help the minority secure a division and a strong centre (subsuming minority demands) would ultimately prevail.
This letter, Jaswant Singh writes, “is a revealing letter for quite apart from how far off from the mark Patel was in respect of so many of his projections about the future, he was also for the first time, even if by implication, accepting partition on condition of a division of the Punjab and Bengal.”
2. Page 418: Jaswant Singh goes on to suggest that the formal adoption, accepting the partition of the country by the Congress party on March 8, 1947, was done in the absence of Mahatma Gandhi and Maulana Azad who, “Nehru and Patel had known would oppose the resolution.” Singh quotes Patel explaining the resolution to Gandhi later as “that you had expressed your views against it, we learnt only from the papers.”
There is a strong suggestion here that Nehru and Patel acted as one in changing the long-held position of the Congress, one of opposing partition to agreeing to it overnight. Jaswant Singhconcludes that within a month of Mountbatten’s arrival, the Congress’s view on partition had changed.
3. Page 489: “it is in this, a false ‘minority syndrome’ that the dry rot of partition first set in, and then unstoppably it afflicted the entire structure, the magnificent strand of an united India. The answer (cure?) Jinnah asserted, lay only in parting, and Nehru and Patel and others in the Congress also finally agreed. Thus was born Pakistan…” Indian Express.Loh Purush and Chhote Sardar: Two reasons why BJP can’t take Jaswant’s criticism of Patel, Posted: Thursday , Aug 20, 2009 at 0341 hrs, New Delhi:
They call it “partition“– as if South Asia was a single monlithic country that was lost its unity in 1947. Amazingly the indpendence of Sri Lanka is not called “partition“. Neither is the sovreignity of Burma called a vivisection of the Bharatmata. The separation of Nepal is not called “partition”. For some reason the indpendence of the Muslim majority areas of the the Subcontinent is called “partition” by the Hindu Mahasaba. There was no “PARTITION”: It was Separation or independence.
Lord Meghnad Desai, emeritus professor of the London School of Economics, said Mr Singh’s -expulsion represented the deep disarray within the BJP, which has been riven by infighting since the May elections when it was reduced to 116 seats, its worst performance in years.
“It’s a battle for the soul of the BJP and it’s going the wrong way,” he said. “The BJP needs to get itself to the centre, and instead it’s shifting to the right.”
Lord Desai said the furore will “make it very difficult for the BJP to reconstruct itself as an electable party”.
He warned that it was likely to alienate young -voters, who will wonder “why are they so hung up on who said what to whom in 1946, when there are other things to discuss about India like drought and economic reform”.
Lord Desai also said the move displayed the BJP’s “ideological totalitarianism”.
India’s political elite has long demonised Mr Jinnah, a secular, pork-eating Muslim, for the partition that resulted in up to 1m deaths and created millions of refugees. However, Mr Singh found that Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, and other revered Indian independence leaders, backed partition to settle difficult debates over protecting minority rights. Financial Times. BJP expels MP for sympathetic portrayal of Pakistan’s founder By Amy Kazmin in New Delhi…Published: August 20 2009 03:00 | Last updated: August 20 2009 03:00
One has to look into the seeds of time to see why Mr. Patel garnishes such fealty from the likes of Mr. Modi. The Congress used to be a moderate party, and Jinnah was an aspiring and senior leader of the party. Millionaires like Birla brought Gandhi who introduced religious symbolism into the body politics of South Asia. Jinnah warned Gandhi not to inject religious symbols of Ashram and Satyagarh into a secular system. The Indian National Congress instituted a big tent philosophy. This big tent policy brought in the extremist elements like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. These fundamentalist were not only responsible for the partition of the Indian National Congress, they were responsible for the drumming out of Mohammad Ali Jinnah from the party. When Jinnah was booed for referring to Mohandas Gandhi as Mr. Jinnah instead of the religious appellation “Mahatma”, the die was cast for the partition of the Indian National Congress. The seeds of a powerful Muslim League had been sowed.
The Indian National Congress of Motilal Nehru was secular and could nurture the likes of Mr. Jinnah to grow and flourish. Tokenism aside, the Congress of Mr. Jawahlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had no place for Muslims, Dalits, Christians and voices of dissent. This view clearly enunciated by Jinnah when he resigned from the Congress was later endorsed by Maulana Azad who was a poor substitute for Jinnah as the figurehead of the Congress. Jinnah was a leader, Azad was minority candidate placed there as a prop. Too scared to rebuff the policies of Nehru, Patel and Gandhi, he published “India wins Freedom” without the chapters which criticised Nehru for bungling the Cabinet Mission Plan proposal. Fearing reprisals from the Congress, Mr. Azadstipulated that the offnedingparagraphs be added to the book 25 years after his death. The paragraphs lamblast Nehru for being stubborn and power hungry and criticized Gandhi for his religious symbbology.
In a sense the fate that befell Jaswant Singh — his marginalisation within the rightwing BJP followed by his ideological disengagement withtheparty— had similarities with the denouement as it evolved for Jinnah. The difference was that while Singh may have moved from the communal politics of the BJPtowardsareaffirmation of secular historiography, the insidious caste politics of the Congress behemoth had forced an agreeably liberal Jinnah to resort to patently communal agitation. Jawed Naqvi dawn.com
The Quaid e Azam after an electoral loss used the tactics laid out by Liaqat Ali Khan. The Congress claimed to represent all of South Asia. The Qauid through Separate Electorate refuted the claim and got the British to agree that the Muslim League and the Muslim League alone represented the Muslims. They did this through brilliance and fortitude. The Muslim League team went out and “franchised” the various regional parties under the banner of the All India Muslim League. Thus leaders like G.M. Syed, Suhrawardi and others all came under the umbrella of the All India Muslims League. This gave Mohammad Ali Jinnah the legitimacy to position the Muslims League as the representatives of all Mussalmans of South Asia. This is why Ayesha Jalal endows the title of the ”the sole spokesman” of the Muslims to Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
The expulsion of Mr. Singh from the BJP is part and parcel of the corrective action taken by the BJP. This is borne out by this prodigious report by Mr. Jawed Naqvi who is a regular contributor to the liberal and obsequious paper called dawn.com
After his expulsion from the BJP ahead of the party’s brainstorming session in Simla on Wednesday, Jaswant Singh told reporters that he regretted his party’s decision to remove him from the organisation’s primary membership but he was not about to vacate the political space he has nurtured. What does that mean?
To begin with, he has created a royal mess for India’s two main parties. Who would have thought that the BJP and its ideological fountainhead, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, would find themselves defending their main quarry Jawaharlal Nehru, over the arch quarry Jinnah? Jaswant Singh’s clever, almost impish, juxtaposition of the two stalwarts has all but achieved the hitherto unimaginable. In one stroke he has put the Congress and the BJPonthesameideological plane. It would require an extremely delicate surgery, which neither party appears equipped for, to separate the arguments that he has made for and against Jinnah and Nehru, Gandhi and the British. He has studded his book with references rare and familiar that disturbs the neat communal historiography, which the establishments in India and Pakistan had been used to.
Jaswant Singh feared that the book Jinnah: India — Partition — Independence would create problems in Pakistan more than in his own country. He believed the dichotomy that emerged between the Quaid’s vision and the evolution of a sectarian state in Pakistan would invite state-sponsored censure. But the first barbs came from within India. Early reactions from the BJP and the Congress to his research verged on intolerance of intellectual inquiry. This is not new. Books have been burnt and banned, artists and writers sent into exile even earlier in India.
But Jaswant Singh is not quitting politics, much less the country. In fact an endorsement of his quest will be palpable as early as this weekend when Ramazan, the month of fasting for Muslims, begins. In Lutyens’ Delhi, the hub of India’s power dynamic, the circus of feasts will see robed clerics from diverse Islamic clusters getting invited to the prime minister’s house to break bread. Government ministers, party leaders, MPs, power peddlers, middlemen, in a nutshell everyone who lives by the 13 per cent Muslim vote in India or those who need to flaunt their secularism will take turns to rustle up an appetising Ramazanmenu. Of course, only a minority of India’s 150 million Muslims are mullahs and so a few of the less pious variety would also be given a slot in the meandering queue to rub shoulders with the high and mighty.
Had Jinnah had his way, there would be no need for the pathetic lottery of Ramazan invitations. There would be no need for the Justice Sachchar Committee, set up to investigate why Indian Muslims continue to be economically and socially backward six decades after independence from colonialism.
In other words, had there been no partition there would not be a need for communally driven dinner invitations, even though they are usually claimed to strengthen secularism. Indians would be less self-consciously tolerant and eating or not eating with each other of their free will in an India that Jinnah had dreamt of. Jaswant Singh has been penalised for implicitly asserting this.
As a matter of fact, Justice Sachchar offered remedies that reminded me of the crisis once faced by the International Committee of the Red Cross when its representatives visited prisons in the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan. They recommended hot water baths for the inmates, which startled the jail warden who hadn’t had the luxury of one in a fortnight himself.
There are, of course, no hard and fast rules in this. Political power does not flow from the numerical superiority of a community over another. The partition of 1947 wrote this in blood. As a maverick college friend remarked, in capitalism man exploits man and in socialism it was the other way round.
In predominantly Muslim Pakistan, Muslims are exploiting, and now killing, Muslims. Hindus have fared no better in India. Seventy per cent of India — predominantly Hindu India — has been marginalised to create the illusion of a superpower for the 30 per cent, possibly less. More Hindus — if the tribespeopleinhabiting Chhattisgarhand Jharkhandorthose fighting pitched battles in West Bengal with paramilitary men are considered Hindu — are the next targets of the state’s neocon agenda.
JaswantSinghmaynothave listed these examples to make his case, but they do underscore the unacceptable failures of the founding fathers and their heirs in both countries.
If Jaswant Singh is lucky and has got the proposed Urdu translation of his controversial book on Jinnah out before the weekend, there is a good chance that the Ramazan iftars would become the battlegrounds between status quo and refreshing new ideas for India, and also possibly for Pakistan, to explore.
A Bengali edition of the book is expected to ignite debate in a region that has revelled in questioning everyone that we easily worship, be he Jinnah, or Gandhi, Nehru or Suhrawardy.
In this sense Jinnah’s inspiration may well have come from Rabindranath Tagore’s song: Jodi tor daak shuney keoo na ashey tobey ekla chalo rey. (If none heeds your cry to march together, just walk alone, no if or whether.)
JaswantSinghmaywellhave embarked on a lonely journey to begin with.Going Jinnah’s way By Jawed Naqvi Thursday, 20 Aug, 2009 | 12:46 AM PST. The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.jawednaqvi@gmail.com
In July 2001, when the Agra summit between Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf ended without an agreement because the RSS took the view that elections in Uttar Pradesh, due in February 2002, required a continued state of hostility with Pakistan, Jaswant Singh was targeted in whisper campaigns for allegedly drafting a weak agreement from India’s point of view.
The RSS, or less accurately the BJP, anyway lost the Uttar Pradesh elections. The massacre of Muslims in Gujarat happened four days later and can be seen as a panic reaction by the RSS to similar signals of looming defeat for the BJP after several preceding contests in the state. The clinically supervised pogroms turned the tide for the party.
It was stated that initially the party leadership was of the view that Mr. Jaswant Singh should be merely stripped of his membership of the Parliamentary Board. But tempers ran high among senior leaders. They viewed his praise of Pakistan founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and his adverse comments on India’s first Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, as ideological heresy. They called for the sternest action.
L.K. Advani, also a member of the Parliamentary Board, was himself held guilty of ideological deviation in 2005 when he praised Jinnah during a visit to Pakistan and was forced to exit as party president. On Wednesday, however, he concurred with the decision to expel Mr. Jaswant Singh, informed party sources indicated.
BJP president Rajnath Singh conveyed the decision to mediapersons outside the Peterhoff state guest house and hotel, the venue of the brainstorming conclave.
Mr. Rajnath Singh noted that he had issued a statement in Delhi on Tuesday dissociating the party from the contents of Mr. Jaswant Singh’s new book Jinnah: India-Partition Independence that was released on Monday. The Board, he said, “decided to end his primary membership. So he has been expelled. From now onwards he will not be a member of any body of the party or be an office-bearer.” Mr. Rajnath Singh said he had conveyed the decision to Mr. Jaswant Singh.
Party sources said the BJP would inform the Lok Sabha Speaker of the expulsion. He would, under the rules, now be an unattached MP representing Darjeeling. The Speaker is expected to be told that the BJP wishes to revoke his nomination as a member and chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
Seemingly responding to Mr. Jaswant Singh, who has charged the party with jumping procedures as he was not issued a show cause notice, BJP spokesperson Prakash Javadekarsaidhere that the Parliamentary Board had the authority to take “immediate decisions on urgent matters” without issuing show cause notices. “This is the decision of the Board, which means that the party will not compromise with ideology and discipline is paramount.” There has been a series of expulsions of BJP leaders over the years, including of Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti, Babulal Marandi and Shankersinh Waghela. BJP expels Jaswant Singh Neena Vyas, Parliamentary Board’s stern message against ideological deviation, The Hindu
Will Mr. Singh be sent tothe Siberia of politics, or will be rise like a phoenix with another political party that opposes the legacy of not only the Brahamanic legacy of Nehru, and Gandhi but also the racist legacy of Mr. Patel.
SHIMLA: He had gone from being the party’s Hanuman to its Ravana, a tearful Jaswant Singh said on Wednesday shortly after he got a phone call from Senior BJP leader Jaswant Singh gestures during a press conference after his expulsion from the party in Shimla on Wednesday.
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Rajnath Singh that he had been expelled from the party. ( Watch Video )
Saying that he was “sad and regretful”, the 71-year-old former union minister, who has held the portfolios of defence, finance and external affairs, said he got a phone call at 1pm from Rajnath Singh informing him that he had been expelled from the “basic membership of the party”.
“It is sad and I regret it for a number of reasons, which I cannot explain in detail,” Jaswant Singh said in Shimla where the BJP began its three-day introspection meeting Wednesday.
The expulsion comes two days after the release of his controversial book praising Pakistan founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah, “Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence”.
He referred to a cartoon in India Today magazine that had portrayed him as Hanuman and said he had now become the Ravana of the BJP.
“I have been a member of the BJP since it was formed (in 1980),” he said.
“I had never imagined that 30 years of my service would have ended this way. It’s regretful,” the visibly emotional Jaswant Singh added.
He said he also “regretted” that the party president informed him about the decision over the phone and not personally.
“I would have stepped down had they informed me in person,” he said.
“I am worried and sad that just one book has led to my expulsion,” he added, wondering what would happen if “soch, vichar and chintan” (thinking and introspection) stopped in Indian politics.
He, however, said he didn’t regret writing the book.
“They (BJP leaders) have not even read it completely.” BJP’s Hanuman, I am now its Ravana: Jaswant IANS 19 August 2009, 02:38pm IST
India’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party expelled a senior leader Wednesday for writing a book about the founder of archrival Pakistan _ an indicator of bitter infighting within the party and increasing control of its more radical ideological parent organization.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah is widely reviled in India as the man responsible for the partition of the continent that created predominantly Muslim Pakistan at the end of British colonial rule in 1947.
The book, by Jaswant Singh, says that Jinnah has been “demonized” in India, according to news reports- a reference the party apparently found too kind.
On Tuesday, the party issued a statement disassociating itself from the book, “Jinnah India, Partition, Independence,” which was released Monday.
“The important role of M.A. Jinnah in the division of India, which led to a lot of dislocation and destabilization of millions of people, is too well-known. We cannot wish away this painful part of our history,” the BJP statement had said.
Singh’s expulsion was announced after a meeting of senior party leaders in the north Indian hill town of Shimla. The 71-year-old, who has served as finance and foreign minister in previous governments, said his removal calls into question the party’s commitment to freedom of speech.
“What I have written is my account of a chapter of India’s history,” Singh told reporters. “You can dispute what I write but the day in India we start questioning thought, we start questioning reading, writing, publishing, you’re entering a very, very dark alley.”
Political analysts say the move reflects internal differences within the party, which lost the last two national elections.
“It shows a party in disarray,” said political commentator Neerja Choudhary. “It also shows that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is going to be calling the shots much more in the affairs of the party.”
The RSS, or the National Volunteers Force, which is the parent organization of the Bharatiya JanataParty, has been widely accused of stoking religious hatred with its aggressively anti-Muslim views.
This is the second time the mention of Jinnah has created ripples in the right-wing party, which forms the main opposition in India’s Parliament.
In 2006, another senior leader, Lal Krishna Advani, was forced to resign as party president for praising Jinnah, during a visit to the neighboring country. He remained a member of the party. Taiwan News. Indian party expels leader for book on Pakistan. Associated Press, 2009-08-19 08:16 PM
The reaction from Pakistan to Singh’s expulsion is as expected. Bharatis need to learn the history of Pakistan and the history of Jinnah. They need to shed their racist bigotry and move forward towards the next century. Unless Bharat understands the leadership of the Pakistan movement, it can never comprehend the inner thinking of the Pakistanis. Bharat cannot be a regional power unless it mends fences with all her neighbors, Nepal, Lanka, Bhutan, Sikkim, Maldines, Mayanmar, Bangladesh China and Paksitan.
Not comfortable with sectarian party rivals dominating politics in his native state of Rajasthan, Jaswant Singh fought the April-May Lok Sabha polls in the communist bastion of West Bengal, which he breached to become the only BJP MP to do so in decades. I still remember his reassuring voice at the post-summit news conference in Agra, when rightwing hawks were having a field day. ‘The caravan of peace has stalled, but not overturned,’ he cautioned famously as Gen Musharraf’s plane headed for Islamabad.
Having held the portfolios of defence, foreign affairs and finance as federal minister Jaswant Singh wouldn’t want to be seen as anything but an Indian patriot. It is thus that he makes for an unlikely admirer of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the creator of Pakistan. His book Jinnah: India – Partition – Independence The following excerpts from an interview he gave to a private TV channel reveal as much about the author as about his least likely muse.
Did he subscribe to the popular demonisation of Jinnah in India?
‘Of course I don’t. To that I don’t subscribe. I was attracted by the personality, which has resulted in a book. If I was not drawn to the personality I wouldn’t have written the book. It’s an intricate, complex personality, of great character, determination.’
Did he see Jinnah as a great man?
‘Oh yes, because he created something out of nothing and single-handedly he stood against the might of the Congress Party and against the British who didn’t really like him … Gandhi himself called Jinnah a great Indian. Why don’t we recognise that? Why don’t we see (and try to understand) why he called him that?’
Did he see Jinnah as a nationalist?
‘Oh yes. He fought the British for an independent India but also fought resolutely and relentlessly for the interest of the Muslims of India … the acme of his nationalistic achievement was the 1916 Lucknow Pact of Hindu-Muslim unity.’
What did he admire about Jinnah most?
‘I admire certain aspects of his personality. His determination and the will to rise. He was a self-made man. Mahatma Gandhi was the son of a Diwan. All these (people) – Nehru and others – were born to wealth and position. Jinnah created for himself a position. He carved in Bombay, a metropolitan city, a position for himself. He was so poor he had to walk to work … he told one of his biographers there was always room at the top but there’s no lift. And he never sought a lift.’
Did he believe the common Indian lore that Jinnah hated Hindus?
‘Wrong. Totally wrong. That certainly he was not … his principal disagreement was with the Congress Party. He had no problems whatsoever with Hindus. I think we have misunderstood him because we needed to create a demon … we needed a demon because in the 20th century the most telling event in the subcontinent was the partition of the country.’
Jaswant Singh said had Congress accepted a decentralised federal country then, in that event, a united India ‘was ours to attain.’ The problem, he added, was Jawaharlal Nehru’s ‘highly centralised polity.’
He said: ‘Nehru believed in a high centralised policy. That’s what he wanted India to be. Jinnah wanted a federal polity. That even Gandhi accepted. Nehru didn’t. Consistently he stood in the way of a federal India until 1947 when it became a partitioned India.’
Was it wrong to see Jinnah as the villain of partition as Indians are taught?
‘It is. It is not borne out of the facts … we need to correct it…Muslims saw that unless they had a voice in their own economic, political and social destiny they will be obliterated. That was the beginning (of their political demands) …For example, see the 1946 election. Jinnah’s Muslim League wins all the Muslim seats and yet they don’t have sufficient numbers to be in office because the Congress Party has, without even a single Muslim, enough to form a government and they are outside of the government. So it was realised that simply contesting elections was not enough… All of this was a search for some kind of autonomy of decision making in their own social and economy destiny.’
Speaking about Jinnah’s call for Pakistan, Jaswant Singhsaid: ‘From what I have written, I have found it was a negotiating tactic because he (Jinnah) wanted certain provinces to be with the Muslim League, he wanted a certain per centage of (seats) in the central legislature. If he had that there would not have been partition.’
Nehru’s heirs and the Congress party could find his claims unacceptable, he was told.
Jaswant Singh said: ‘I am not blaming anybody. I am not assigning blame. I am simply recalling what I have found as the development of issues and events of that period.’
Had Mahatma Gandhi, Rajaji or Azad –rather than Nehru – taken the final decisions a united India would have been attained?
‘Yes, I believe so. We could have (attained a united India).’
On Jinnah’s relationship with Mahatma Gandhi, he said: ‘Jinnah was essentially a logician. He believed in the strength of logic. He was a parliamentarian. He believed in the efficacy of parliamentary politics. Gandhi, after testing the water, took to the trails of India and he took politics into the dusty villages of India.’
Jaswant Singh explained that Jinnah had two fears of Gandhi’s style of mass politics. First, ‘if mass movement was introduced into India than the minorities in India could be threatened and we could have Hindu-Muslim riots as a consequence.’ Second, ‘this would result in bringing religion into Indian politics and he (Jinnah) didn’t want that.’
Jaswant Singhpointedout that Jinnah’s fears were shared by Annie Besantandadded that events had shown that both were correct.
At the end of their lives both Jinnah and Gandhi died failed men?
‘Yes, I am afraid I have to say that … I cannot treat this (the outcome of their lives) as a success either by Gandhi or Jinnah … the partition of India and the Hindu-Muslim divide cannot really be called Gandhiji’s great success … Jinnah got a moth-eaten Pakistan but the philosophy that Muslims are a separate nation was completely rejected within years of Pakistan coming into being.’
Not too long ago when BJP leader Lal Krishna Advani visited Jinnah’s mausoleum in Karachi and scribbled something about his secularism, the RSS tore him apart.
Jaswant Singh rang me up the other day to invite me to the book launch. ‘I have said objectively what I had to say in the book about Jinnah, now I am ready for the noose.’
The verse about the pitfalls of war seems equally apt for the seekers of just peace. I can’t wait to read the book.
An unlikely Indian admirer By Jawed Naqvi Monday, 17 Aug, 2009 | 07:06 AM PST, jawednaqvi@gmail.com
British rule and its tail end haunt South Asians. Each country has its own version of history–clinging to their version of events. Despite thousands of books written on the events of 1946 and 1947, there is no consensus either about the events, or their motives. Investigating history is a dangerous endeavour in Delhi. Discussing Jinnah in Bharat (aka India) can be a career debilitating event for anyone. Expressing ones mind about the Pakistan movement can be dangerous to one’s vocation, specially if you are a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
The Congress Party of Bharat doesn’t go through the the periodic convulsions that the BJP goes through. Congress Party officials toe the “company line” on Jinnah. Mohammad Ali Jinnah is reviled by the party and his demonization is tought to school children all over Bharat who grow up hating the man, and the founder of Pakistan. Bharati history books are replete with condemnation of the man and his mission–focusing on rumor, innuendo and every trick in the book that tarnishes the image of one of the greatest politicians of our time. Why we created Pakistan? One Nation Theory vs Two Nation Theory:
There are no second opinions on Jinnah in India. All conflicting opinions are treated as treason and quickly stifled. By eliminating all shades of opinion about the Muslim League, the Bharati research establishment guarantees the same mistakes to be repeated again and again. Understanding Jinnah helps in understanding Pakistan and Pakistanis. Demonizing him creates hatred, bigotry and racism.
The history of Bharat focuses on “Direct Action Day” but doesn’t discuss the reasons leading up to the frustration of the Muslims of the Subcontinent. Bharatis learn about Gandhi’s fasting but see that the fast against the separate electorates denied the Dalits their right–for which they hate Gandhi forever. Why India’s Dalits hate Mohandas Gandhi?
The followers of Netaji, Subash Chandra Bose have no love lost for either Gandhi or for Nehru either. That is the reason Bose is marginalized in Bharati history. Critical Analysis of Jawaharlal Nehru by Subhas Bose
Jaswant Singh is right about the Cabinet Mission Plan. This according to Stanley Wolpert was an act of genius–the prefect solution for a multi-ethnic and multi-religious conglomeration of states of South Asia. The Congress led by Nehru and Gandhi could not accept the devolution of power in the hands of the people. Nehru and Gandhi would not give the Dalits and Scheduled classes separate electoral and elect their own leaders. Jinnah won the right to separate electorate for the Muslim. Dr. Ambadekar was close to the getting the same rights, but was blackmailed by Gandhi’s fast into giving up the right of separate electorate for th Dalits. Dr. Ambadekar later admitted that this was the greatest blunder of his life. By merging the Dalit body politics in the mainstream, the voting power of the Dalit and the Untouchables–and Mayawati tokenism aside, they remain enslaved. Nehru and Gandhi wanted to keep everyone under the diktat of the Brahman leadership.
As a result of the work of Jinnah, at least two thirds of the Muslim escaped the enslavement (see Sachaar Report), but the Dalits remain in bondage.
Mr. Singh’s ephiphany about Jinnah’s charcater is echoed by in rare forthright admisison of “The Times of India“ (TOI) which provokes its leaders with the following headlines “Jaswant’s view on Jinnah has scholarly backing“. But the TOI has it only partially right. The most accurate source on Mohammad Ali Jinnah is not Ayesha Jalal’s critical analysis of the man. The best source of information on Jinnah is Stanley Wolpert (if you must have a gora as a source) and the Mohammad Ali Jinnah Foundation of Pakisan. The Pakistani historians, Salima Karim (Mohammad Ali Jinnah was not secular), Dani and others have meticulously researched every aspect of the life of the founder of the nation. Of course the research that portrays him in a good light is not sensationalized by triumphant Bharati media.
It is a lot easier to fall back to accept the stereotype of Jinnah than to see him for what he was, Asia’s most brilliant barrister who made a constitutional case for Pakistan and won his argument against Gandhi, Nehru, the entire Congress and the British Empire.
Ayesha Jalal, professor of history at Tufts University, has for long spoken about Jinnah’s failed quest to remain within a united India while guaranteeing the Muslim community equal rights.
Her book “The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and Demand for Pakistan” is widely regarded as the most definitive work on Jinnah and the circumstances that led to the creation of Pakistan.
“My understanding of Jinnah, and I have done substantial research on him, is that he never really abandoned the idea of a united India,” Jalal says in an upcoming documentary on Jinnah and the creation of Pakistan by US-based journalist Mayank Chhaya.
“A united India for him included a Pakistan. He invoked Pakistan based on the Muslim majority provinces of the northwest and northeast as a way of acquiring substantial amount of power at the all India centre,”Jalal says. Jaswant’s view on Jinnah has scholarly backing IANS 19 August 2009, 01:20pm IST. TOI.
Promulgated on 16 May 1946, the Cabinet Mission Plan would have created a united dominion of India as a loose confederation of of states:
A united Dominion of India would be given independence.
1) Group A: Muslim-majority provinces would be grouped – Baluchistan, Sind, Punjab and NWFP would form one group
2) Group B: Bengal and Assam would form another group.
3) Group C: Hindu-majority provinces in central and southern India would form another group.
4) The Central government would be empowered to run foreign affairs, defence and communications, while the rest of powers and responsibility would belong to the provinces, coordinated by groups.
6) Later iterations of f the plan called for A constituent Assembly consisting of 389 members – 292 from provinces, 4 from the territories governed by chief Commissioners and 93 from Indian Princely States – would draft the Constitution of India.
Jinnah and the Muslim League accepted the plan. Nehru and the Congress also accepted it but later rejected it. They could never accpect parity between the Muslims and the Hindus. The British government initially refused to call the Muslim League to form a government but under pressure of the Direct Action Day acquiesced.
This map shows the struggle of the Muslims of South Asia. Continent of Dinia and dependencies Ch. Rehmat Ali map depicting Muslim rule in South Asia after the British left. The Muslim homeland that was part of the struggle for independence. Rehmat Ali and the Muslims wanted the region returned to Muslim rule as it was before the British arrived
In tracing the history of developments that she says led to the movement for Pakistan as a separate state, Jalal focuses on the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 whose mandate was to discuss the transfer of power from the British rulers to Indians as well as discuss the framing of the constitution.
In a sense the Cabinet Mission Plan was about “layered or shared sovereignty”, Jalal argues. She was referring to a three-tiered arrangement proposed in the plan which included a federal union of India, the grouping of provinces as the middle tier (which Jinnah supported) and provinces as the third-tier.
“Throughout the discussion of the Cabinet Mission the Congress Party was not willing to have the centre reduced to three subjects — defence, foreign affairs and communication. They wanted a broader vision.
“When Jawaharlal Nehru made his famous statement that there is nobody who can stop the Constituent Assembly from enhancing the powers of the centre and we do not believe in grouping, it became untenable for Jinnah to accept the Cabinet Mission Plan. It was at that point that you begin to see a movement for a Pakistan as a sovereign state,” Jalal explains.
She says what the Cabinet Mission gave Jinnah was “an option of a Pakistan that is based on a partition of Punjab and Bengal or remaining within the all India union with no necessary assurance of Muslim share of power at the all India centre. He accepted that, he accepted something less than a sovereign Pakistan.”
What made Jinnah “revert back to the idea of a sovereign Pakistan”, according to Jalal, was the rejection of the grouping by the Congress Party and once “it became clear that the Congress had no intention of sharing power”.
In Jalal’s telling, Jinnah was still “hoping against hope that the British will make an award and give him an undivided Punjab and Bengal”.
Jalal’s point that it was Nehru and the Congress Party that was unwilling to share power with Muslims tallies with what Jaswant Singh has said in his interview with a TV channel. “Nehru believed in a highly centralised polity. That’s what he wanted India to be. Jinnah wanted a federal polity,” Singh has been quoted as saying. Jaswant’s view on Jinnah has scholarly backing IANS 19 August 2009, 01:20pm IST
So what was the Cabinet Mission Plan? Why is it still being discussed today about 63 years. We use exceprt from “The Story of Pakistan” (http://www.storyofpakistan.com) to summarize the Cabinet Mission Plan.
Cabinet Mission Plan (16 May 1946) The last viable attempt to come to a peaceful solution to Indian independence and partition. The Indian elections of 1945–6 were won in the Hindu-dominated constituencies by the nationalist Indian National Congress (INC), and in the Muslim-dominated areas by the Muslim League. This raised the issue of whether independence was to result in a united India (as favoured by the INC), or one divided into Hindu and Muslim areas (as demanded by the Muslim League). On 23 March 1946, three representatives of the Attlee Cabinet, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, Stafford Cripps, and A. V. Alexander, went to India to find a solution. Their plan envisaged a three-tier government structure for a united India, with the lowest being the provincial level. The second tier would have created three zones consisting of the Muslim-dominated areas of the north-west and the north-east, and the Hindu-dominated rest of the subcontinent. Finally, the third tier bound these structures together into a loose federation. To lay to rest Muslim fears against Hindu domination, it provided also that after fifteen years, each individual zone was free to leave the union. Originally accepted by both parties, it was effectively scuppered by Nehru’s careless remark shortly afterwards, whereby he denied some of the Muslim rights negotiated so painstakingly, especially the right of the Muslim-dominated zones to secede after fifteen years. This killed off any residual goodwill with Jinnah, and led to India and Pakistan. Encyclopedia
1) The postwar Labour government in Britain was committed to independence for India. A second mission was sent to India by Prime Minister Attlee in 1946 for the preparation of independence. On 16 May this Cabinet Mission published a plan for transferring power to a united India, but over subsequent months it became clear that this plan would fail. The British Government therefore began to draw up alternative plans. It also appointed a new Viceroy Lord Mountbatten to take over from Lord Wavell who had failed to get the Indian parties to agree on any plan. In June 1947, Mountbatten announced that Independence would come at Midnight on 14 August 1947. British Library Archives
2) All of the British Government’s attempts to establish peace between the Congress and the Muslim League had failed. The results of the general elections held in 1945-46 served to underline the urgency to find a solution to the political deadlock, which was the result of non-cooperation between the two major parties. To end this, the British government sent a special mission of cabinet ministers to India.
3) The mission consisted of Lord Pethic Lawrence, the Secretary of State for India, Sir Stafford Cripps, President of the Board of Trade, and A. V. Alexander, the First Lord of the Admiralty. The purpose of the mission was:
i. Preparatory discussions with elected representatives of British India and the Indian states in order to secure agreement as to the method of framing the constitution.
ii. Setting up of a constitution body.
iii. Setting up an Executive Council with the support of the main Indian parties
4) The mission arrived on March 24, 1946. After extensive discussions with Congress and the Muslim League, the Cabinet Mission put forward its own proposals on May 16, 1946. The main points of the plan were:
a. There would be a union of India comprising both British India and the Indian States that would deal with foreign affairs, defense and communications. The union would have an Executive and a Legislature.
b. All residuary powers would belong to the provinces.
c. All provinces would be divided into three sections. Provinces could opt out of any group after the first general elections.
d. There would also be an interim government having the support of the major political parties.
5) The Muslim League accepted the plan on June 6 1946. Earlier, the Congress had accepted the plan on May 24, 1946, though it rejected the interim setup.
The Viceroy should now have invited the Muslim League to form Government as it had accepted the interim setup; but he did not do so.
6) Meanwhile Jawaharlal Nehru, addressing a press conference on July 10, said that the Congress had agreed to join the constituent assembly, but saying it would be free to make changes in the Cabinet Mission Plan.
7) Under these circumstances, the Muslim League disassociated itself from the Cabinet Plan and resorted to “Direct Action” to achieve Pakistan. As a result, Viceroy Wavell invited the Congress to join the interim government, although it had practically rejected the plan. However, the Viceroy soon realized the futility of the scheme without the participation of the League. Therefore, on October 14, 1946, he extended an invitation to them as well.
8) Jinnah nominated Liaquat Ali Khan, I. I. Chundrigar, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, Ghazanfar Ali Khan and Jogandra Nath Mandal to the cabinet. Congress allocated the Finance Ministry to the League. This in effect placed the whole governmental setup under the Muslim League. As Minister of Finance, the budget Liaquat Ali Khan presented was called a “poor man’s budget” as it adversely affected the Hindu capitalists.
9) The deadlock between the Congress and the League further worsened in this setup. On March 22, 1947, Lord Mountbatten arrived as the last Viceroy. It was announced that power would be transferred from British to Indian hands by June 1948.
10) Lord Mountbatten entered into a series of talks with the Congress and the Muslim League leaders. Quaid-i-Azam made it clear that the demand for Pakistan had the support of all the Muslims of India and that he could not withdraw from it. With staunch extremists as Patel agreeing to the Muslim demand for a separate homeland, Mountbatten now prepared for the partition of the Sub-continent and announced it on June 3, 1947.
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 ifferent 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.”
Many blame Jinnah for separating the Hindus and the Muslims. Most don’t understand that he adopted the Two Nation Theory from Sarawk and Haldi Ram who had espoused the “Shuddhi” (converstion), “Shangtram” (death and expulsion of all Muslim in Bharat.
Here is a quote from Dr. Ambedekar–the Dalit leader who defines “Pakistan” through Hindu eyes. Dr. Ambedekar quotes Haldi Ram.
“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. . .
In an interesting book called “Birds of a feather flock together” by Anwar Shaikh the author says the following:
“The fact that the Indians did not have to fight the British for freedom, absolves them of the usually leveled charge of divide and rule. The British ruled several communities and they were politically and morally obliged to give a fair healing to all of them. It was the attitudes of mutual hatred, which contributed to the communal divisions, but came to be ascribed to the British. This is the truth that Gandhi described when he said:
….but if both of us – Hindus and Muslims – cannot agree on anything else the Viceroy is left with no choice .
It was not the British, who divided India: it is the Congress and the League that had agreed to partition as the solution and Mountbatten was not to blame” Gandhi assured
BOSTON: Years before veteran politician Jaswant Singh, who was expelled from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Wednesday, a well-known historian here was championing Pakistan founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s many admirable qualities, including his passion for a united India.
The Insidious Indian Propaganda 18 Jan, 2010 Dr S. M. Rahman INDIA IS A WAR MONGERER The internet has become a vehicle to fan preposterous propaganda by the agencies in India, in order to promote ‘Hindutva’ sensibility to raise scare and trepidation among the Hindus that Pakistan in collusion with Bangladesh and Indian Muslim are now planning [...] […]
We first present map to show the exact loacation of Northern Areas. Then we present the historical proof why Northern Areas are part of Pakistan and not part of Kashmir. 
This is a map of Pakistan. Northern areas are not shown as part of Kashmir
This is a map of the Kashmir area demarcating the Northern Areas as part of Pakistan not Kashmir.
This map shows Azad “liberated” Kashmir. Azad Kashmir was not part of Hari Singh jurisdiction. The forged article of accession was never submitted to the UN or to Pakistan. The original article of accession was lost, if it ever existed. The copy submitted to the media by the Indian Government has a date of August, which is crossed out and overwritten with an October date. There are many things that question the integrity of the document, when it was signed and who sighned it. The date when the article supposedly had been signed brings many things into question as outlined by Mr. Alister Lamb.
This map shows the Northern areas.The Northern areas are not part of Kashmir
These are incorrect maps and should be corrected.
These maps show the Karakoram highway route
According to Alister Lamb, the Northern Areas rose up in revolt against the Dogra rule before the annexation that supposedly was signed between the Dogras and India. This makes them independent of the rest of Kashmir and the accession document does not apply to them. The article of accession was never given to Pakistan or the United Nations. India now claims that the “article of accession” is lost if it ever existed. There are several errors in the published version of the article of accession. The dates do not match and show that the Indian forces had moved into Srinagar before the article had been “signed”.
Defensebriefs
Intellibriefs
Translate
RSS feed: 
The Pakistani position on Siachen is marked in red
Junagarh and Manavdar are also Pakistani territory.
Kashmir, Junagarh & Manvadar are Pakistani territory 
Kashmir: Does the article of accession exist? 
Peace is a two way street 
Northern Areas are part of Pakistan and were never part of Kashmir 
باطل سے دبنے والے اسماں نھیں سو بار کت چکا ھي امتھاں ھمارا
The Swastika bearing Safron Hindu Extremists Replaced Buddhism with Hinduism in Budddhist lands.
<img
src="http://pakhistorian.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/iqbal-poetry.jpg"
