Pakistan Historian

September 30, 2009

Who assassinated Liaqat Ali Khan?

Filed under: History of Pakistan — Moin Ansari @ 5:53 am
Tags:

Why was Liaqat Ali Khan Assassinated? Who murdered Shaheed e Millat?

Liaqat Ali Khan

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | RUPEE NEWS | February 27th, 1997 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |Published Feb. 26th 1997. Updated Feb. 20th, 2008 with recently declassified US documentation which raise the question of CIA involvement in the death of LAK.

(http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/pakistan/pakintrigue.htm#liaquat).

The events of December 27th 2007 when the 3rd Pakistani Prime Minister was assasinated in Rawalpindi makes this research very poignant. Two decades ago we have read more about who shot JR and a lot less about who shot one of our greatest freedom fighters of Pakistan. We all wondered who shot Khan Liaqat Ali Khan? The American press is always trying to discover who actually planned the assassination of President John Fritzgerald Kennedy. The media is obsessed with JFKs murder even though the murderer was captured. The Pakistani media is silent about Liaqat Ali Khan. The same forces that were responsible for the death of Benazir Bhutto are responsible for the death of Shahed Millat.

Liaqat Ali Khan was the liberator of Kashmir. In 1947, Liaqat Ali Khan raised a fist at India warning it of staying away from Pakistan. As long as the fist was alive no neighboring country could dare lift a finger at Pakistan.

Jinnah and Liaqat at the 1940 Lahore Resolution (Pakistan Reolution)

Jinnah and Liaqat at the 1940 Lahore Resolution (Pakistan Reolution)

SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE.

We have researched this issue at length. In the abscence of an on the spot autopsy, the cicumstancial and political evidence points to the political enemies of Khan Liaqat Ali Khana and Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The feudlas of many areas did not support the creation of Pakistan. Urban voters were free to vote, and the wholehearted supported, Iqbal, Jinnah and Liaqat. If we look at the plitical landscape of the Subcontinetal politics, we see the following:

  1. Jinnah, Iqbal, and Liaqat were at odds with the anti-Pakistan, pro-Congress elements who wre supported by the likes of Sir Chottu Ram and the Unionist party. Iqbal and Liquat were responsible for the creation of Muslim League in every town and village of the Subcontinent, and had transformed the League from an eletist group to a national party.
  2. Jinnah, Liaqat. Iqbal, and the Muslim Leageu won the day, and destroyed the Hyatt-Tiwana conspiracies led by their cohorts the Congress and SIr Choutta Rams Zamindara party
  3. Hyatt and Tiwana lost to the Muslim League but kept the vengence in thier harts.
  4. Liaqat Ali Khan did not allow the UK and the US Pakistani facilities to attack Iran. There is a lot of suspicion on the CIA on this matter. Recent declassified documents shed light on a lot of information on this.
  5. According to Gauhar Ayub, Liqat Ali Khan had talked to King Zahir Shah who had agreed to a confederation with Pakistan.
  6. The Finance Minsiter and openly defied Liaqat Ali Khan trying to run Foreign Affairs. He had the most to gain from the death of Liaqat Ali Khan and tried to come to power.
  7. The Khaksar Tehrik and the Socialist Coalition wanted to to turn Pakistani into a Socialistic republic.
  8. Liqat Ali Khan was supposed to announce land reforms and a close relationship with the Muslim world.
  9. There is tremendous suspicious on Mushtaq Muhamamd, and Ghulam Muhammad. Ghulam Muhammad was supposedly the CIA man.
  10. Both Jinnah and Liaqat faced numerous asassination attempts on thier lives by the same Unionist party or their fascist supports the Khaksars.
  11. Jinnah escaped the attempts, and Liaqat did not.

Liaqat Ali KhanLiaqat Ali Khan presented the Crescent and Star for approval to the National Assemby of Pakistan in 1947. The Khan obatined unanimous appproval and the Cresecent and Star bacme the national flag of Pakistan.Mutiny to Mountbatten by Zeba Zubair

Allah Pakistan ko apni amaan mai~n rakhay “(God save Pakistan). Last words of Shaheed-e-Millat, Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan right before his asassination-death in Rawalpindi.

Shaheed-millat tum to golee lageeHum ko sudmaa hoDunya rotee raheeDusman hastay rahay

Liaqat Ali Khan

LIAQAT ALI KHAN

THE DAY DEMOCRACY DIED IN RAWALPINDI: Liaqat Ali Khan was the able lieutenant of the father of our nation. He was the first Prime Minister of our nation. He sowed the seeds of democracy and died fighting for democary. Liaqat Ali Khan matched the sprit of Nehru and the tenacity of Patel. Liaqat Ali Khan had the vitality of George Washington, and the vision of Lincoln. He and Jinnah did for Pakistan what Kemal Ataturk had done for Turkey. Like Mao Tse Tung Liaqat and Jinnah led the countrymen to nationhood. For a brief shining moment, our nation glimpsed “Camelot”, where we were led by honest leaders, who’s only consideration was the task of building the nation. These uncorruptable leaders had character, strength, and the mandate of the people. Like JFK, Liaqat Ali Khan was a young, popular and charismatic leader who had led the nation ‘across the read” sea and was immersed in the task of builidng an infrastructure for the new country. But forces opposed to democracy cut him in half.

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | RUPEE NEWS | November 27th, 2008 | Binu Karunakaran | اخبار روپیہ |

Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

WHO SHOT LAK?..CIA CONNECTION

Under headline reading “Is Liaquat Ali Khan’s assassination result of a deep-laid American conspiracy?”, leftist Urdu daily Bhopal named Nadeem published article October 24 charging US with responsibility. Summary article follows:

[...]It was learned within Pakistani Foreign Office that while UK pressing Pakistan for support re Iran, US demanded Pakistan exploit influence with Iran and support Iran transfer oil fields to US. Liaquat declined request. US threatened annul secret pact re Kashmir. Liaquat replied Pakistan had annexed half Kashmir without American support and would be able to take other half. Liaquat also asked US evacuate air bases under pact. Liaquat demand was bombshell in Washington. American rulers who had been dreaming conquering Soviet Russia from Pakistan air bases were flabbergasted. American minds set thinking re plot assassinate Liaquat. US wanted Muslim assassin to obviate international complications. US could not find traitor in Pakistan as had been managed Iran, Iraq, Jordan. Washington rulers sounded US Embassy Kabul. American Embassy contacted Pashtoonistan leaders, observing Liaquat their only hurdle; assured them if some of them could kill Liaquat, US would undertake establish Pashtoonistan by 1952. Pashtoon leaders induced Akbar undertake job and also made arrangements kill him to conceal conspiracy. USG-Liaquat differences recently revealed by Graham report to SC; Graham had suddenly opposed Pakistan although he had never given such indication. [...] Cartridges recovered from Liaquat body were American-made, especially for use high-ranking American officers, usually not available in market. All these factors prove real culprit behind assassin is US Government, which committed similar acts in mid-East. “Snakes” of Washington’s dollar imperialism adopted these mean tactics long time ago. Confidential Telegram No. 1532 from New Delhi Embassy, Oct. 30, 1951

Recommend Department ignore article summarized in Delhi’s 1532. It is compilation of utter falsehoods whose vituperation is some degree worse than articles that appear from time to time in Bombay’s Commie-line “Blitz”. To issue any statement labeling the facts in the article as lies will only give Nadeem an importance it does not merit. The investigation into background of Liaquat’s assassination is being conducted with extreme care and well guarded secrecy. Gurmani tells me an intercept has been obtained which if backed up by further material may reveal the assassination had some inspiration and followed the pattern of Razmara’s assassination in Teheran. Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embasssy, Oct. 31, 1951

Since article apparently not rpt not widely circulated, Department believes preferable not rpt not issue public denial. In its discretion, however, Embassy might informally mention case MEA with comment story so preposterous no rpt no public denial intended. Would be interesting to know whether this story of character which led adoption recent press law. Ownership management NADEEM should be discreetly be investigated. Confidential Telegram from State Dept., Nov. 1, 1951

Soviet Press today carried Prague Despatch reporting Rude Pravo article based Afghan press agency “Bahtar” information re assassination Liaquat Ali. Despatch states after escaping Afghanistan due murders and other crimes “Said Akbar ran to India and there under protection British authorities which gave him refuge in Abbotabad and provided him money. After partition India Akbar remained in Pakistan where he continued make use protection of certain British circles.” “These facts adduced by Afghan press supporting position that murder Liaquat Ali was result intrigue of imperialists in Asian countries.” Secret Telegram from Moscow Embassy, Nov. 3, 1951 [only first page located]

The Embassy questions the premise stated in the first sentence of the Airgram under reference (“Lack of spontaneous anti-Indian and anti-Afghan popular outburst over both July war scare and Liaquat’s assassination suggests feeling on Kashmir and Afghan disputes mostly government inspired.”) … The anti-Afghan agigation that spontaneously sprang up on October 16-17 was effectively stopped by the GOP’s prompt exercise of its official and unofficial powers of censorship over the press, even to the extent of preventing reference after October 17 to the assassin’s Afghan origin. Popular Feeling in Pakistan on Kashmir and Afghan Issues, Nov. 10, 1951

One almost never hears about the culprits in the assassination of Khan Liaqat Ali Khan…. the first victim of our nascent nation. After his death democracy was forced to fail and dictators ruled the Pakistani landscape.

Since the autopsies done on the body of the Khan has NOT revealed much, let us do an autopsy of the politics of our time. There have been several books written on the man, and a wealth of information is revealed in them.

LIAQAT ALI KHAN, THE MAN, ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS, THE FREEDOM FIGHTER, THE LIBERATOR OF KASHMIR & THE FIRST PRIME MINISTER

Liaqat Ali Khan was a born in a rich family, but he gave up his lands for freedom and for Pakistan.

All through the forties, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah had picked patriots who would lead the nation to freedom. These men were loyal not only to Quaid-e-Azam and the Muslim League, these men were loyal to the cause of Pakistan. Both created and led the Muslim League and battled the British and engaged the Congress for the independent nation of Pakistan. Throughout the trials and tribulations, Liaqat Ali Khan and Jinnah went through one constitutional crises after the other and faced the elections. From the Khilafat movement, to the cause of the separate electorate, through the Cabinet Mission Plan, through the pre-partition governments, the Khan and Jinnah led the Muslim League and the nation towards Pakistan.

In little towns and in big villages, the All India Muslim League opened offices and built a grass roots movement that was supported by the Mussalmans of Bharat. Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan were painfully aware that the Muslims had no voice in the press. In order to combat the propoganda of its enemies, the Muslim League needed a voice. The created from scratch newspapers that would carry the Muslim League message. In 1945, the created the newspaper called ‘Dawn’. They also created the paper called “Pakistan Times’ and they created other papers called Patriots etc.

Here is a message from the Honorable Liaqat Ali Khan, Premier of Pakistan. Dated Delhi, 5th August, 1947:

” Now that the great day has come when we have not only achieved freedom from foreign domination but also regained our long lost opportunity for national development. I wish to convey to our people a message of goodwill and good cheer on this day when the Muslim state of our dreams has become a reality. Let us not forget that his has been achieved not by the efforts of Muslims in Pakistan alone, but even more by the sufferings of millions living in Muslim minority provinces. I hope that although henceforth the frontiers of the two states will divide the Muslims of this Subcontinent, the ties of brotherhood will endure, because the Islamic fraternity knows no political or geographical barriers. I have no doubt that the Muslims of Pakistan will ever regard the Muslims of Hindustan as part of themsleves and give them equal opportunities in their own state. I am confident also that the Muslims in Hindustan will be loyal citizens of their state and paly an important and honorable role in the progress and prosperity.” Sd. Liaqat Ali Khan.

Liaqat Ali Khan was uncorrptable. Here is an editorial printed in the Nation on Friday, February 28, 1997, Lahore, “Banish the factotums, sir”, written by Khalid Hasan :

“In the early years of Pakistan, the leaders lived with simplicity. Mr Liaquat AliKhan, who used to be rich in his own right before independence, lived simply. He was accessibleand there were hardly any barriers between him and those who considered him the Quaid-i-Azam’s heir and his most trusted deputy. We all know that when the Nawabzada died, he had no money in the bank. That is the example our present-day leaders need to follow and not that of oriental potentates, colonial overlords and slave plantation kings.”

As Prime Minster of Pakistan Liaqat Ali secured the borders of Pakistan, LIBERATED one third of Kashmir (and would have liberated ALL of it if HIS plan had worked), and internationalized (through agreements with the USA) the boundaries of Pakistan by ensuring that the USSR through its proxies (India or Afghanistan) could not cross them.

LIAQAT TAKES OVER A PRECARIOUS POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

1947, was a precarious time for Pakistan. The newly won freedom was in jeopardy. The flame of Pakistani Muslim liberty was in danger of being extinguished. Liaqat Ali Khan became prime minister of Pakistan when the anti-Pakistan Unionist loyalists (who had been in cahoots with the Indian National Congress) landlords and the anti-Muslim League feudals were waiting in the wings to take over the political machinery of the new country. This was an accident waiting to happen.

In Sindh the landlords were mostly Hindu and these landlords fled to India. In the Punjab and Sarhad they were the Badshah Khans and the Khizar Hyatts who had opposed the Quaid-e-Azam.

After the death of Quaid-e-Azam the feudals wanted to take over the nascent country. The feudals had opposed Pakistan. For the feudals the only roadblocks to power were the patriots who had led the Pakistan movement. I.I. Chundrigarh, Feroze Khan Noon and Khan Liaqat Ali Khan. Once the Bengali leadership of the Muslim League was harassed and removed, then it was necessary to begin removing the political infra-structure of Pakistan that had been built by the Quaid-e-Azam himself. The Muslim League leaders faced the wrath of the feudals. The Quaid and Khan Liaqat Ali Khan had defeated the feudals in their Unionist party which was in an alliance with the Indian National Congress (INC). Now the feudals were out to take revenge from the leadership of the Muslim that had shepherded the nation to freedom.

Mohammad Ali Jinnah had terminal cancer and he died an early death. The actual circumstances of the death of the Quaid are shrouded in mystery, confusion and perhaps even conspiracy.

Several Pakistani prime ministers tried to illegally take over the reigns of government through extra-constitutinal means, but the machinations of the feudals did not allow them to rule. These machinations were the earliest seed of discontent sown into the minds of the Bengalis because they saw the Bengali leadership of the Muslim League harassed and shunted out of the Muslim League.

Pakistan was born under the Mountbatten-Indian premise that the country would last a few weeks and the Muslims would learn their lesson and then come begging back to India to take them back. In fact Lord Mountbatten had offered and insisted on becoming the joint Governor General of both India and Pakistan. This unique head of both the states would have facilitated the early demise of the state of Pakistan. Quaid-e-Azam and Liaqat Ali Khan saw through the ruse and asked Lord Mountbatten whose anti Pakistan and anti-Muslim stand had already been proven several times over not to become the governor general of Pakistan.

EXTERNAL THREAT TO PAKISTAN NULLIFIED THROUGH STRATEGIC ALLIANCES

Many Hindus and Gandhi did not oppose Pakistan. Some like Patel did. The opponents were fierce vitriolic and vociferous. Right after Pakistan was created, some of the radical Hindus considered this a temporary situation and called it a temporary partition of the country of India. When the new country lasted for a few months, India began flexing its muscles. One of the first test of Pakistani sovereignty came when India devalued her currency and wanted Pakistan to do the same. Liaqat Ali Khan refused, and angry India tightened the screws and imposed a trade embargo against Pakistan. All cross border trade came to a halt. This was the initiation of cessation of trade that has still not been really revived, even in modern times.

With China still embroiled in its communist struggle, Asia was recognized as India. In British eyes, India was the major power in the India. In the early nineteenth century, America proudly proclaimed that “it was manifest destiny that the USA should span from the Atlantic to the Pacific.” The Soviet Union extended from the Pacific to the Atlantic. With British imperial might, and India the crown jewel of the empire, India too saw her destiny as great as the superpowers.

THE NEHRU DOCTRINE FACES LIAQAT ALI KHANS PATRIOTIC FIST

The Nehru doctrine was a natural extension of Indian nationalism. Nehrus dreams of India as one of hte major nations of the world are elequently quoted in his letters to his daughter “Glimpses of World History”, a very welll written book on the history of the world. The stature of Nehrus intelleigence can be judged from the fact that Nehru wrote the book from memory while he was in jail.

To many Indians religion was a personal matter and did not want the state to interfere in it. Riightly or wrongly they saw Jinnah using the ruse of religion to gain power. Some Indians felt that Indian nationalism and dreams had run aground by the creation of Pakistan. “Partition” had stopped the land routes to Europe and divided the focus of its attntion. Had she been cut down to size? Reeling from partiton, Patel started to consolidate the rest of the “nation”. Nehru would not allow 550 Indias. Nehru and Patel wanted to create the Indian nationality by creating a contiguous Subcontinent. She had taken over Kashmir, Junagarh and had taken over Hydrabad. India was threatening Pakistan. Pakistani nationalism now tested the limits of Indian consolidation. Liaqat Ali Khan looked for cracks in the consolidation. Liaqat Ali Khan saw what was coming and used the tribesmen to take advantage of the rebellion in Kashmir and liberate the state. All Kashmiris remember Liaqat Ali Khan with fondness because he is the real liberator of Azad Kashmir. Were it not for Liaqat Ali Khan ALL of Kashmir would today be part of India.

Like Nehru, Khan was also embroiled in the task of nation building. Like Nehru, Khan also faced daunting odds. Unlike Nehru, Khan was the ruler of a state with very powerful feudal enemies. These enemies had sworn the destruction of the country. These feudals saw Khan between them and their allies and friends the Indian National Congress. Khan Liaqat Ali Khan began to create a sovereign nation. He saw the vision to create natural and artifical boundaries around the country. He ordered the digging of the BRB canal along the Wagah border. The Indians were to learn the importance of what they call “Khawjal Canal” during the 1965 war because this canal provided Pakistan a natural defense barrier against the advancing Indian army. When things got too hot for India in Kashmir and Pakistani troops under Tikka Khan and the freedom fighters were only 35 miles away from Srinagar, India wanted to cross the international border at Batapur and Run of Katch. The Americans in 1965 had guaranteed to Pakistan that Kashmir was disputed territory and India would not cross the international border. India tired to but the rangers kept them at bay along the BRB canal that was designed and built during the reign of Khan Liaqat Ali Khan

It was under these circumstances that Khan Liaqat Ali Khan took the reigns of office. He struggled to do the following:

1) Guard Pakistan against a belligerent India which wanted to reintegrate Pakistan into India

2) Watch the back of Pakistan against the Indian ally Zahir Shah of Afghanistan

3) Tried to create an external strategic alliance with the USA and sold the idea to the West that Pakistan would be a reliable bulwark against the socialistic India-USSR nexus

LIAQAT ALI KHAN NEGATES THE SOVIET THREAT

Liaqat Ali Khan saw the growing menace of the Soviet threat. He had been monitoring the expansion of the Russian empire into the six Muslim states, and he had watched the integration of independent Muslim republics into the USSR. He has also seen the forced deportation of the Chechnians and Tartars to Siberia as reprisals for resisting the Sovietization of the Muslim peoples.

Liaqat Ali Khan saw the growing relations of the USSR with Afghanistan as a clear threat to Pakistans sovereignty. Khan went to the US and laid the foundation of a very log term alliance with the USA. This alliance immediately opened up the flood gates of American aid to Pakistan. The initial aid came in the form of German war crime reparation that were given to Pakistan. This put money in the treasury. The next step was UN and Direct USAID to Pakistan. With American protection the existence of Pakistan was guaranteed, or else the nascent nation may have succumbed to the twin USSR-Indian and Sino-Indain threat.

INTERNAL THREAT SUPPRESSED THROUGH STRATEGIC COALITIONS

Jinnah and Khan had generated a cadre of loyal politicians that supported the Muslim League. Liaqat Ali Khan wanted to bank on the traditional allies that both he and Mohammad Ali Jinnah had created across the land of Pakistan. However these were hard to come by because many of the Aligarh led student movement leaders were now back to the grind earning a living. Liaqat Ali Khan was in the process of forming alliances in the Punjab and the NWFP. He trusted the leaders that had supported the Muslim League and he trusted the leaders that had supported Pakistan. Liaqat Ali Khan did not trust the leaders that had opposed Pakistan. Liaqat Ali Khan did not trust the leadership of the Unionist party that was in alliance with the Indian National Congress.

Khan through a series of steps tried to create consensus within the boundaries of Pakistan:

1) Tried to germinate local pro-Muslim leadership in Bengal by supporting the pro-Pakistani Bengali leaders against the pro-Indian and United Bengal nationalist leaders who wanted an independent Bengal.

2) Watched the antics of G.M. Syed whose off again and on again loyalties to the Muslim League and/or Gandhi rendered him un-trusworthy.

3) Tried create Muslim League alliances in two provinces where there was the anti-Muslim League parties playing on the sentiments of the people. Namely it was the Khizar Hyatt led Unionist government in the Punjab and a Ghaffar Khan led government in NWFP.

Liaqat Ali Khan formed the constituent assemby and set upon the task of creting serious structures which would assist the country in the future. All Pakistani constitueions were based on the work of the first constitution. The original 1953 constitution was the basis of the 1973 constituion that is preserved more or less by our courts today.

FORTIES: THE FEUDAL UNIONISTS HAD OPPOSED PAKISTAN AND THE MUSLIM LEAGUE

The Unionist Party had opposed Pakistan, had opposed the Muslim League, had opposed the Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah and had opposed Liaqat Ali Khan. After the death of Jinnah their wrath turned to Khan Liaqat Ali Khan. How could the Unionist oppose a trusted lieutenant of the Quaid? How could they oppose one of the greatest freedom fighters of the struggle for Pakistan? How could the Unionists oppose the leader of the Muslim League—the party that created Pakistan and opposed the Unionists in the Punjab? The Khan had many friends and supporters in the Punjab. The Khan was responsible for creating and nourishing the Muslim League in the Punjab. He had counted on and got the support of the people of Punjab. The Muslim League had defeated the Unionsist in the polls.

Here is a quote from the book “HAD THERE BEEN NO JINNAH” (@1989 by Salahuddin Khan Printed by: PanGraphics (Pvt) Ltd. Islamabad. Pages 14-15.

“From this stage, conflict between the Congress and theMuslim League became increasingly sharp. The MuslimLeague under the skilful leadership of Jinnah set itselfto strengthen its organization, extend its basis of supportamong the Muslim masses, and consolidate the variousMuslim groups and organizations so as to make the Muslim League the main Organization of the Muslims inIndia. During the period 1937-45 a decisive change took placein the position and relative strength of the Muslim League, as it won increasing mass support among the Muslims. The 1946 elections reveal the changed position.In the Central and Provincial Legislative Assembly elections the Muslim League won 460 out of 533 Muslimseats. There can be no doubt, that during this periodthe Muslim League had established its position as the major political organization among Muslims in India. It had been the original aim of the Congress to includeequally Hindus and Muslims. But, in practice, this aimwas never realised in the proportions of membership won.In January 1938, according to a press statement issuedby Nehru, out of 3.1 millions members of Congress, only1,00,000, that is 3.2% were Muslims; overwhelmingmajority of the newly awakened sections of the Muslimsturned to the Muslim League as their political organization.”

The victories in 1946 were at the expense of the pro-Congress Unionists in the Punjab. In the face of very strong popular grass-roots political support for Pakistan, the Muslim League and Liaqat Ali Khan the Hyattis were trying to figure to how to oppose Quaid-e-Azam and the Muslim League. The Khizar Hyatt political machinery could not find anything against Liaqat Ali Khan, so they used the race card. The Khizar Hyatt Unionist Party propaganda had painted Liaqat Ali Khan as an opponent of Punjabis. Nothing could be further from the truth. Liaqat Ali Khan opposed the feudal Unionist leaders like Khizar Hyatt who had opposed Pakistan. Liaqat Ali Khan had many friends in the Punjab who had helped him defeat the Unionists at the polls. It is little known that L.A Khan was born in Karnal East Punjab. Here are some notes on the origins of Liaqat Ali Khan. I quote from p.27 of book by Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad , Liaquat Ali Khan: builder of Pakistan.

“The family, Before settling down in Karnal in thePunjab in the 19th century, lived on the other side of the Jamna in Muzaffarnagar (U.P., India) for some generations, where they owned bigestates. Even after he settled down in Delhi, he took keen interestin the amelioratin and betterment of the Muslims of Muzaffarnagar.”

The Unionist element tried to rally support against Khan Liaqat Ali Khan by playing up the ethnic race card. Liaqat Ali Khan was born in Karnal East Punjab with friends and relatives on both sides of the border. The Khan had very strong ties to East Punjab. However this fact was concealed and many Khizar Hyatt Khan supporters falsly labeled him.

THE ASSASSINATION OF DEMOCRACY IN RAWALPINDI—A CIA PLOT?

Liaqat Ali Khan was killed in broad daylight in Rawalpindi. This is what Zeba Zubair in Mutiny to Mountbatten says about the assassination:

“On 16 October 1951 at a Public Meeting in Rawalpindi, ‘a blind shot from the blue’ silenced the voice of Quaid-e-Millat, Nawabzadah Liaqat Ali Khan. Another epoch of history was at an end. On a sad day for this new nation it was as if a mighty powe in heaven was also reacting in anger at the cowardly act of mankind. The sky of Karachi had a peculiar and ominous orange-yellow colouring and the people felt resltell at the starnge weather…”

This is what the Daily dawn of October 17th, 1951 said:

‘With the kalima on his lips, Liaqat , Successor of the Quaid-e-Azam Prime Minister. Leader unparalleled, is dead. The man who killed him was not just an individual he was the symbol of that deadly enmity of the enemies of Islam who have always wanted to destroy Pakistan. We name only one but we feel this in our heart with the certain flash and convinced truth. We grieve for Liaqat–martyr to Pakistan and Islam; but we proclaim over Liaqat’s still unburied body: Pakistan shall live, and whoever of her servants may fall in her service, this citadel of Islam guarded by 70 million worshippers of Allah will never fall. Begum Liaqat, Ashraf and Akbar, we shall not try to console you in your grief in consolable, but know this, that you beloved husband and father had died in glory and as comes only to the chosen of God. Pakistan Zindabad (Dawn Editorial, 17 October, 1951)”

Even in his last moments he was thinking of his nation. Other then remembering God and reciting the kalima, his last words were “Allah Pakistan ko apni amaan mai~n rakhay “(God save Pakistan). Every Pakistani of that generation absolutely remembers where he was and what he was doing when that fatal shot was announced on Radio Pakistan. Every patriotic Pakistani cried that day.

” A few yards away for the body of the founder of the Pakistan now rests its eternal sleep the body of the builder of Pakistan. Both died in harness and both died for Pakistan. The Quaid-e-Azam worked his body way to waste; the Quaid-e-Millat fearlessly exposed his body to danger for his love of duty and country. The master and the disciple, the twin servants of Islam who in this century added perhaps the most glorious chapter to Islam’s temporal history, now meet heaven. Like twin stars, unseen but their presence always felt, their blessings will be continually showered on the land which the one founded, and the other built up to a state of stability and strength form which progress forward is inevitable because of its own momentum. It is now for the nation which they served so well, to carry on their work, and in particular make the blood of martyred Liaqat blossom to all of us. But upon the new leader who has been chosen by the team left behind by Liaqat the main burned if it will fall, the choice has been will and wisely made..

Khawaja Nazimuddin, our new Prime Minister and Liaqat’s successor as leader of this nation……”(Dawn editorial October 1951)

This is what Javed Jabbar says about the assassination in Rawalpindi in an article in the Nation (Feb 26th, 1997) entitled Accountability: history and truth.

“Distortions in our relationship with accountability have an even more historic dimension. During the lifetime of the Quaid-i-Azam himself, within weeks and months of the creation of Pakistan, reports began to emerge about corruption at high levels in government. One of the major figures who despaired at this early neglect of accountability was Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Then came the assassination of our first Prime Minister Quaid-i-Millat Liaquat Ali Khan. A man who was so financially incorruptible as to leave only a paltry sum in his bank account deserved to have his killers held to account for their heinous crime. Over the past forty-five years, speculative interpretations name prominent individuals as suspects in the Liaquat assassination. The official inquiry was not received as a credible analysis. In addition tothe original stain of financial corruption on the white and spotlessly clean garment of accountabilitywere now added the red stains of blood: people could actually get away with murder.”

The Shaheed-e-Millat was so scrupulously honest that when he died, he had holes in his socks. This was the man that presented the Crescent and Star “Khanjar hilal ka hai qaumi nitaa~n hamaara” to the constituent National Assembly of Pakistan. His famous closed fist remained a symbol of defiance to India, and it remained a symbol of our sovereignity.

Right after the assassination of Khan Liaqat Ali Khan, the patsy—actual murderer (the man who pulled the trigger) was caught and killed immediately (lest he spill the beans). Lee Harvey Oswald suffered the same fate when he actually started talking. However the real murderers the people who ordered the death of a the first prime minister of Pakistan not only remained at large, they actually benefited from his death. As a final insult to the slain freedom-fighter Liaqat Bagh (the site of his assassination) was turned into a bus stop and the promised garden to this date remains a commercial cess pot.

The day Liaqat Ali Khan died , democracy died in Pakistan. Dictators took over the reigns of the government and abrogated the constituent assembly. On 23rd October, Ghulam Mohammad dissilved the Constituent Assembly and with it, any semblence of constitutiona legitmacy. Altaf. This is what the Daily Dawn said in one of its editorials, and it gives a brief synopsis of the events leading to and the levents that occured right after the death of the Shaheed-e-Millat:

“Since birth Pakistan has had four major nights of crisis. On the night of Spetember 11. The Father of the nationdied. On the night of October 16, 1951, the nation held its breath, dazed by the murder of its builder, Liaqat. On the night of April 17, 1953,a Governmetn headed by the President of the Muslim League was flicked off the ash from a cigar-tip. On the night of October 23, 1954 (because it was then, we think that the decision was taken) the constituent Assembly of Pakistan was beleived to be soverign body, was wiped off the country’s political map like one wipes spilt milk form a table….(Dawn: 27 October, 1954)”

This abrogation kept Pakistan without a real constitution till 1973 The 1956 and 1963 constitutions were abrogated and martial laws imposed in 1958 and 1969. A lack of constitutional protection to the Bengalis and other citizens of Pakistan led to the creation of deep suspicions in the minds of the common Pakistanis, specially the Bengalis.

THE BENEFICIARIES FROM LIAQAT ALI KHANS DEATH

It is obvious that the assassins of Khan Liaqat Ali Khan were the parties and leaders who benefited from his death. After remmoving the elected prime minister from office through murder, the feudals tried to marginalize the Bengalis. As a result of the conspiracy the constitution was abrogated and the military feudal complex took over Pakistan. The feudals and their sentries the army took over the reins of the country and never let go.

It is based on these grains of truth that Ayesha Jalal and the Indian text books claim that the Muslim League was supported by the landlords. Before the creation of Pakistan these feudals opposed the Muslim League tooth and nail. It is unfortunate for our country that these feudals became the rulers of Pakistan after Liaqat Ali Khan. The rest as they say is history. For a list of Muslim League enemies, one does not have to go far. A directory of officers of the Unionist Party along with the list of the Khaksars (who actually did make many attempts on Muslim League leaders). For details on the Muslim League-Unionist animosity please see my article called “The Fifth Column” posted on soc.culture.pakistan.history.

This is what Javed Jabbar says about the assassination in Rawalpindi in an article in the Nation (Feb 26th, 1997) entitled Accountability: history and truth.

“When the black gowns of the superior judiciary joined the blood-stained garb of accountability, a decisive turning point was passed. The legitimisation of the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly by Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad and his dismissal of Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin established a new ground norm that went beyond the justified and unavoidable dismissal of Dr Khan Sahib’s NWFP government in August 1948, when the provincial regime declined to accept even the symbolic elements of the new state of Pakistan.”

THE KHAKSARS FASCISTS ATTEMPTED MANY ASSASSINATIONS ON THE QUAID-E-AZAM. DID THE UNIONISTS-KHAKSARS ASASSINATE LIAQAT ALI KHAN?

Vacuity of ideas did not prevent losers from forming parties. There are many inconsequential movements in the Subcontinent, whose mention is but a footnote in the historical records. The Khaksars are but one of the failed movements that achieved nothing. Being proud of the Khaksars is like being proud of the KKK or being proud of the Nazis of German or the Fascists of Italy. The only difference is that the Nazis and the Fascist caught the imagination of the Italians and the Germans. The Khaksars only caught the imagination of the demented few in the Punjab. Their claim to fame was repeated assassination attempts on the Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

The fundamentalist militia group calling itself the Khaksars were led by their mouse-hearted salar Agha Zaigham in 1938-40. They got their inspiration from the brown shirts of Italy. They patterned their uniforms and their marching style from Mousolinni and his Fascist Party. They were anarchists who wanted total control over everything.

I quote Stanley Wolpert (Jinnah of Pakistan, Page 180):

” Paramilitary Muslim Khaksars were as hostile towards the Muslim League as they were anti-Hindu and anti-Sikh……..As a whole however, the Khaksars never reconciled to Jinnah’s leadership and tried more than once in the next few years to assassinate him”

The Muslim League led by the Quaid-e-Azam and their march towards Pakistan was an impediment to their fascist dreams. I quote the incident from Jinnah of Pakistan by Stanley Wolpert: Page 224.

“Jinnah returned to Bombay from his tour of Baluchistan on Friday, July 23. Three days later, on the afternoon of Monday, July 26, a fanatical young Muslim Khaksar from Lahore, Rafique Sabir Mazangavi, entered the Quaid-i-Azam’s Mount Pleasant Road house and appealed to Jinnah’s secretary, Mr. M.H.Saiyed for an interview with the great leader. Just then Jinnah entered his secretary’s office and asken who Tafiq was and what he wanted ‘I was very busy’, Jinnah testified later in Bombay’s high court. My whole mind was on my correspondence and I was trying to get out of the room. Just as I was about to leave the room, in the twinkling of an eye, the accused sprang on me and gave me a blow with his clenched fist on my left jaw. I naturally reeled back a bit when he pulled out a knife from his wrist….It was an open knife….Instinct of self-defence made me put out my hand and catch his wrist, with the result that the momentum of the blow was broken but in spite of this the knife touched the left side of my jaw. I got a cut near my chin and my coat near the left-shoulder…I also got a wound on my left finger.

The last meeting of the All India Muslim League was held on June 10, 1947…..Here is another incident narrated by Wolpert in Jinnah of Pakistan on Page 329:

“Khaksars rushed in through the once-tranquil garden, entering the hotel lounge ‘brandishing belchas, or sharpened spades…shouting get Jinnah!’ half way up the staircase leading to the ballroom where Jinnah and the Council were ….in session before…League National Guards could grapple with them and turn them back. It took police with tear gas to bring the disturbance to an end. Some fifty Khaksar would-be assassins were arrested….

The movement ended without achieving any results. The Muslim League routed them at the polls and eliminated their attempts at arson and carnage. Their assassination attempts on the Quaid-e-Azam were unsuccessful. Liaqat Ali Khan however did get asassinated.

CRITICISM OF KHAN LIAQAT ALI KHAN

No Pakistani leader can be put on a pedastal and worshipped. Liaqat Ali Khan was a politician, and he faced the political wrath of his opponents. The purpose of persenting his criticism is to learn from history. Could he have formed better alliances with the Unitionists? Could he have curried favor with the Hyatts? Could he have practised more inclusion? Could he have have created more consensus politics? The answer to all the questions is yes. But he lived under enormous pressure. He was a freedom fighter. He was unable to enjoy the fruits of his victories like Fidel Castro. He was unlucky for he did not have the life of Boumediene who was able to lead Algeria to victory, and then was able to give stability and direction to the new nation. Like the Indonesian Sukarno, Liaqat did not survive to enjoy his victories. Like Hazrat Usman, Liaqat Ali Khan faced the charge of nepotism, and like Usman, he too was murdered by his opponents. If a man is known by the stature of his opponents, then Liaqat Ali Khan indeed was a great man.

The Khan was brutally honest, and he was a patriot till his last breath. He had no bank accounts and he built no empires for himself. After his death, his wife Rana Liaqat Ali Khan, had to work as government servant to support the family till she died. The ahtishab commission would have absolved him, for he was never charged with any personal crime of corruption. His struggle with the feudals was the struggle for Pakistan. Sahukat Hyatt has criticized the Quaid and the Muslim League in his ‘memoirs”. Hyatts agenda is clear. Demonize the Khan and demonize Jinnah. Rock the foundations of the leadership of the Muslim League and this will crumble the history on which the country stands. The opponents point of view has to be understood and rebutted. Here is the criticism of the Khan by his greatest enemy.

Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan, the last of the prominent Muslim League leaders, has this to say in his Memoirs, “The nationa that lost its soul”, p. 178.

“He (Liaqat Ali Khan) delayed the completion of the Constitution to avoid elections which he could not win because he had no seat in Pakistan and had to be elected by East Pakistan. He, on the advice of officers belonging to the United Provinces, broke the Liaqat-Nehru Pact about the agreed areas for migration from India to Pakistan, requiring the record of property to be exchanged officially. He, quite against the agreement permitted inhabitants of UP and Rajasthan to enter via Khokhrapar – thus opening floodgates endangering the stability of the already overloaded boat of Pakistan. I objected to this in the assembly. This action of Liaqat was quite partial allowing only people from his old Province and the adjoining areas to migrate unfairly into Pakistan in rder to create a seat for himself in Karachi. The people of the rest of the India were left to stew in their own juice. This act of his created a lot of confusion with people getting allotments in Sindh, without records on each other’s dubious evidence. This led to the problems of MQM and their hatred by Sindhis. These refugees got a monopoly of jobs in the cities and deprived local Pakistanis of their rightful share. The political instability still persists.”(source: Page 178 from the “Nation that lost its soul”, enclosed as Vol 2.5 in the document)

Unable to find any flaws with the character and strategy of the freedom fighting Khan, Hyatt uses the race card to discredit the Shaeed-e-Millat. The above criticism of the Khan is invalid due to the following reasons:

  1. In 1947 Forty percent of Pakistan was Hindu and Sikh, and more than 60% of Lahore was Hindu and Sikh. If Pakistan had remained a state with these population ratios, the vialbility of the fledgling state was at stake. A Pakistani nation with 40% Hindus and Sikh could hardly be called Islamic and could hardly have any laws that would allow the propogation of Islam.
  2. The bulk of migration into Pakistan occured across the Punjab border and involved the Muslim Panjabis headed West to West Punjab, and the Hindu and Sikh Punjabis headed East to East Punjab (and Haryana). Lahore, Rawalpindi, Sargodha and Sialkot and other major cities of the Punjab were actually all Hindu or Hindu dominated cities.
  3. Most of the Muslim migration was not into Sindh and it was not out of the UP. In the period right after independence, five Million East Punjabis were exchanged with five million West Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs. About 1.5 million Kashmiris migrated to Lahore. The families of Muslim Leaguers like Nawaz Sharif are progenies of that Kashmiri Muslim migration.
  4. The Nehru-Liaqat pact was not adhered to. The Nehru-Liaqat pact died the day, India refused the transfer of the assets to the government of Pakistan–planes, cars, chairs, gold and bullion. It also died the day, Patel sent his police action into Hydrabad. It died the day Junagarh was denied its right to accede to Pakistan. It died long before Hari Singh acceeded to India.
  5. 5) Gurdspur was a Muslim majority area in East Punjab. Gurdaspur was in the natural line of demarcation to be in Pakistan. It was on the Pakistani side of the river. The Radcliff commission gave away Gurdaspur to India because it provided an Indian road link to Kashmir. Gurdaspur had Pakistani flags fluttering everwhere. It was given to India. Read Minto to see the details of the massacre and the rape Muslims in Gurdaspur. The majority of the Muslim majority Punjabi inhabitants were now set on the “Pakistan specials” bound for Lahore and Pakistan. The same story went on in many many town and villages. For details please see Collins (Freedom at Midnight). The Nehru-Liaqat pact faced these types of human tragedies.
  6. The Hyatt criticism fails to mention the alliances Liaqat Ali Khan had with many other non-Unioninst, iddependent andMuslim League Punjabi leaders. Liaqat Ali Khan founded the Punjab Muslim League, nurtured it and used it to defeat the Unionists. The League struggle against the Congress allied with the Unionists is not mentioned by the Hyatt memoirs. The Khan and the League were popular in the Punjab, he had electoral victories in the Punjab to prove this fact. The creation of Pakistan was indeed possible because the Congress-Unionist alliance was defeated in the Punjab.
  7. The Khan formed alliances and chose pro-Pakistani elements. It is obvious that he did not promote the likes of Hyatt because he did not want pro-Congress sympathizers in his government. Many/most of the early Muslim Leagers from the Punjabwere the allies of the Khan. These very leaders formed the intelligencia of the Punjab and Pakistan today.
  8. The instability in Sindh is a complex issue created by many mistakes. Some of these mistakes are bing rectified by the PML-MQM government in power.
  9. The battles in the streets of Karachi are ethnic and religious in nature, all conflicts have that element, but the main cause of friction is Karachi and Urban Sindh is ECONOMIC. To brand the problems as ethnic is dismissing a phenomenon that has to do with the evolution of South Asian society.

Here is a more credible historian who paints us a realistic picture of the events of Pakistani freedom. The book is “HAD THERE BEEN NO JINNAH” (@1989 by Salahuddin Khan Printed by: PanGraphics (Pvt) Ltd. Islamabad.pages 14-15

In a letter to Jinnah, in January 1937, Nehru declared,

“In the final analysis, there are only two forces in Indiatoday- British Imperialism, and the Congress representing Indian Nationalism, the Muslim Leaguerepresents a group of Muslims, having no contact withthe Muslim masses.”

This statement was indeed a great victory for the League for Jinnah and for Liaqat Ali Khan. It defeated the Unionist-Congress alliance in the Punjab and the Badsha Khan-Congress alliance in Sarhad. Both alliances would have defeated Pakistan if allowed to flourish.

I quote from Reference which is very anti-Liaqat, but this gives us a very deep insight into the politics of the time:

“Punjabi chauvinism and Liaqat Ali Khan’s favoritism was at each others throat. The fight was furious and Mr. Khan was not a gentleman either. Mr. Khan was desperate to build his political base in the newly formed state. He could go to any length to achieve his personal goals” .

Political History of Pakistan, Vol. 4, edited by Hasan Jafar Zaidi, Idara-Mutala-i-Tarikh. pp 185-187

Liqat Ali Khan was a philanthropist, who took keen interest in developing the Muslims of East Punjab the place of his birth. He supported many instituions in Karnal and assisted as many Muslims as he could. Details of his philanthropy are clearly listed in Professor Ziauddin’s book Liaqat Ali Khan: Builder of Pakistan. He chose the old Muslim Leaguers who had supported the Quaid and had fought for Pakistan. It did not matter where the supporters originated—–the test was loyalty to Pakistan.

Charging Liaqat Ali Khan with nepotism, and commenting on the appointments Liaqat Ali Khan had made, here is another quote from the Political History of Pakistan:

Hashim Raza, administrator Karachi; his brother Kazim Raza, IG police; Aal-e-Raza, also brother of Hashim, Public Prosecutor; Superintendent CID; Home Secretary Punjab, all of them from UP. Liaqat Ali Khan did all this to secure his political success from Karachi at least.

Here is Hasan Jafar Zaidi defending Liaqat Ali Khan:

It doesn’t mean that Punjab was being suppressed. The then chief secretary East Bengal, Aziz Ahmad was from Punjab. The commander of army in Bengal was (you guessed it right) Maj. General Ayub Khan was from Hazar…. They never gave the respect to political leadership of Bengal either.

This incorrect sentiment against Liaqat Ali Khan (planted by the antagonist of the Muslim League, the great feudal Mr. Khizar Hyatt and the pro-Congress, and anti-Pakistan, Unionist Party ) has been uprooted in our historical records and died in the feudal stronghold of Rawalpindi and the Potowar region (the Hyatt-Tiwans stronghold). After the creation of Pakistan the pro-Congress/Gandhi Unionist Party of Punjab went extinct but the remnants of the old political guard still oppose the Muslim League or what it stood for. Shaheed-e-Millats anniversary cannot be ignored. It is the anniversary of the victory for Pakistan. Liaqat Ali Khan has been given his rightful place in history. The ablest lieutenants of the Quaid has his place next to the the Quaid. The nation calls him shahed-e-millat. Pakistani patriots call him shaheed-e-millat. If Quaid-e- Azam was the founder of nation, Quaid-e-Millat, Liaqat Ali Khan was the builder of the state.

Preservation of our history is our sacred duty. This site would be a very boring place without the interactive dialogue and the criticism of our leadershsip. Criticism of our leaders is an essential part of the dialogue. More criticism of the Khan and of the Muslim League will be rebutted in the columns.

THE END

APPEENDIX A

Recently declassified doucments regarding Liaqat Ali Khan’s assassination

return to Paul Wolf’s home page

Pakistan: Partition and Military Succession

Documents from the U.S. National Archives

POLITICAL INTRIGUE

Assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan
Ghulam Mohammed
Iskander Mirza
April 1953 Coup
Constititional Coup of September 21, 1954
Mohammed Ayub Khan
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Jamaat-e-Islami
Muslim Brotherhood
Matta Riot
Anti-Communist Program in East Pakistan
misc political

Assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan

G-2 BID Report No. R-91-48, June 15, 1948

Subjects Touched on by Liaquat Ali Khan in Speeches During His Tour of Western Pakistan, Oct. 5, 1948

Congen Lahore reports Liaquat shot this afternoon while attending meeting of Muslim City League at Rawalpindi. Operated on due two shots in chest. Hospital reports wound serious but not rpt not necessarily fatal. Assailant killed by crowd not rpt not yet identified. Information not rpt not yet confirmed by GOP Karachi. Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embasssy, Oct. 16, 1951

Prime Minister killed at Rawalpindi by Islam League fanatic. No rpt no internal disturbances reported. … Embassy informed Cabinet meeting tomorrow to be presided over by Governor Gen. who will probably step down as GG and take over temporarily as PM. Reference EmbDesp 409 October 4. Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Oct. 16, 1951

Although popular information attributes assassination to Khaksars, high authority in Government informs Embassy that killer Syed Akhbar, was an Afghan national and was motivated by (1) Pukhtoonistan sentiment and anger over political detention of his brother and (2) resentment over Pak Govts cautious attitude toward Kashmir. Killer had participated in Kashmir war. Source says connection with Pukhtoonistan will not rpt not be released to press. Killer left his home in Abbotabad for Rawalpindi on 14th. Emergency meeting of available Cabinet Ministers with Secy Gen Mohamed Ali presiding just concluded. No rpt no indication successor; decision probably not rpt not made. Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embasssy, Oct. 16, 1951

Government press information department is now telling press that assassin was Afghan national. Press information officer now says identity established as member of Jagran tribe. Present state of public opinion indicates strong possibility of public demand for war if this information accepted by public. Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embasssy, Oct. 17, 1951

The Situation in Pakistan, Oct. 17, 1951

Comment on the Assassination of the Pakistani Prime Minister, Oct. 17, 1951

The Assassination of the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Oct. 18, 1951

Special Note: The Assassination of the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Oct. 18, 1951 (11 pages; William Langer’s name appears on report)

I have just talked with Ghulam Mohd who asked me to send you his affectionate greetings. He said he is bearing up very well under shock of Liaquat’s death and necessity for taking immediate decisions that have resulted in his appointment and Nazimuddin’s Premiership. They are being sworn in tomorrow afternoon at four. Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embasssy, Oct. 18, 1951

This p.m. I had tea with Ghulam Mohammed following his arrival from Rawalpindi by train. He stood journey without undue fatigue and his convalescence does not appear to have been retarded by shocks of last 2 days. He will take oath of office as Governor General tomorrow at 4 p.m. and will immediately swear in Nazimuddin as PM. Announcement of new Cabinet will not be made immediately. Liaquat’s cabinet will continue in their various port-folios for time being. Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Oct. 18, 1951

The Pakistan government has identified the assassin of Liaquat Ali Khan, late Prime Minister of Pakistan, as being Sayed Akber, son of Babrak Khan. If that assertion is true, the above mentioned Sayed Akber, together with his brother, [Za]marak, insurged against the government of Afghanistan in 1944 at a place named Elmara in Jadran, situated in the southern province of Afghanistan. The government forces defeated the insurrection and the two brothers escaped. After wandering for some time, they surrendered themselves to the British frontier authorities who interned them in Abot Abad, and granted them regular salaries. After the partition of India, the said Sayed Akber was given asylum by the Pakistan government. It is clear, therefore, that the said Sayed Akber had no connection whatsoever with Afghanistan, which looks upon such activities with great indignation. Official Afghan Reaction to Press Implications of Afghan Complicity in Assassination of Pakistan Prime Minister, Oct. 18, 1951

Iskander Mirza Defense Secretary called on me yesterday morning before cabinet meeting and asked my advice regarding Pak Govt attitude on publicity as to Afghan nationality of Primins assassin, money found in his possession, etc. I asked if facts were true and he said they were. I said that further publicity on this line would have bad effect on popular mind and he apparently agreed. Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embasssy, Oct. 19, 1951

Reliable source in Pak Intelligence Bureau reports that Pak Govt has been aware intelligence activities of Afghan Consul in Peshawar for some time and that he is known to have had recent and frequent contacts with Syed Akhbar, Assassin of Primin. Secret Telegram from Karachi Embasssy, Oct. 19, 1951

Press reaction including Bengali to assassination Liaquat Ali Khan: papers repeat GOI official’s remarks and expand expressions sympathy and condemnation of violence in editorials. Moderation is keynote throughout with exception extreme leftist press including Communist “Swadhinata” which states “Liaquat’s death only reflects inevidable disaster that overtakes policy of playing lackey to Anglo-American Powers,” also accuses Nazimuddin of “Western bias” and of planning prevention improvement position Suhrawardy. … Speculation in Calcutta tends emphasize probability assassination resulted same group (military) whose planned coup March 1951 nipped by GOP. Sources think military extremists hands strengthened. Restricted Telegram from Consulate General, Calcutta, Oct. 19, 1951

Afghan Charge handed Department October 18 translated communique from Kabul for local press, stating in summary if GOP identification Liaquat’s assassin Syed Akhbar as Afghan national correct, it was clear Akhbar and brother involved in unsuccessful insurrection against GOA 1944 southern province following which they interned India. Communique indicated GOA revulsion assassination. … Embassy Kabul should seek occasion soonest convey substance above remarks Foreign Office. While Department recognizes necessity Afghan pronouncement in answer implications press reports, believes best interest both countries served by limiting public discussion. Request earliest transmission fullest information and Embassy comments re alleged 1944 insurrection and possibility Commie instigation assassination. Secret Telegram from Secretary of State, Oct. 20, 1951

[] reports Afghan Consul Peshawar presently in Kabul. This confirmed by British Embassy clerk who when on October 16 asked for transport in Egyptian Embassy vehicle from Peshawar to Kabul was told seat was unavailable because Afghan Consul had been promised transport to Kabul. Embassy feels Afghan Consul’s departure not rpt not necessarily connected with assassination as no rpt no information established connection available this time. Afghan press today admits Liaquat assassin may have been one Syed Akbar from Khost Province in Afghan but stated that he and brother Zamarak had fled to South Waziristan in 1945 after inciting unsuccessful rebellion and were later resettled in Abbotabad and given pensions by British thus losing Afghan nationality. Consequently, press maintains Afghan cannot rpt not be held in any way responsible. Other source states assassin and two brothers (one named Izmair) were members leading family Hjadran tribe in Khost Province and fled to South Waziristan when tribe was defeated in 1945 uprising against Khost Provincial Government. Also states assassin was member “Red Shirt” organization but affiliation two surviving brothers, now residing Pakistan, unknown. Secret Telegram from Kabul Embassy, Oct. 21, 1951

It seems generally accepted in [Rawalpindi and Peshawar] that Afghan Consul was paymaster of assassin PAK PRIMIN. According to one story Consul made trip to Afghan frontier in own car and upon arrival paid off his Pak chauffeur. Chauffeur allegedly had no previous knowledge of trip or fact he was to be dismissed and on return Peshawar spole of matter to friends and to Pak Intelligence. In conversations with various non-official persons, including Pashtuns, it was stated as self-evident fact that Pashtuns as group have always provided assassins for suitable price. Pashtun racial background of assassin SEYED AKBAR was accepted as wholly natural. Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embasssy, Oct. 22, 1951

The Current Outlook in Pakistan, Oct. 22, 1951

In accordance GOP request Pakistan Press has refrained since October 19 from referring to Afghan connections of assassin. Government has not released to public information that assassin was in contact with Afghan Consul at Peshawar. GOP has no information indicating any commie connection with assassination. Secret Telegram from Karachi Embasssy, Oct. 23, 1951

Secret Telegram from Kabul Embassy, Oct. 23, 1951

Embassy today received Circular from Afghan Embassy containing following remarks: Assassin said Akhbar and brother revolted against Afghan government 1944. After defeat rebellion they fled over border and finally gave up selves to British authorities. For some unknown reason British gave them shelter in Abbottabad, center of Hazara district, and also gave them money to live on. After division Pakistan and India, Pakistan government, unconcerned about international law or acknowledged neighborly behavior, have been investigating against government of Afghanistan and, among other activities, have sought services of this assassin. His late crime proves that assassin was not only enemy of present regime Afghanistan but, through some other mysterious machinations in Pakistan itself, he also became enemy of Pakistan government. Government and people Afghanistan who could have possibly no connection with assassin look upon such base and mean crime with abhorrence and disdain. Secret Telegram from Moscow Embassy, Oct. 26, 1951

Under headline reading “Is Liaquat Ali Khan’s assassination result of a deep-laid American conspiracy?”, leftist Urdu daily Bhopal named Nadeem published article October 24 charging US with responsibility. Summary article follows:

[...]It was learned within Pakistani Foreign Office that while UK pressing Pakistan for support re Iran, US demanded Pakistan exploit influence with Iran and support Iran transfer oil fields to US. Liaquat declined request. US threatened annul secret pact re Kashmir. Liaquat replied Pakistan had annexed half Kashmir without American support and would be able to take other half. Liaquat also asked US evacuate air bases under pact. Liaquat demand was bombshell in Washington. American rulers who had been dreaming conquering Soviet Russia from Pakistan air bases were flabbergasted. American minds set thinking re plot assassinate Liaquat. US wanted Muslim assassin to obviate international complications. US could not find traitor in Pakistan as had been managed Iran, Iraq, Jordan. Washington rulers sounded US Embassy Kabul. American Embassy contacted Pashtoonistan leaders, observing Liaquat their only hurdle; assured them if some of them could kill Liaquat, US would undertake establish Pashtoonistan by 1952. Pashtoon leaders induced Akbar undertake job and also made arrangements kill him to conceal conspiracy. USG-Liaquat differences recently revealed by Graham report to SC; Graham had suddenly opposed Pakistan although he had never given such indication. [...] Cartridges recovered from Liaquat body were American-made, especially for use high-ranking American officers, usually not available in market. All these factors prove real culprit behind assassin is US Government, which committed similar acts in mid-East. “Snakes” of Washington’s dollar imperialism adopted these mean tactics long time ago. Confidential Telegram No. 1532 from New Delhi Embassy, Oct. 30, 1951

Recommend Department ignore article summarized in Delhi’s 1532. It is compilation of utter falsehoods whose vituperation is some degree worse than articles that appear from time to time in Bombay’s Commie-line “Blitz”. To issue any statement labeling the facts in the article as lies will only give Nadeem an importance it does not merit. The investigation into background of Liaquat’s assassination is being conducted with extreme care and well guarded secrecy. Gurmani tells me an intercept has been obtained which if backed up by further material may reveal the assassination had some inspiration and followed the pattern of Razmara’s assassination in Teheran. Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embasssy, Oct. 31, 1951

Since article apparently not rpt not widely circulated, Department believes preferable not rpt not issue public denial. In its discretion, however, Embassy might informally mention case MEA with comment story so preposterous no rpt no public denial intended. Would be interesting to know whether this story of character which led adoption recent press law. Ownership management NADEEM should be discreetly be investigated. Confidential Telegram from State Dept., Nov. 1, 1951

Soviet Press today carried Prague Despatch reporting Rude Pravo article based Afghan press agency “Bahtar” information re assassination Liaquat Ali. Despatch states after escaping Afghanistan due murders and other crimes “Said Akbar ran to India and there under protection British authorities which gave him refuge in Abbotabad and provided him money. After partition India Akbar remained in Pakistan where he continued make use protection of certain British circles.” “These facts adduced by Afghan press supporting position that murder Liaquat Ali was result intrigue of imperialists in Asian countries.” Secret Telegram from Moscow Embassy, Nov. 3, 1951 [only first page located]

The Embassy questions the premise stated in the first sentence of the Airgram under reference (“Lack of spontaneous anti-Indian and anti-Afghan popular outburst over both July war scare and Liaquat’s assassination suggests feeling on Kashmir and Afghan disputes mostly government inspired.”) … The anti-Afghan agigation that spontaneously sprang up on October 16-17 was effectively stopped by the GOP’s prompt exercise of its official and unofficial powers of censorship over the press, even to the extent of preventing reference after October 17 to the assassin’s Afghan origin. Popular Feeling in Pakistan on Kashmir and Afghan Issues, Nov. 10, 1951

With regard to the assassination of the Prime Minister in Rawalpindi, Colonel Massart stated that he had not attended the meeting because of his UN position. He stated that part of the public reaction was a great surprise to him, since he found some of the non-commissioned officers nto expressing horror, but making remarks, “He should have known better to come to Rawalpindi, where he should have known that he would be shot.” The Colonel considers that Rawalpindi was a center of “anti-Liaquat feeling.” Confidential Telegram from Lahore Consulate, Nov. 14, 1951

Acting Foreign Minister Hussain informed me tonight in conversation called at his request that Paks had recd information over past two-three weeks that Afghan authorities rpt Afghan authorities had recently surreptitiously released from incarceration over 120 known killers with orders infiltrate Pak and eliminate Pak public men. At first Paks did not believe but Hussain states that information has now reached Paks causing them consider reports beyond doubt. He would not reveal sources of latter information beyond admitting that some came from Pak Embassy Kabul but with most from many other sources. Added that if other public men assassinated by suspected Afghan nationals government will be unable hold people in check. Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Nov. 15, 1951

Liaquat Ali Khan was buried in the same manner (tomb) as Jinnah. In order to accomplish this, a wall behind Jinnah’s grave was torn down and access to the grave for the funeral procession was across a raised marble floor surrounding Jinnah’s mazar to Liaquat’s grave in the rear. This has continued to be the primary avenue to the grave of Liaquat used by the many mourners who still visit there every day. It is reliably reported, however, that Fatima Jinnah ordered the caretaker of Quaid-i-Azam’s mazar to rebuild the wall. She later repeated the request to the Secretary of the Ministry of Works. The matter was put before the Minister and on the same day orders were given to raise up the wall again. However, shortly afterwards the new wall was torn down by what was variously described in the press as a “bevy of All-Pakistan Women’s Association amazons” to a “mob from Quaiddbad.” M.A. Zuberi, Editor of the Evening Star told an officer of the Embassy that, in fact, two officers of the All-Pakistan Women’s Association, of which Begum Liaquat Ali Khan is President, incited a group of people at the mazar to tear down the wall. Public Role of Ms. Fatima Jinnah Since Assassination of Liaquat, Nov. 17, 1951

The Commission inquiring into the security precautions taken at time of Liaquat’s assassination reconvened Lahore Jan. 3. Among witnesses examined since convening are Khan Najaf Khan, Special Police, and Anwar Ali, Deputy Inspector General of Police, CIA (in “camera”). No conclusive findings made or announced thus far. Political and Economic Developments for the Week Ending Jan. 8, 1952, Jan. 8, 1952

Political Developments in Pakistan, Sept.-Dec. 1951, Jan. 30, 1952

The most significant internal development during the quarter, bearing on US interests and objectives, was Liaquat’s assassination. Aside from being an avowed friend of the US, Liaquat was a constructive factor of decision and strength, both in government and party leadership. … It seems clear that Prime Minister Nazimuddin, though basically friendly to the West, lacks the stubborn firmness that served Liaquat, the Muslim League and the country as a whole in its early formative years. Confidential Telegram A-251 from Karachi Embassy, Feb. 11, 1952

Political Developments in Pakistan, January 1952, Feb. 25, 1952

Summary of report Liaquat assassination enquiry commission, released by GOP yesterday, being sent in clear Embtel following. Emb believes commission report which is vague and inconclusive leaves cabinet in more vulnerable position than before enquiry started. Motive not established, according to released summary, and GOP now wide open to accusations by its critics of suppression of info and of not satisfying public demand, accusationswhich were made before release. It seems possible that summary is much watered-down version of full report in hands of GOP and that full facts will not be made public. Cabinet particularly vulnerable on enquiry commission’s announcement that info would not be divulged on three conspiracies uncovered. Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Aug. 18, 1952

Siddiq Wahab, one of speakers at public meeting August 14 addressed by Larachi Muslim League dissidents, arrested by police Aug 18 for “promoting hatred against Govt.” Emb local employees who attended meeting state that in addition to demanding publication Liaquat assassination enquiry report Wahab accused Nazimuddin and some of his cabinet of complicity in Liaquat assassination. Wahab is a director of large Karachi Urdu daily Anjam. Begum Liaquat in statement issued to press Aug 18 has strongly criticized published enquiry report. She stated “anybody reading report will be impressed particularly by wise reserve with which Commission left open the all important qusetion … that is, whether or not act of assassin was individiaul act of Said Akbar or perpetrated by him in pursuance of conspiracy,” and added “it is for nation now they have seen report to judge for themselves whether they satisfied with steps so far taken to track down hidden hand behind tragedy.” Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Aug. 19, 1952

Speculation is wide that the assassination was part of a conspiracy involving persons high in provincial or Central Govt. Khan Najaf Khan seems to be the convenient scapegoat. In fact careful reading of report shows there was negligent handling of security measures all down the line and at the inquiry both the Punjab Govt. and the North West Frontier Province Govt. seemed far more interested in passing the blame to each other and in covering up for their own officials than in getting at the truth. NWFP is involved because the assassin was under local detention in Abbotabad, NWFP, and was not supposed to make a move without police permission. Political and Economic Developments for the Week Aug 17-23, Aug. 25, 1952

Sudden death in air crash of GOP Inspector General of Police brought forth revelation that he was to be officially assigned to case. Press sources claimed he was already secretly working on it. H.S. Suhrawardy, head of opposition Junnah Awami League called on GOP to compel Punjab Government to do its duty in getting to the bottom of the assassination conspiracy. Political and Economic Summary for Week Aug. 24-29, 1952, Aug. 30, 1952

The Inquiry Committee investigating the recent plane crash in which GOP Inspector General of Police was killed has revealed that all the principal documents relating to the Liaquat assassination investigation were on the plane and had been received safely. It is believed here by some that this is another link in the chain of suspicious events surrounding the assassination. Had the plane burned on crashing, as tehre was good reason to expect, all the documents would have conveniently disappeared and the investigation would have practically come to an end. This of course has served to increase the rumors that high officials are implicated in the assassination and are making every effort to prevent an honest and efficient investigation. Political and Economic Summary for Week August 30 – September 5, 1952, Sept. 9, 1952

The release of the report which hinted at dark conspiracies and accused several police officials of derelication of duty in failing to take proper security precautions, opened the dam for a flood of rumors, suppositions and speculations. The most popularly accepted theory was that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy in which high officials were involved and that efforts had been, and were being made, to suppress an impartial and thorough inquiry. The Inquiry Commission was appointed by the Punjab government and much criticism was heaped on its head as a result of the report. Many demands were made for the Central Government to take up the investigation. Soon after the report was published, the Inspector General of Police of Pakistan was killed in a freak air crash. In the plane wreckage were found all the documents pertaining to the investigation. It thus leaked out that the central government had in fact been working on the case through a few days earlier the Prime Minister had stated that it was a purely provincial matter. The rumor factories at once linked the air crash with alleged attempts at suppression of evidence and concluded that it was all part of a well laid plan. However, after a few days of sensational reporting of the case the press did a black out and popular curiosity seems to have died down. Bi-Monthly Political Report – July and August, 1952, Sept. 12, 1952

Khan Najaf Khan, Police Official accused of negligence in failing to take proper security precautions for the safety of Liaquat has reportedly answered the charge sheet served on him. The burden of his answer is not yet revealed but it is assumed by all he will plead not guilty to the charges. Begum Liaquat has again charged that the government is dragging its feet in pressing the investigation of the assassination. COMMENT: It is widely rumored here that the charges against Najaf Khan are merely a cover for the parties really responsible for the assassination. Bazaar rumors are to the effect that he will be temporarily suspended but taken care of either financially or otherwise. Begum Liaquat has not failed to point out the inconsistency of the claim made by the GOP Prime Minister that the investigation was a purely provincial matter with the later revelation that the GOP Inspector General of Police was investigating the matter on behalf of the Central Govt and was conveniently killed in a recent plane crash. It has also been stated soto voce that the true instigators of the assassination are the same persons behind the Rawalpindi conspiracy to overthrow the government. A connection of some sort was hinted at in the official report of the assassination investigation. The link, it is rumored, lies in the fact that Liaquat was insisting on the death penalty for the conspirators and it was therefore necessary to eliminate him. Whether this connection is true or not, it is a fact that after Liaquat’s death the charges against the conspirators seem to have reached a stalemate and there are recent consistent reports of their impending release. ConGen officer was told by Finlay’s representative in Lahore that his company had received a letter signed by “ex-Major General Akbar Khan, Hyderabad Central Jail” inquiring as to prices of tractors and other agricultural equipment and stating that the writer expected to engage in large scale cultivation “within six months.” General Akbar Khan was the ringleader of the Rawalpindi conspiracy, and this communication if true would seem to indicate that at least the chief protagonist expects to be released in the near future. Political and Economic Summary, September 29-October 6, 1952, Oct. 6, 1952

Unnamed spokesman for GOP answered Begum Liaquat’s charges that investigation not pursued as actively as possible. He explained position of central govt. vis a vis provincial govt as being limited by Constitution to that of providing coordination and advice, but repeated that Law and Order are provincial subjects under Constitution. Punjab govt appointed Justice Abu Akram of the Federal Court of Pak to inquire into charges proferred against Khan Najaf Khan, police official accused of negligence in assassination. Weekly Political and Economic Summary, Oct. 6-12, 1952, Oct. 13, 1952

The formal inquiry before Mr. Justice Abu Saleh Mohammed Akram of the Federal Court, against Khan Najaf Khan, police official accused of negligence, started this week. It is being held in camera. Comment: It should be noted that a Federal court judge has been selected to conduct the inquiry in order to avoid the charges of provincialism which were levelled at the Assassination Commission itself. Nevertheless confidential reports reaching ConGen are to the effect that the present inquiry will be a whitewash and that Justice Akram is under the influence of Chief Min. Daultana and was selected for this very reason. Weekly Summary of Political and Economic Events, Oct. 20-26, 1952, Oct. 27, 1952

An unconfirmed news item appearing in the local press stated that the Punjab Govt is considering taking action against Khan Najaf Khan, Police Official, who has been accused of negligence in the Liaquat Assassination Commission Report. … According to the report if Mr. Najaf Khan is found to have been guilty of negligence he may appeal his case to the Central Govt as he in fact belongs to the Pak Police Service and is only on loan to the Punjab. Weekly Summary of Political and Economic Events, 18-25 January 1953, Jan. 26, 1953

The Punjab police have completed the inquiry into the assassiantion of the late Prime Minister, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, and now the scene of inquiry has been shifted to the Frontier Province where the Inquiry Board consisting of Director of the Intelligence Bureau and the Inspector-General of police of the Punjab and the Frontier, will continue further investigations. Weekly Summary of Political and Economic Events, Feb 23-3/1, 1953, March 2, 1953

According to a press report Khan Najaf Khan has been exonerated by the Pakistan Public Service Commission. At the time of Liaquat Ali Khan’s assassination Najaf Khan was Senior Superintendent of Police at Rawalpindi and was also acting as the Deputy Inspector-General of Police in that area. Mr. Justice Abu Saleh Mohammad Akram, a Judge of the Federal Court, had conducted an inquiry against Khan Najaf Khan in connection with Liaquat Ali’s murder. Weekly Summary of Political and Economic Events, June 18-24, 1953, June 25, 1953

The agitation to force the Government to publish the report of the commission investigating former Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan’s assassination and to induce the Government to adopt more stringent measures to apprehend the guilty parties was continued during the reporting period. A DAWN suggestion that Scotland Yard be called in to solve the murder elicited strong pro and con feelings. Weekly Summary of Political Developments for the Week Ending October 30, 1953, Oct. 31, 1953

With considerable emotion, Begum Liaquat spoke about the assassination of her husband, the late Prime Minister. She said it was fantastic that two years after a murder in broad daylight before thousands of peopel, not one arrest had been made. What harm could come from a thorough investigation? Witnesses had not been questioned, no real attempt at investigation had been made, and yet when a demand for this was made, the Government not only refused but “hired” the editor of a paper who himself had been in jail under a previous Cabinet (Suleri of the Times of Karachi) to campaign against Dawn and the people demanding an investigation. Memorandum of Conversation with Begum Liaquat Ali Khan, Nov. 21, 1953

No, repeat no, objection Prime Minister announcing he intends request US aid in obtaining services private, repeat private, investigator. You should make clear to Prime Minister this assent does not guarantee success in finding satisfactory person in US and that US Government participation would extend only to informal aid in search for investigator as it has offered such aid to Pakistan on previous occasions for technical experts. Secret Telegram from State Dept., Dec. 29, 1953

Nur Ahmed … urged that the appointment of a “foreign expert” to investigate the murder of Liaquat Ali Khan be made before October 16, the anniversary of Liaquat’s death. Nogum Nahie [?], Karachi Municipal Councillor, whose press statements, like those of Nur Ahmed, appear with rather astonishing frequency, asked on October 5th why the promised “foreign expert” had not appeared. “The Prime Minister’s broadcasts say nothing about the matter nearest to every Pakistani’s heart. Maybe foreign detectives are here and are at work.” Summary of Political Events for Week Ending October 8, 1954, Oct. 9, 1954

Anniversary of the death of Liaquat Ali Khan - Begum Liaquat Ali Khan, newly appointed Ambassador to the Netherlands and widow of the former Prime Minister, assassinated on October 16, 1951, issued a 500 word statement from the Hague calling for a solution to the crime and asking six leading questions: 1) “Why” was Liaquat murdered at the height of his popularity, “on the eve of … important policy decisions”; 2) “Why” was the assassin shot after he had already been overpowered; 3) “Why” was the police official responsible (for shooting the assassin) promoted instead of punished; 4) “Why” were “certain interested and influential persons within the country … anxious to remove Liaquat”; 5) “Why” is the Quad-i-Azam’s name “being subtly and unjustly ignored”; 6) “Why” are these questions not answered. Liaquat’s son, Wilayat Ali Khan, also issued a statement in which he pointed to the political and economic deterioration of Pakistan in the past three years and called upon the Central and Provincial Governments to cooperate with the newly appointed foreign expert, C.P. U’ren in his investigation. The Karachi Muslim League organized a public meeting at Jehangir Park, Karachi, to commemorate the anniversary. The principal speaker, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, spoke generally on the “economic deterioration” of the country, provincialism, and eulogized the former Prime Minister. He claimed that Liaquat had been pressing for certain reforms at the time of his assassination. Nishtar was followed on the platform by Mohsin Siddiqi, General Secretary of the Karachi Muslim League adn by S. M. Taufique, President of the Karachi Muslim League. Weekly Summary of Political Events for Week Ending October 23, 1954, Oct. 23, 1954

Ghulam Mohammed

Ghulam Mohammed says he has no intention of dying before his work of building Pak has been reinforced and more progress made in organizing the Muslim world against Communism. He wants you to know that Zafrulla, Gurmani and he have no intention of allowing “India’s pin-pricks” to lead to an evolvement of war. Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Sept. 7, 1951

Ghulam Mohammed emphatically repudiated the insinuation in some sections of the press that the help received by Pakistan from foreign countries had any political strings. He stated that “Pakistan’s freedom and independence were not for barter – but that it was an Islamic obligation to acknowledge kindness with gratitude.” Weekly Summary of Political and Economic Events – May 14-20, May 21, 1953

The subject of the Eyes Only telegram No. 341 of November 2 from Karachi on the question of the dangers of Pakistan constitutional development along theocratic lines was handled in the following manner. … The President did not refer directly to the question of religious influence referred to above but by his questions let it be known that we in the United States had an interest in seeing Pakistan work out her problems so that she would have an effective constitution. Discussion with Ghulam Mohammed, Nov. 13, 1953

Regarding Kashmir, I apprehended trouble from Nehru and he is now trying to use the American aid to us as an excuse for going back on international stipulations and obligations. We took a calculated risk in these two matters depending on your word and promise. I do hope you will stand by us so that Nehru is not allowed to get out of international obligations and is not able to throw dust in the eyes of the world over Kashmir on the excuse of American aid. I appreciate the delecacy of the situation, but I feel that my country can rely on your promise to ensure justice for us. Letter from Ghulam Mohammed to John Foster Dulles, March 23, 1954

The Embassy desires to emphasize again that these documents were given to the Ambassador in the strictest confidence and any revelation of the source would seriously damage relationships with the Governor General. … “I have in the course of my discussions regarding Arab countries joining USA and other countries in a plan for mutual defense, felt that there is a wave of opposition in some Arab countries and that others are lukewarm. My discussions have shown that this opposition proceeds from the causes set out below which need early attention … Transmittal of Revised Document Received from the Governor General, May 21, 1954

I told the Governor General that he was being credited by the U.S. with having been helpful in bettering relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States during the Haj visit, whereupon the Governor General said the King was just like a nephew to him. Memorandum of Conversation with Governor General Ghulam Mohammed, Nov. 4, 1954

Pakistan’s Leaders Face Difficulties in Achieving Political Stability, Feb. 4, 1955

Ghulam Mohammed has in fact assumed virtual dictatorial powers. Embassy convinced however Department’s assumption correct that immediate motive is to serve administrative convenience. … Re Callahan’s predictions concerning indefinite deferral democracy, Embassy considers these observations indicate failure understand real nature of problem here. Fact of matter is Pakistan lacks most of essential elements which provide basis for democratic government in Western countries and effort to judge developments here by degree which they approximate standards appropriate these countries altogether unrealistic and almost totally irrelevant. Secret Telgram from Karachi Embassy, March 30, 1955

According to a usually reliable source in the Governor-General’s household, Ghulam Mohammed kept General Mirza and Chaudhri Mohammad Ali on tenterhooks for several days as he refused to sign the resignation prepared for him. He was rational for several days preceding the ceremonial ten described in the referenced despatch but “childishly” stubborn about signing away the last vestige of his rule. His daughter’s and son-in-law’s entreaties failed, but an aide finally persuaded him to sign by promising him a trip to his favorite Muslim shrine near Lucknow, India. The source, a layman, described Ghulam Mohammed’s mental affliction as a failure of blood supply to one portion of the brain. This condition is permanent; Ghulam Mohammed’s health continues to improve but he will never again have the full use of his faculties. For almost two months after his stroke on June 27 Ghulam Mohammed’s utterances were 90 percent irrational; the proportion is now reversed. Ghulam Mohammed’s Resignation, Sept. 23, 1955

Iskander Mirza

Lt. Col Iskander Mirza, Secy of Defense Ministry, today asked Emb Army Attache pass following to me: Major General Akbar Khan “is 100 percent Communist” and has been in contact with Communists since he recently took up his job as Chief of Staff at Rawalpindi. In personal opinion Col Mirza, conspirators motivated by dissatisfaction with GOP handling of Kashmir issue and feeling that Pak should turn away from Western powers and toward Soviet Union. In addition to those whose arrest has been announced, Air Commodore Janjua, senior Pak airman recently returned from school in UK is under house arrest. Janjua is known to have been in contact with conspiring army officers. Two unnamed communists, presumably civilian, are being sought but have gone underground. Brigadier Hussain, Director Interservices Intelligence, expressed opinion to Army Attache that there is some unrest in Pak Army especially among junior officers and enlisted men, because of failure to settle Kashmir issue. Some members of Army strongly believe a change in Govt is only solution. Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, March 10, 1951

When I called upon Sec Def (Mirza) this date on the MDAP matter he volunteered the following information which he asked me to pass on to the American Ambassador: a. Major General Akhbar Khan, senior military man involved in the conspiracy, is 100% communist. When he came to Rawalpindi as Chief of General Staff he contacted the communists of the Punjab. b. In addition to the people mentioned in the paper as having been arrested, the senior Pakistani Air Officer, Air Commodore Jinjua, recently returned from UK is in “house arrest.” He had conferred with the defecting army officers. c. In the opinion of Colonel Mirza, dissatisfaction with the handling of the Kashmir affair is probably behind this affair. He thinks that these officers wish to change their governments orientation from the West to Russia. d. He thinks that the Russian Embassy to Pakistan had something to do with the plot. He said that the Embassy had spent considerable money in the Punjab, to the extent of giving cameras to people. Secret Memorandum for the Record, March 10, 1951

Colonel Mirza, GOP Defense Secretary, stated to ConGen while visiting Lahore that Martial Law should be continued for a considerable period, in order that the politicians woudl understand that they had a duty of patriotism toward the country and could not act for their own selfish purposes. He did not indicate what period of time Martial Law would remain in force. He also stated that it was necessary that the civilian authorities did not revoke any of the Court Martial sentences. Without making a statement to that effect, he gave the impression that he was of the opinion that Daultana should be removed. Weekly Summary of Political and Economic Events, March 12-18, 1953, March 19, 1953 [emphasis in original]

I am convinced that at the present time the Government of Pakistan is being influenced strongly by a group of civil servants who have the backing, if not the actual participation, of the Pakistan Army. As far as I can determine, the definite members of this clique are Iskander Mirza, Akhtar Husain, and Agha Hilaly. Inasmuch as it is almost impossible for anything to happen at the secretarial level without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary, Aziz Ahmad, and inasmuch as he attended the Cabinet meeting on the night of February 26 at which the decision was taken to act firmly in the religious agitation, it is more than probably that Aziz is a participant. More than likely his brother, Ghulam Ahmad, the Interior Secretary and Intelligence Chief, is also involved. … I do not believe the group has influence or power enough yet to dictate political decisions to the Prime Minister. … AS you will recall from my conversation with General Ayub, I was told by Ayub that while he was reluctant to enter politics, he would take “no nonsense from the Center.” That, of course, was before the declaration of martial law in Lahore. Iskander Mirza subsequently told Col. Ashworth that as long as the Central Government proceeded in the right direction it would have Army support. He, too, implied that they would step in if there were signs of deviation from the present firm policy. Top Secret Office Memorandum of Karachi Embassy, April 6, 1953

Gen. Iskander Mirza leaves tonight midnight for Dacca to assume Governorship East Bengal tomorrow. … Impossible predict reaction East Bengal; violence certainly may occur. Mirza emphasizes has no desire rule by military force alone recognizes necessity establish clean administration. At same time he may be ruthless toward Communists. Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, May 29, 1954

PriMin asked me to see him this morning. He said in view close relationships our two countries he was telling me in greatest confidence that decision had been taken impose Governor’s rule East Pakistan. Governor would be Iskander Mirza who was summoned from London and who will leave for Dacca tomorrow. … PriMin stated first act of Governor would be to arrest known communists. … PriMin stated intensified activity would proceed two fronts, psychological and economic. GOP plan establish two new radio stations East Bengal, step up informational program to high degree. On economic front Governor would see that peopel received cheap necessities of life, namely food, cloth, kerosene, mustard oil and salt. Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, May 29, 1954

Iskander Mirza sworn in as Governor East Bengal 1800 hours. N.M. Khan Chief Secretary GOEB. Section 92-A (Governor’s rule) effective 1800 hours. IG police states District Magistrates to be given free hand for arrest “subversives”. Minister Sheikh Mujibir Rahman will be arrested immediately. Confidential Telegram from Dacca Consulate, May 31, 1954

“The present Governor of East Bengal has for private and personal reasons expressed a desire to be relieved of his office. It has therefore been decided to replace him by Major General Iskander Mirza who will be sworn in today.” Telgram from Karachi Embassy, June 1, 1954

Mirza said the only way for the US to stiffen Ali’s spine was to tighten the windscrew of economic and military assistance, making such assistance clearly dependent upon assurances of sane govt in Karachi. Mirza strongly recommended this course of action to US and stated his belief that Ali would respond favorably. Secret Telegram from London Embassy, Oct. 4, 1954

Mirza says he refused urgent calls return Karachi from London to await Primin. Believes Sunday’s action in best interests country, especially retaining Primin. Asked whether he expected trouble Mirza replied “We will make trouble,” meaning guilty would be punished. Said much to be cleaned up; for example Primin now finally recognized Mirza right in asking punishment corrupt Bengalis. Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Oct. 26, 1954

Major General Mirza has said that democracy ran riot during the last seven years. It was not democracy but the denial of democratic rights that was responsible for the harm that has been done to our dear country. Had democracy a fair play, the evils would have been corrected long ago. UF Statement on General Mirza, Nov. 19, 1954

Comment on future form of government in Pakistan, Dec. 24, 1954

According to the Gazette of Pakistan dated January 21, 1955, Major General Iskander Mirza, C.S.P., retired from Government Service with effect from October 24, 1954. In effect this post-dated action removes from General Mirza the onus of having been appointed to a Cabinet post while still a member of the Civil Service. Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Jan. 25, 1955

Pakistani government will ignore challenge to its legality, Feb. 12, 1955

Iskander Mirza speaking February 15 to newly-organized West Pakistan Brotherhood praised Armed Forces highly and denied they taking active interest politics, and said “they have never taken part in politics nor is there any danyer that they will do so.” Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Feb. 17, 1955

Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, March 11, 1955

NSC Briefing: Background — Estimated Balances in Pakistan Politics, June 12, 1956

Secret Letter from Ambassador Hildreth to John Foster Dulles, Sept. 20, 1956

April 1953 Coup

Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, April 18, 1953

Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embassy, April 19, 1953

It becomes clear that Nazimuddin dismissal was planned and accomplished through combined efforts of Army leadership (specifically Def Secy Iskander Mirza and C-in-C Gen Ayub) and Gov Gen himself. Frustration which EMB has reported over past few months grew to exasperation at weakness and vascillation of Nazimuddin. Without doubt action by Iskander Mirza to declare martial law in Lahore Mar 6 in spite of PRIMIN objections saved country from what might have become national disaster. Mirza has apparently been in close touch with Gov Gen. Decision was taken by Gov Gen himself that PRIMIN could not be successfully managed and dismissal was planned. EMB believes very few people in Govt were privy to this decision – perhaps no one except Mirza and Ayub. … EMB believes unity now exists in country which has not prevailed since assassination Liaquat. Army is in firm position and will brook no nonsense. Whether Mohammad Ali will be able rise to demands of situation is not entirely certain and it is possible stronger leader such as Qayyum may take over at later date. EMB believes that in this favorable situation, US faces great opportunities develop closer relations with Pakistan and influence PAK policy toward settlement outstanding issues and toward firmer commitments to free world. Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, April 20, 1953

Perhaps this is the true picture: the Governor-General, Mr. Ghulam Mohammed could never have dared to dismiss a Ministry which had appointed him, had he not have had the support of the Army. The Army would take its cue from the Defense Secretariat. Therefore this is in fact a coup d’etat by Mr. Iskander Mirza and the Army, which has nominated Mr. Mohammed Ali as its agent. The Army (which includes Mr. Iskander Mirza) would not have been encouraged to do this, if it was not certain that the new dispensation would have the support of the Americans, on whom today Pakistan is almost wholly dependent for its food requirements, and to carry on the ordinary expenses of the Administration. We can give this credit to the Army that it, like other common citizens, saw that the country was going to the dogs, that the prevailing regime had lost the confidence of the people, that it had not the capacity to remedy the existing state of affairs, and that at the same time it could not carry the people with it in any of its measures. The Army, too, may have started getting ideas after its contact with the people and the civil administration in Lahore. The Americans must have been in contact with the Army, and the coup d’etat must have had their blessings. The Americans must have found (i) That there was no point in butressing an unpopular Ministry. (ii) There there was no point in giving supplies to an incompetent Ministry which would dissipate those supplies. (iii) That there was no hope of getting appropriation from Congress unless it was satisfied that the Ministry in Pakistan had popular support and Army support. (iv) That an unpopular Ministry cannot succeed in inducing the people to accept its policy in international affairs, and hence such a Ministry is useless to the Americans if they want Pakistan to accept the international policy of America. That is to say an unpopular Ministry in Pakistan cannot deliver the goods and is therefore useless for the American global strategy. The change in the Administration is therefore a result of American plus Army maneuvers, born of the conviction, for which there is every justification, that Nazimuddin’s regime was thoroughly unpopular and incompetent. Letter from H.S. Suhrawardy, April 21, 1953

Reversing their earlier critical attitude toward Nazimuddin, [the Awami League] are now shedding crocodile tears over his removal from the Prime Ministership, asserting that GHULAM MUHAMMED and his cronies from the Punjab had determined to eliminate Nazimuddin because he supported the provision in the BPC Report for “parity” between East Bengal and the rest of Pakistan in representation in the National Legislature. Political, Press and Economic Developments for the Week Ending June 24, 1953, June 25, 1953

Constititional Coup of September 21, 1954

Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Sept. 22, 1954

Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Sept. 25, 1954

Pakistan Political Crisis, Sept. 25, 1954

Unsigned Top Secret Telegram #74, Sept. 25, 1954

Top Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Sept. 27, 1954

The “Constitutional Coup” in the Constituent Assembly, Oct. 2, 1954

Divestment of Governor General’s Powers by Constituent Assembly, Oct. 3, 1954

Reftel and other recent Karachi messages seem clearly imply new group may well try seize control GOP within next few months. Motives and character Consembly rebellious element indicate new govt would be more to right than current clique with conservative “old Moslem leaguers” in dominant position but with little chance of communist or other leftist influence. Dept concedes good possibility such group might be less cooperative, less friendly to United States than present PriMin. Secret Telegram from John Foster Dulles, Oct. 6, 1954

While agree change Govt would not increase Communist leftist influence, situation East Bengal different from that West Pakistan. Commies stronger East Bengal would exploit instability which might result. Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Oct. 7, 1954

Mohammed Ayub Khan

The Department of Defense has reported that the Military Attache in Karachi has recently recommended the award of the Legion of Merit to the Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army, General Mohammed AYUB Khan, stating that this recommendation is strongly supported by the Ambassador. Secret Telegram from Department of State, July 10, 1951

General Ayub stated that he had been talking to the leading politicians of Pakistan, and had told them that they must make up their mind to go whole-heartedly with the West. … He stated that the Pakistan Army will not allow the political leaders to get out of hand,and the same is true regarding the people of Pakistan. He stated that he realized that the Army was taking on a large responsibility, but that the Army’s duty was to protect the country. Secret Telegram from Lahore Consulate, Dec. 23, 1952

The Commander-in-Chief stated that he felt that there was no danger, from either politicians or the public, to overthrow the present Government, but in case there was such an attempt the Pakistan Army would immediately declare martial law and take charge of the situation. If the situation was critical, the Army would declare a Military Government in order to secure stability for Pakistan. He stated the Pakistan Army would not allow either politicians or the public to ruin the country. Top Secret Despatch from Lahore Consulate, Feb. 13, 1953

He said that the army was not interested in going into politics but that he had no intention of letting things get out of control. He said the army was a stabilizing force in Pakistan and that he would take no nonsense from the politicians. … I got the distinct impression from Ayub and from subsequent conversations with his senior officers who were in Lahore at the same time, that the Pakistan Army is definitely ready to take control should Civil Government break down, although they would be reluctant to do so. Memorandum of Conversation with General Mohammad Ayub Khan, Feb. 28, 1953

I took General Ayub for cocktails last evening and he is very much discouraged with our Number One guest who arrives in Washington this afternoon. He thinks there may be repercussions along the lines of your recent cables but expresses no alarm as far as the country as a whole is concerned. He is terribly confident of the ability of the Armed Services to step in any time as, if and when necessary. Secret Telegram from State Department, Oct. 14, 1954

NSC Briefing: Pakistan, Oct. 29, 1958

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto

It will be noted that he was accused inter alia of incitement of the masses to violate law and create disorder, violation of Secton 144, speaking so as to excite disaffection with the GOP, and disclosures of state affairs regarding weapons supply. Grounds for Detention of Bhutto, Dec. 4, 1968

MI officer told him that 24 officers arrested had been plotting to assassinate President Bhutto at Lahore People’s festival (revival of old Lahore horse show) when he attended as chief guest on March 31. Report of Military Assassination Plot Against President Bhutto, April 2, 1970

Central Intelligence Bulletin, Dec. 24, 1971

On February 7, I made a routine call on Rao Rashid, Deputy Director of Intelligence. … It was tragic, mused Rao, to have a man at the helm who despite all the blunders he committed, refused to step aside to the end, even though the nation was being destroyed. Political Notes, Feb. 17, 1972

Level of political violence and shrillness of political rhetoric has been on increase recently. Apart from Sind language riots, there have been disorderly political incidents in Lahore, Rawalpindi and elsewhere. Heightened political atmosphere has coincided with Bhutto’s greater involvement in grass-roots politics in wake Sind riots. While regime’s miscalculations and oppostion irresponsibility have contributed to new atmosphere, it seems also to reflect degree of return to pre-1971 “politics as usual.” Although disquieting, trend toward violence does not yet threaten Bhutto regime. Main present danger is that regime will be goaded into more repressive measures which could feed still more violence. Domestic Political Violence on Increase Aftermath Sind Disturbances, Aug. 4, 1972

Pakistan: Factionalism in Bhutto’s Party, July 1, 1975

Jamaat-e-Islami

Jamaat-e-Islami, which translated literally means “Islamic Organization,” is a Mullah-led, reactionary Islamic political party. Prior to partition the Jamaat, founded in 1941, was an inactive religious group without major interest in politics. However, since partition it has assumed an active part in politics and has gained strength, although it still plays a minor part in Pakistan politics. … At the annual meeting of Jamaat-e-Islami held on November 10 through 13, party leaders displayed an interesting combination of reactionary religious ideology, communist line propaganda and ideas of the welfare state. The meeting was attended by delegates from all over Pakistan. … Certainly not a powerful force in Pakistan politics today … the party is significant as an example of reactionary Islam in Pakistan politics. Annual Meeting of Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan, Nov. 28, 1951

The information contained in this report is from Ghulam Mohammed, Secty. Karachi Jamaat-i-Islami. He was anxious to get information on this organization into the hands of the American Embassy, he stated, because the organization “is misunderstood by foreign embassies and is the target of false propaganda from the Muslim League.” Jamaat-i-Islami (Islamic Party) was established in pre-partitioned India in 1941. Its main object is “revival of Islam, in both letter and spirit. We believe Islam is a complete code of life. We believe in democracy, with some changes regarding the limits of legislation. We believe that the government should be run by the people, but that the representatives are duty-bound to fulfill the laws written in the H.Q. Confidential Embassy notes, author unknown, circa 1951

Thirteen members of the Jamaat-e-Islami have been taken into custody by the Martial Law Authorities in Lahore including Maulana Maudoodi, Mian Tufail Mohammad and Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi. Eighteen other Jamaat-e-Islami members were arrested outside the Lahore Martial Law area under the Provincial Public Safety Act. Comment: Maulana Maudoodi was one of the few prominent religious leaders who had escaped arrest during the general round-up of extremist Mullahs. He has now been arrested on the strength of a pamphlet which was just published in which Maudoodi tried to attack the Ahmadiyas by clever implications without indulging in open incitation. Martial Law authorities howwever felt that he had overstepped and thereupon arrested him. Weekly Summary of Political and Economic Events, March 26-April 1, 1953, April 2, 1953

Maulana Maudoodi, leader of Jamaat-i-Islami, arrested Mar 28 during anti-Ahmadiya agitation in Lahore, found guilty of complicity in riots by military tribunal May 11, and sentenced to death. Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embassy, May 12, 1953

Following the protest meeting and strike on the 14th occasioned by the sentence of Maulana Maudoodi reported in the Consulate’s despatch 96 dated May 14, 1953, an effort was made to organize a Maudoodi Day on May 22. Whereas the first demonstration was organized by Ulemas, the one scheduled for the 22nd was sparked by political opposition groups headed by the Awami League. Political, Press, and Economic Developments for the Week Ending May 27, 1953, May 28, 1953

Congen has no rpt no information to confirm GOI intelligence report that Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) groups planning attacks on Indian diplomats. Although prior to partition, JI supported Congress Party and opposed creation of Pakistan, JI has adopted anti-Indian position since partition. Its leaders, including recently retired Maulana Maudoodi, have advocated both moral and secular legality. Report of Planned Terrorist Attacks on Indian Diplomats, Nov. 7, 1972

Muslim Brotherhood

The Embassy’s confidential source stated that the organization was almost still-born, with no activities and few members. It is believed, however, that a recent conference of world Muslim divines held in Karachi may have given a fillip to the branch. In addition to Mahmoud Sawwaf there were several Middle Eastern Akhwan leaders at the conference. Hassan-ul-Hudeibi, the president of the Brotherhood did not come from Cairo but sent as his deputy Allama Mahmood-uz-Zubairi of Yemen. As-Syed Baha El-Amiri, the erstwhile Syrian Ambassador to Pakistan, fired from his job as a result of differences with Colonel Shishakly, was at the conference as Syrian delegate. Before his diplomatic appointment, El-Amiri was an officer in the Syrian Brotherhood. Another Akhwan leader, Sheikh Syed Ramazan of Egypt was also in attendence.

The World Muslim Conference (Motamar-e-Alam-e-Islam) in Karachi sponsored a meeting on February 23 in observance of “Hasan-el-Banna Day” which was presided over by the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem and addressed by El-Amiri and Syed Ramazan; the latter was termed the son-in-law of Hasan-el-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Although the Secretary of the World Muslim Conference in conversation with officers of the Embassy evinced little interest in the formation of the Brotherhood, it is possible that the Motamar will support the embryonic organization. Formation of Muslim Brotherhood Branch in Pakistan, Feb. 28, 1952

Matta Riot

The Anti-Christian Riot at Matta, Aug. 28, 1951

Memorandum of Conversation with Rev. Frank Llewellen, Aug. 16, 1951

Of the 22 defendants, two were sentenced to death and 10 were sentenced to 19 years. The drafting officer has spoken to a few lawyers in Lahoer regarding these sentences. All were of the opinion that the two sentenced to death would have their sentence commuted to 15 years, and the others to 5-8 years by the reviewing court. The Christian missionaries with whom the drafting officer has spoken in regards to the trial all feel satisfied that justice was done – even if the sentences are commuted. Confidential Despatch from Lahore Consulate, Dec. 21, 1951

Anti-Communist Program in East Pakistan

PURPOSE: To destroy Communist influence and develop a positive (counter) program based on the new national ideals of Pakistan. … Collaboration between the USIS and the Government of East Bengal is to be kept secret. To this end every attempt will be made to keep knowledge of the program confined to the three officers of the American Consulate and the three officers of the Government of East Bengal whose concerted effort is necesssary to the formulation of plans and policies.

OPERATIONAL THEMES: … To link communism with imperialism by demonstrating that the original meaning of the word is being used as a cloak for planned conquest. … To show the communists as anti-God and therefore a threat to the continued existence of the Muslim world as a free and independent religio-political entity. … To promote the Islamic socio-economic concept under which there will be freedom and dignity for the individual and which will provide for the elimination of economic disparities and inequities. Coordinated Program for Combatting Communism in East Bengal, Aug. 7, 1951

Developments in Iran and Egypt are seriously affecting Pakistan popular position reference United States and we should now expect period of critical attitudes. This change may imperil parts of information program. Clearly any revelation of my private understanding with top GOP officials will create greatest embarrassment to them. … View GOP changing position it is most imperative that all discussion be halted bringing GOEB personnel to Washington for discussion this highly delicate operation. If information officer GOEB is later sent to US as Leader Specialist, he should be given leader itinerary treatment and should not repeat not be consulted about policy matters affecting cooperation East Pakistan. We must assume he does not know of my overall understanding. Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Nov. 5, 1951

Re Leader-Grant for either GOP or GOEB official, Department merely indicated availability of Grant in relation to request contained in Dacca Despatch 13; with assumption Embassy retaining actual perogative of nominating whomever desirable. If Embassy does desire send any official as straight leader-grantee, special project will not be discussed in Washington as you recommend. Secret Telegram from State Department, Nov. 16, 1951

Department will not invite GOEB official for purpose discussing subject your Despatch 13. However, ordinary leader-grant can at some future date be offered a Dacca journalist or even GOEB official, under normal Embassy selection processes. Secret Telegram from Secretary of State, Nov. 17, 1951

Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Feb. 23, 1952

Confidential Telegram from Dacca Consulate, Feb. 28, 1952

Chief Minister Nurul Amin attended a meeting of the Mymensingh District Muslim League workers on June 14 and addressed the conference at some length. He reviewed the origins of, and government action during the Dacca riots in February, and announced that he had conclusive proof that these groups of people, viz. communists, other foreign agents, and political mal-contents had conspired to subvert the state from within. As for the communists, he quoted from a Calcutta communist paper which boasted of the party’s assisting the Language Movement in the right direction. As to the foreign agents, he dramatically flourished a secret document which he said was a circular of February 12 of an organization with headquarters outside Pakistan calling upon its members in East Pakistan to exploit the Language Movement. The name of the organization he withheld in the public interest. As for the disgruntled politicians, he observed that they are well known, and their motive in mising into the Language Movement and the riots was to split East and West Pakistan (he did not refer to the United Bengalers as such, but he evidently had them in mind). Confidential Telegram from Dacca Consulate, June 21, 1952

Confidential Telegram from New Delhi Embassy, Feb. 27, 1953

Telegram from New Delhi Embassy, May 6, 1954

Political, Press and Economic Developments for the Week Ended May 21, 1953, May 22, 1953

Telegram from Karachi Embassy, May 26, 1954

Political Developments for the Two Weeks Ending December 16, 1953, Dec. 17, 1953

Meanwhile there remains somewhat uncomfortably in my mind real concern over the Governor General’s attitude and approach to affairs these days. … I certainly do not see how running around East Bengal smashing Commies has much relation to what happened to the League in that province. Of course I see where a good Commie campaign might help disrupt the UF — but then what? Governor’s Rule? Martial law? The League has some hard lessons to learn. I hope the price won’t be too high or the instruction period too long. Secret Telegram from State Department, April 27, 1954

Agitation in East Bengal Schools and Colleges, Sept. 29, 1955

Political Attitudes and Opinions, East Pakistan, April 28, 1955

Gov. told me today will outlaw commie party East Bengal tomorrow. Said requested authorization from Center mid-June but only answer to date is under consideration. Thus, following abortive commie attempt few days ago blow up main bridge into Dacca he has decided to proceed [unilaterally]. Center as yet uninformed but will receive telegram from Gov. simultaneously with announcement of demarche. Confidential Telegram from Dacca Consulate, July 6, 1954

Overt Activities by Communists and Other Former Security Prisoners, Nov. 16, 1955

Misc Political

Political, Press and Economic Developments for the Period Ending April 29, 1953, May 1, 1953

Political, Press and Economic Developments for the Period Ending April 21, 1953, April 22, 1953

The subject of U.S. military aid to Pakistan remained the dominant political theme during the week. On December 19, 1953, the Government of Pakistan presented a note to the Soviet Embassy in Karachi replying to the Soviet note of November 30 which demanded “clarification” of the press reported on the subject of “American military air bases” in Pakistan. … The Indian National Congress party’s drive to arouse public opinion in India against US military aid to Pakistan evoked a bitter reaction in Pakistan. Public opinion media referred to it as a “hate campaign” and held it to be particularly significant as it was government sponsored. Weekly Summary of Political Events for Week Ending December 24, 1953, Dec. 24, 1953

Weekly Summary of Political Developments for Week Ending December 19, 1953, Dec. 19, 1953

Summary of Political Developments for the Week Ending June 19, 1953, June 20, 1953

Weekly Summary, Political and Economic Events 29 October thru 4 November 1953, Nov. 5, 1953

Weekly Summary of Political and Economic Events, Sept. 24 through Sept. 30, 1953, Oct. 1, 1953

Weekly Political and Economic Report, Jan. 25 – Feb. 1, 1953, Feb. 2, 1953

Political and Economic Developments for the Week August 10-16, 1952

Political and Economic Developments July 15-21, 1952, July 21, 1952

Political and Economic Developments July 8-14, 1952, July 14, 1952

Political and Economic Developments for the Week Ending April 3, 1952, April 3, 1952

Political and Economic Developments for the Week Ending, March 20, 1952, March 20, 1952

Anti-Ahmadiya Agitation in Lahore, March 10, 1953

Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Feb. 28, 1953

Political and Economic Developments in East Pakistan During Week Ending March 14, 1952, March 15, 1952

Political and Economic Developments in East Pakistan During Two Weeks Ending March 7, 1952, March 8, 1952

Weekly Summary Dec 15-21, 1952, Dec. 22, 1952

Weekly Summary, Dec. 1-16, 1952, Dec. 8, 1952

Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Jan. 16, 1953

Confidential Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Feb. 18, 1953

The Islamic Constitution of Pakistan, Jan. 11, 1954

Brief resume of talks between the Honourable Prime Minister and the Vice-President of U.S.A., held on 7-12-53, July 12, 1953

Memorandum of Conversation with Yusuf Haroon, April 3, 1954

Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Sept. 19, 1955

Secret Telegram from Karachi Embassy, Aug. 12, 1955

Current Position of Communism in Pakistan, July 10, 1953

The Pakistan National Alliance: Participants and Prospects, circa Aug. 1977

Pakistan’s Problems, Jan. 8, 1979

Suhrawardy Scores Victory Over Leftist Opponents in East Pakistan, June 16, 1957

Resignation of Pakistani Prime Minister Suhrawardy, Oct. 12, 1957

Copyright Paul Wolf, 2003-2004. No copyright to original government works. For educational use only.

APPENDIX B

Sunday, December 5, 2004off the shelf
Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan and Partition
V. N. DattaDear Mr Jinnah: Selected Correspondence and Speeches of Liaquat Ali Khan, 1937-1947edited by Professor Roger D. Long with a foreword by Stanely Wolpert. Oxford University Press, Karachi. Pages 328. Price not stated.

This compilation of selected correspondence and speeches of Liaquat Ali Khan, that comes with a foreword by Stanely Wolpert, well-known Jinnah biographer, focuses on highly significant issues and events which proved crucial in the creation of Pakistan. Of special interest to the reader is the author’s prefatory notes.

The period (1937-1947) chosen by Professor Long is momentous in the making of Pakistan. In the pre-1937 period, the Muslim League was a weak and inert organisation, destitute of leadership, funds and the press. It was seen as a coterie of toadies and sycophants basking in the sunshine of British patronage, passing stereotyped, mild resolutions for the protection of Muslims interests and making speeches in the Assemblies and at the Muslim League annual sessions. Mohammad Ali Jinnah then counted nowhere. He was rebuffed by the stalwart Muslim leader, Fazl-I-Husain in Punjab, and distrusted by the Congress. The British ignored him.

By 1939, the Muslim League became a strong and spirited organisation,

and in March 1940, it demanded a separate homeland, an independent, sovereign Pakistan State, and by 1945, Jinnah emerged as the sole spokesman of the Muslims, who made high bids and vetoed all constitutional proposals suggested by the Congress and the British government. He scuttled the Simla conference in June-July 1945 and asked for parity with the Congress in the Viceroy’s executive council.

Jinnah met Mahatma Gandhi on equal terms for negotiation to resolve the political stalemate at home on Malabar Hill in Bombay from September 9 to 29, 1945, and rejected his formula. He took to task the three Premieres, Sikander Hayat Khan of Punjab, Fazl-ul-Haq of Bengal, and Saadullah of Assam, for joining the National Defence Council by subverting the Muslim League resolution of September 29, 1940.

By 1945, the Muslim League succeeded in setting up its party ministry in four of the provinces, and in the fifth, it held a strong position by putting pressure on the dispirited and shrinking Unionists party in Punjab.

This work is more an exchange between Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan on matters

relating to the radicalisation of Muslim politics when both were engaged in a life-and-death struggle for the creation of Pakistan. It throws more light on Jinnah than on Liaquat Ali Khan.

There is nothing personal in these letters, despite Liaquat Ali Khan’s efforts to engage Jinnah in it. Jinnah was a hard nut to crack, icy cold, reserved, taciturn, who praised or complimented none, and yet showed no tension. He was secretive. Even though he drew up his will in 1939 and appointed Liaquat Ali Khan his trustee for it, he never told him so, and it was only after his death that the latter learnt of it.

An utterly lonely man, Jinnah was incapable of maintaining a loving relationship with anyone. It would have been a treasure trove to read Jinnah’s love letters to his wife Rattenbai Petet or to anyone, but such a document nowhere exits.

Jinnah’s relationship with his colleagues was not the kind that the Mahatma shared with his party workers. He chose no heir, though he regarded Liaquat Ali Khan as his right hand. The correspondence shows that Jinnah lived like an Englishman.

He was fabulously rich and invested a great deal of money in shares and property. On several occasions, the Muslim Legaue borrowed money from his personal coffers. It is incredible that by addressing his huge audience in English who did not understand what he was saying, he captured their hearts and imagination and fired them with a passion to throw in their lot with him.

Belonging to the well-known aristocratic family of Punjab and being son of the Nawab of Karnal, Liaquat Ali Khan inherited a huge property in Meerut. After taking BA from Oxford and Bar-at-law, he returned to India at the end of 1922 and joined the Muslim League in 1923. As an Independent, he served as Deputy Speaker in the UP Council in 1931. As a member of the United Provinces National Agricultural Party, he represented the landed interests and opposed the separate electorate before the Joint Statutory Commission which came out of the Round Table Conference in the early 1930s.

He became the General-Secretary of the Muslim League in 1936 and held this office till 1947 and slaved for the success of its mission. He became the Finance Member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council in 1946 and the first Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1947. Scrupulously honest, he refused to accept property in Pakistan in exchange for his land holdings in India, and after his death, his son and his wife, a Christian, Ranana Sheila Irene Pant, had to live in a house donated by the government.

This work projects Liaquat Ali Khan as a mild, well-meaning man of moderate disposition who shunned controversies. Mediocre in intellect, his sincerity of purpose and dedication made it easier for him to inspire confidence among his party workers. This work shows how the Muslims felt threatened by Hindu majoritarianism and feared that the Federation as envisaged under the Government of India Act (1935) would complete their disaster.

By mobilising the Muslim mass support, Jinnah widened his political base to fight the Congress. One is tempted to conclude from this work that the Congress was outmanoeuvred by Jinnah’s brilliant strategy and leadership, and Liaquat Ali Khan’s famous budget speech on February 28, 1947, in the Legislative Assembly, which hit the business magnets supporting the Congress, turned the tide in the Congress in favour of Partition. On March 3, 1947, Khizar Hayat Khan was forced to resign as Chief Minister due to Muslim League pressure, and the way was clear for the creation of Pakistan.

The editing and annotation of Long’s work is superb and the explanatory notes are suavely perceptive. However, Long’s praise of Stanely Wolport’s studies of Nehru and Jinnah is unjustified; he completely ignores S. Gopal’s comprehensive biography of Nehru. He also tends to ignore the Congress viewpoint on important political situations.

The period (1937-1947) chosen by Professor Long is momentous in the making of Pakistan. In the pre-1937 period, the Muslim League was a weak and inert organisation, destitute of leadership, funds and the press. It was seen as a coterie of toadies and sycophants basking in the sunshine of British patronage, passing stereotyped, mild resolutions for the protection of Muslims interests and making speeches in the Assemblies and at the Muslim League annual sessions. Mohammad Ali Jinnah then counted nowhere. He was rebuffed by the stalwart Muslim leader, Fazl-I-Husain in Punjab, and distrusted by the Congress. The British ignored him.

By 1939, the Muslim League became a strong and spirited organisation, and in March 1940, it demanded a separate homeland, an independent, sovereign Pakistan State, and by 1945, Jinnah emerged as the sole spokesman of the Muslims, who made high bids and vetoed all constitutional proposals suggested by the Congress and the British government. He scuttled the Simla conference in June-July 1945 and asked for parity with the Congress in the Viceroy’s executive council.

Jinnah met Mahatma Gandhi on equal terms for negotiation to resolve the political stalemate at home on Malabar Hill in Bombay from September 9 to 29, 1945, and rejected his formula. He took to task the three Premieres, Sikander Hayat Khan of Punjab, Fazl-ul-Haq of Bengal, and Saadullah of Assam, for joining the National Defence Council by subverting the Muslim League resolution of September 29, 1940.

..Belonging to the well-known aristocratic family of Punjab and being son of the Nawab of Karnal, Liaquat Ali Khan inherited a huge property in Meerut. After taking BA from Oxford and Bar-at-law, he returned to India at the end of 1922 and joined the Muslim League in 1923. As an Independent, he served as Deputy Speaker in the UP Council in 1931. As a member of the United Provinces National Agricultural Party, he represented the landed interests and opposed the separate electorate before the Joint Statutory Commission which came out of the Round Table Conference in the early 1930s.

He became the General-Secretary of the Muslim League in 1936 and held this office till 1947 and slaved for the success of its mission. He became the Finance Member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council in 1946 and the first Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1947. Scrupulously honest, he refused to accept property in Pakistan in exchange for his land holdings in India, and after his death, his son and his wife, a Christian, Ranana Sheila Irene Pant, had to live in a house donated by the government.

This work projects Liaquat Ali Khan as a mild, well-meaning man of moderate disposition who shunned controversies. Mediocre in intellect, his sincerity of purpose and dedication made it easier for him to inspire confidence among his party workers. This work shows how the Muslims felt threatened by Hindu majoritarianism and feared that the Federation as envisaged under the Government of India Act (1935) would complete their disaster.

By mobilising the Muslim mass support, Jinnah widened his political base to fight the Congress. One is tempted to conclude from this work that the Congress was outmanoeuvred by Jinnah’s brilliant strategy and leadership, and Liaquat Ali Khan’s famous budget speech on February 28, 1947, in the Legislative Assembly, which hit the business magnets supporting the Congress, turned the tide in the Congress in favour of Partition. On March 3, 1947, Khizar Hayat Khan was forced to resign as Chief Minister due to Muslim League pressure, and the way was clear for the creation of Pakistan.

By 1945, the Muslim League succeeded in setting up its party ministry in four of the provinces, and in the fifth, it held a strong position by putting pressure on the dispirited and shrinking Unionists party

Professor Roger D. Long with a foreword by Stanely Wolpert. Oxford University Press, Karachi. Pages 328. V.N. Datta

This fantastic transformation of the Muslim League would not be possible without Liaqat Ali Khan–the forgotten hero of Pakistan. Today PTV does not show the Liaqat fist, and there is no national holiday for this hero. All this is based on pre-independence politics when Liaqat rubbed many the wrong way. It had not, there would have been no Pakistan.

By Moin Ansari

The Singh Doctrine for Akhand Bharat Fails

Gandhi’s racism: Crititicsm of Mohandas Gandhi by his grandsons and other Indians

Why is Urine drinking popular in India? From Mohandas Gandhi to PM Desai to common man.

How Buddhism was exterminated from South Asia? 600BC-400AD Reviving Hindusism in Budhdist lands: The Hindu extremists use the Safron Swastika flag instead of the tri-colored flag of India. (see Hindu unity dot org)

Indian penury: The reality vs. the Bollywood marketing gloss:

India as World Power 1 Extremist Hindus show power using the Swastika in triple entendre–as an ancient Hindu symbol, reverence for Hitler and sign of Anti-Western Indian power

Superpower India Pt 2

Extremist Hindus revere Hitler and use the Swastika as the Indian flag

How long to extripate penury from india? 300 years! India’s budget– fit for a superpower Murder of 10 million Indian girl babies:Before or right after birth. The media is silent.
————————————–
Sino-Indian relationship

India Balkanizing? Naxalite insurrection widening cracks in deep cavaties
The 2nd world revolution (after Buddhism) from Nepal: Another threat to India

Red Nepal: Clear and present danger to India

LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape Bookmark and Share Add to TechnoratiRSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | November 27th, 2008 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |Save/SharePost to MySpace!

1857: Muslims led the war of the independence but their names have been erased from “Indian” history

Filed under: Independence movement — Moin Ansari @ 2:21 am
Tags:

One hundred and fifty years have passed since Lord Dalhousie annexed Oudh (Awadh) in 1856. It aroused mass resentment against the British. Muslim elite realised that Delhi would be the next target as the Mughal empire was already in the throes of death. With its easy annexation by the East India Company, India would be lost as Darul-Islam. (For details see the Fatwa by Molvi Karamat Ali Jaunpuri, published by the Mohammedan Literary Society, Calcutta).

For Muslims, 1857 uprising was but a continuation of the campaign by Syed Ahmad (d.1831) that started at the turn of the 19th century to save the Muslims from subjugation.

The British called it the Sepoy Mutiny (Ghadar) – a seditious rebellion by a few discontented sepoys against the use of tallow-greased cartridges. They deliberately minimised the popular resentment that the general population in India felt against their repressive policies, and after India’s Independence in 1947, persistent attempts are underway to rewrite the history of India’s first war of independence also. The intended goal appears to remove the traces of mass struggle by the Muslims to save India from the clutches of the ever-greedy British plunderers.

Christopher Hibbert’s The Great Mutiny; India 1857 provides valuable insights into the genesis and causes of Ghadar – the massive uprising.

On page 60 (1978) Hibbert mentions how the “fakirs and maulvis” moving about the countryside, were warning the attentive crowds of the designs of the ‘Fringhis.’ They also exhorted to prepare for the looming fight for their faith. The mutineer’s slogan was: “Help, O King! We pray for assistance in our fight for the faith” (p.93). Jivanlal’s diary recorded a proclamation issued by the beat of drums that his Majesty (Bahadur Shah Zafar) would himself lead an attack on the English. “In consequence of this proclamation upwards of 10,000 Mohammedans converged near the Kashmir gate and waited till midnight for the arrival of the King.”

Neo-nationalist historians rarely mention Muslim heroes of this first war of India’s Independence except Bahadur Shah Zafar. However, they portray several insignificant players as the real heroes.

Who knows about Nawab Mahmud Khan, Ahmadullah Khan, Made Khan, Enayat Rasul, Khan Bahadur Khan, Bahadur Khan (of Rampur), Molvi Wahajuddin (of Mau), etc? Where do we get the mention of massive killing of Muslim noblemen? The detention and deportations of the Muslim activists to Kala Pani continued for decades after Ambala (1864) and Patna (1871) plots.

Bakht Khan Rohila’s contribution is largely maligned and ignored. He was the one who organised the rebellious sepoys into a fighting force that kept the freshly recruited reinforcements from the Punjab and the Gurkha Battalion from retaking Delhi for more than four months from June-September 1857.

Also are seldom mentioned thousands of prominent local Muslim chiefs and landlords around Delhi, Rohilkhand, Bundelkhand, and Oudh who lost their estates and lives on the slightest pretext of disloyalty or on suspicion of providing material support to the so-called mutineers.

The dairies, journals and personal notes written during the stormy days of 1857 and immediately after the British Raj was restored have preserved somewhat a blurred picture of the bravery, sacrifice and suffering of those who bore the brunt of British vengeance.

Sir Sayed (1817-1898) witnessed the events first hand. His writings, especially Asbaab-e Sarkashi-e Hindostan, Tarikh-e Sarkashi-e Bijnore, and Loyal Mohammedans of India have invaluable information though as a loyal servant of the British Raj, his portrayal of the freedom fighters was that of unruly bandits revolting against magnanimous rulers.

The British had their spies and henchmen implanted in every Darbar. For example, they assigned the job of keeping Bahadur Shah Zafar – the Last Mughal emperor – from Bakht Khan Rohila to Hakim Ahsanullah Khan, his private doctor and for his ‘valuable’ services paid him a pension of two hundred rupees a month till his death. His journal, written in Persian is lost but its English translation is partially preserved. Chunni Lal was a grocer for the Red Fort. His record of the events is very interesting, and so is the journal of the Delhi Kotwal, Mubarak Shah. The dairy of Munshi Jivanlal who administered the pensions paid by the British to the Mughal kings contains passages showing how widespread unrest in Delhi was. Khwaja Moinuddin Hasan’s journal that appeared in Ahsanul Akhbar was later collected in Hadang-e Ghadar by Khwaja Ahmad Faruqi.

Charles Ball’s History of the Indian Mutiny and Christopher Hibbert’s The Great Mutiny; India 1857, though highly partisan, attest to fact that the British inflicted maximum punishment to the Muslims and ruthlessly plundered them.

Muslims Led the Independence War of 1857

The Muslims in India rebelled against the repressive colonial power of the East India Company because it had been usurping their lands under the slightest pretext and looting the poor masses through heavy taxes. The Muslims were in the forefront of the 1857 war of independence and often had to face in combat fellow Indians in the British army ranks.

The Mutiny, as the British labelled the 1857 War of Independence, started from Meerut on May 10, 1857 where 85 sepoys were court-marshalled for refusing to obey the orders. Low ranking Muslim soldiers rebelled against the insulting behaviour of their superiors, killed British officers, freed their comrades, and destroyed the Company offices. With their slogan of “March to Delhi”, they arrived at the outskirts of the Red Fort. They entered the city through the Kashmiri Gate and affirmed their allegiance to Bahadur Shah Zafar, the nominal Mughal emperor.

Bakht Khan Rohila took the command of the rebel army and kept the British garrison under siege for four months. Daily battles raged and the British had almost lost hope when Nicholson came to their rescue. What followed was the worst plunder and massive massacres in the thousand-year history of Delhi. British historians attest to the thorough destruction of Delhi in three days following its capture on September 20, 1857. One of them described Delhi as “a deserted charnel house.”

The brutal suppression of the Muslims in India continued for another decade.

Revolt Spread

The Delhi Revolt against the British rapidly spread through northern and central India.

Col. Greathed was dispatched from Delhi to rescue the British under siege in Agra fort for months. He pursued the mutineers across Doab into Oudh. By the end of November, the countryside around Delhi was cleared.

When restive elements in Lucknow got the wind of the revolt in Meerut and Delhi, they also revolted against the British Resident. Wajid Ali Shah’s son under the guardianship of Hazrat Mahal was pronounced the legitimate authority. General Outram and General Havelock were sent to rescue the besieged Lucknow garrison. However, both came under intense attack and surrounded by the insurgents led by the “Maulvi of Faizabad.” He had under his command a formidable force. However, Gen. Collin Campbell’s large army supported by fresh Gurkha reinforcement sent by Jang Bahadur, the de facto ruler of Nepal, was able to defeat the ill-equipped throng at Lucknow on March 21, 1858 though the fighting was quite savage. Alam Bagh, Dilkusha Bagh and Sikandar Bagh became red with the blood of innocent Muslim inhabitants. As in Delhi so in Lucknow victory followed the looting and indiscriminate killing: “Sepoy or Oudh villager, it mattered not – no question asked. His skin was black, and did not that suffice?”

Many British officers feared that their share of prize-money would not amount to nearly as much they had hoped for. Even so the plunder accumulated by the prize-agent in Lucknow was estimated by The Times at over six hundred thousand pounds. The amount did not include the amount of what the British soldiers took with them.

Kanpur rebelled on May 15. By June 7 the British residents decided to vacate the city. Nana Sahib had allowed the British to leave safely. Gen Havelock moved on Kanpur but Tatya Tope pushed him out on November 23 and Havelock died there. Finally, in the third battle, Campbell defeated Tope on December 6, 1857. Fatehgarh, another stronghold of the rebels, fell to Campbell on January 5, 1858.

After the fall of Lucknow, Taluqadars in Oudh continued their resistance. Walpole’s campaign in Rohilkhand ended in his defeat at Ruiya on April 15, 1858. However, Campbell was able to defeat Khan Bahadur Khan outside Bareilly on May 5, 1858. Maulvi Ahmadullah retreated from Lucknow into Rohilkhand, seized Shahjahanpur and shelled the British cantonment. Under pressure, he retreated to Oudh again but was killed in a fight. The Rajah of Pawayan cut off his head and took it to the British magistrate of Shahjahanpur to claim fifty thousand rupees reward announced over his head.

With the death of the Maulvi of Faizabad the fire of rebellion almost died down in Rohilkhand and Oudh. Still there were many who refused to surrender. They took refuge in Nepal and Jang Bahdur asked Lord Canning to send troops to root them out. When Hazrat Mahal crossed Nepalese border with her son at the end of 1858 and appealed to Jang Bahadur for help, he told her: “I inform you that if you should remain within my territory the Gurkha troops will most certainly … attack…you. Be it also known that the Nepalese State will neither assist, show mercy to, nor permit to remain in its territories….”

The sepoys of Jhansi mutinied and surrounded the fort on June 8, 1857. However, Laxmi Bai, the widow of Raja of Jhansi, did not join their war of independence. She stayed away from the revolt though Lord Dalhousie had rejected her request to declare her adopted son as the Raja, after Gangadhar Rao’s death and had annexed Jhansi three years ago. The Company had also been pressing her hard to pay back all her husband’s debts out of her own pension of Rs. 60,000.

The mutineers took the British officers prisoners. They murdered them and left Jhansi next day with the treasure and magazine. The Rani reported to Major WC Erskine, Commissioner of Sagar Division: “The troops stationed at Jhansi through their faithlessness, cruelty and violence killed all the European civil and military officers and the Rani… could render them no aid, which she very much regrets.”

Jhansi was invaded by two neighbouring states. Her appeal to the British to protect Jhansi from the neighbouring Rajas was turned down. In desperation, she turned to her rebel army for help. They drove the invaders out but also pressed her to declare independence from the British. She still seemed to have been unwilling to commit herself. However, she was forced to give in to the rebels’ demand when a formidable British army appeared at the walls of Jhansi intent upon revenge for the massacre.

Tatya Tope brought over his twenty thousand men to help the Rani, but was beaten back by the British. One night the Rani escaped with a few of her loyal cavalry to join Tatya Tope at Kalpi. The British army caught up with her near Gwalior and mowed her down in the battlefield. Tatya Tope fled across the Chambal river, was captured later and executed on April 1859. Rao Sahib was not captured until 1862.

Other notables of the Ghadar, Firuz Shah died in Makkah in 1877. Hazrat Mahal was allowed to remain in Nepal with her son. Nana Sahib entered Nepal and was said to have died there in September 1859. The King of Delhi, Bahadur Shah Zafar was put to trial before a military court at the end of January 1859 and banished to Rangoon, Burma where he died on November 7, 1862. In July 1859, Lord Canning called for a day of thanksgiving and announced: “War is at an end. Rebellion has been put down.”

A book of essays by Marx and Engels (Moscow: 1960) called it the “First Indian War of Independence”. Savarkar (1909) insisted that the Mutiny was indeed a national revolt, and B.S. Chaudhury supported this designation. But R.C. Majumdar declared that it was neither first, nor national, nor a war of independence. Hibbert’s quoted first-hand description of the events leaves no doubt that it was a Muslim War of independence and they lost it because the revolting masses could not compel the ruling elite to grab the momentum and unite for the cause of independence.¨War of Independence. ABUL KALAM analyses the various factors that led to 1857 war of independence, and concedes that for Muslims, it was but a continuation of the campaign by Syed Ahmad that started at the turn of the 19th century to save the Muslims from subjugation.

Rule of Muslims in “India”: Fact & fiction

Filed under: History of Pakistan, Muslim rule — Moin Ansari @ 2:09 am

The noted Indian scholar and historian, Dr Bishambhar Nath Pande, ranked among the very few Indians and fewer still Hindu historians who tried to be little careful when dealing with the Muslim rule in India that lasted for almost 1000 years. Dr Pande passed away on 1 June 1998 and Impact International of London (July 1998) wrote the following obituary [at the end of the article], which we think sheds some light into some of the myths on Indian history, such as on Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, created by the British with the clear objective of divide and rule:

The Muslim rule in India lasted for almost 1000 years. How come then, asked the British historian Sir Henry Elliot, that Hindus ‘had not left any account which could enable us to gauge the traumatic impact the Muslim conquest and rule had on them’? Since there was none, Elliot went on to produce his own eight-volume History of India from its own historians (1867). His history claimed Hindus were slain for disputing with ‘Muhammedans’, generally prohibited from worshipping and taking out religious processions, their idols were mutilated, their temples destroyed, they were forced into conversions and marriages, and were killed and massacred by drunk Muslim tyrants. Thus Sir Henry, and scores of other Empire scholars, went on to produce a synthetic Hindu versus Muslim history of India, and their lies became history.

However, the noted Indian scholar and historian, Dr Bishambhar Nath Pande, who passed away in New Delhi on 1 June, ranked among the very few Indians and fewer still Hindu historians who tried to be a little careful when dealing with such history. He knew that this history was ‘originally compiled by European writers’ whose main objective was to produce a history that would serve their policy of divide and rule.

Lord Curzon (Governor General of India 1895-99 and Viceroy 1899-1904, d.1925) was told by the Secretary of State for India, George Francis Hamilton, that they ’should so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened’.

Another Viceroy, Lord Dufferin (1884-88), was advised by the Secretary of State in London that the ‘division of religious feelings is greatly to our advantage’, and that he expected ’some good as a result of your committee of inquiry on Indian education and on teaching material’.

‘We have maintained our power in India by playing-off one part against the other,’ the Secretary of State for India reminded yet another Viceroy, Lord Elgin (1862-63), ‘and we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling.’

In his famous Khuda Bakhsh Annual Lecture (1985) Dr Pande said: ‘Thus under a definite policy the Indian history books text-books were so falsified and distorted as to give an impression that the medieval [i.e. Muslim] period of Indian history was full of atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subjects and the Hindus had to suffer terrible indignities under Muslim rule. And there were no common factors [between Hindus and Muslims] in social, political and economic life.’

Therefore, Dr Pande was extra careful. Whenever he came across a ‘fact’ that looked odd to him, he would try to check and verify rather than adopt it uncritically.

He came across a history text-book taught in the Anglo-Bengali College, Allahabad which claimed that ‘three thousand Brahmins had committed suicide as Tipu wanted to convert them forcibly into the fold of Islam’. The author was a very famous scholar, Dr Har Prashad Shastri, head of the department of Sanskrit at Calcutta University. (Tipu Sultan (1750-99), who ruled over the South Indian state of Mysore (1782-99), is one of the most heroic figures in Indian history. He died on the battlefield, fighting the British.)

Was it true? Dr Pande wrote immediately to the author and asked him for the source on which he had based this episode in his text-book. After several reminders, Dr Shastri replied that he had taken this information from the Mysore Gazetteer. So Dr Pande requested the Mysore University vice chancellor, Sir Brijendra Nath Seal, to verify for him Dr Shastri’s statement from the Gazetteer. Sir Brijendra referred his letter to Prof Srikantia who was then working on a new edition of the Gazetteer. Srikantia wrote to say that the Gazetteer mentioned no such incident and, as a historian himself, he was certain that nothing like this had taken place. Prof Srikantia added that both the prime minister and the commander-in-chief of Tipu Sultan were themselves Brahmins. He also enclosed a list of 136 Hindu temples which used to receive annual grants from the Sultan’s treasury.

It transpired that Shastri had lifted this story from Colonel Miles’ History of Mysore which Miles claimed he had taken from a Persian manuscript in the personal library of Queen Victoria. When Dr Pande checked further, he found that no such manuscript existed in Queen Victoria’s library. Yet Dr Shastri’s book was being used as a high school history text-book in seven Indian states, Assam, Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. So he sent his entire correspondence about the book to the vice chancellor of Calcutta University, Sir Ashutosh Chaudhary. Sir Ashutosh promptly ordered Shashtri’s book out of the course. Yet years later, in 1972, Dr Pande was surprised to discover the same suicide story was still being taught as ‘history’ in junior high schools in Uttar Pradesh. The lie had found currency as a fact of history.

The Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb (born 1618, reigned 1658-1707) is the most reviled of all Muslim rulers in India. He was supposed to be a great destroyer of temples and oppressor of Hindus, and a ‘fundamentalist’ too! As chairman of the Allahabad Municipality (1948-53), Dr Pande had to deal with a land dispute between two temple priests. One of them had filed in evidence some farmans (royal orders) to prove that Aurangzeb had, besides cash, gifted the land in question for the maintenance of his temple. Might they not be fake, Dr Pande thought, in view of Aurangzeb’s fanatically anti-Hindu image? He showed them to his friend, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a distinguished lawyer as well a great scholar of Arabic and Persian. He was also a Brahmin. Sapru examined the documents and declared they were genuine farmans issued by Aurangzeb.

For Dr Pande this was a ‘new image of Aurangzeb’; so he wrote to the chief priests of the various important temples, all over the country, requesting photocopies of any farman issued by Aurangzeb that they may have in their possession. The response was overwhelming; he got farmans from several principal Hindu and jain temples, even from Sikh Gurudwaras in northern India. These farmans, issued between 1659 and 1685, related to grant of jagir (large parcel of agricultural lands) to support regular maintenance of these places of worship.

Dr Pande’s research showed that Aurangzeb was as solicitous of the rights and welfare of his non-Muslim subjects as he was of his Muslim subjects. Hindu plaintiffs received full justice against their Muslims respondents and, if guilty, Muslims were given punishment as necessary.

One of the greatest charges against Aurangzeb is of the demolition of Vishwanath temple in Banaras (Varanasi). That was a fact, but Dr Pande unravelled the reason for it. ‘While Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed.

‘Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made journey on the palkis [palanquins]. They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. After offering puja [worship] all the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere.

‘When Aurangzeb came to know of this, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately they found that statue of Ganesh [the elephant-headed god which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror they found the missing Rani dishonoured and crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath's seat.'

The Rajas demanded salutary action, and 'Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground and the Mahant [head priest] be arrested and punished’. (B N Pande, Islam and Indian Culture, Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Patna, 1987)

Dr Pande believed in the innate goodness of human nature. Despite all that senseless hate and periodical outbreak of anti-Muslim violence after independence, he remained an optimist. When one of the worst riots took place in 1979 in Ahmadabad, in which more than 2,000 Muslims were killed and 6,000 houses burnt, Dr Pande travelled there to see whether there was ‘any humanity still alive’.

Yes, it was in one locality, Mewabhai Chaal, where he found that all the houses had been burnt down. Did they all belong to Muslims? No. Only 35 belonged to Muslims; some 125 belonged to Hindus, he was told. So, it meant, the arsonists came in two different waves; one destroying the Muslim houses and the other the Hindu houses? No, it was only one wave, said Kalayan Singh. That one, there, he pointed out to smoke billowing from what used to be his house and his tyre-shop. He was a Hindu and he had lost property and business worth 200,000 rupees.

The miscreants had asked him to point out the Muslim houses so they could spare the Hindu houses. Kalyan Singh refused, and watched as the mob set fire to all the houses – including his own. How could I betray my Muslim neighbours? he asked Dr Pande rhetorically.

Dr Pande also went to the Muslim students hostel. One-third of its residents were Hindus. “Come out all you Hindu students,” yelled a murderous mob gathered outside the hostel. No, we won’t, shouted back the Hindu students and locked the gate from inside. In the event, the entire hostel was evacuated by the army and then left to the mob to loot and burn. The Hindu students were told they could take with them their books and research papers. Dr Pande met a young DSc scholar, named Desai, who had left behind his more than three years’ labour, a ready-for-typing dissertation, to be burnt by the arsonists. Desai said he couldn’t think of saving his thesis while some of his Muslim friends were in similar position with their theses. A noble soul! Dr Pande who had been looking for humanity found it there as well.

The inhumanity did not lie in the Indian nature, but the nature had fallen victim to the evil heritage of colonial history. Few realised how 1000 years of their history had been stolen from them. Many tended to buy the fake and doctored version handed down to them as part of their colonial heritage. Some even saw a little political advantage in this trade. Dr Pande heard a leading Hindu Mahasabha politician and religious leader, Mahant Digvijaynath, telling an election meeting that it is written in the Qur’an that killing a Hindu was an act of goodness (thawab). Dr Pande called upon the Mahant (High Priest) and told him that he had read the Qur’an a few times but didn’t find such a statement in it, and he had, therefore, brought with him several English, Urdu and Hindi translations of the Qur’an; so would he kindly point to him where exactly did the statement occur in the Qur’an?

Isn’t it written there? said the Mahant. I haven’t found it; if you have, please tell me, replied Dr Pande. Then what does it say? It speaks about love and brotherhood, about the oneness of mankind. What’s jihad then? What is jizyah? How then India got partitioned? The Mahant went on asking, and Dr Pande kept on explaining, hoping the Mahant would correct himself. However, the Mahant’s ideas were fixed, in prejudice and in ignorance.

Dr Pande himself had been a senior member of the ruling Congress party which he had joined at a very young age. He was a disciple of Gandhi, a friend of Nehru; he had taken part in each and every non-cooperation movement against the British and gone to jail eight times. The Congress was supposed to be an all-Indian nationalist platform and yet Dr Pande’s party was hardly free from the bias and ignorance of a cleverly deconstructed history. The rise of militant Hindutva tendency is only recent, but before it all became overt, the Congress itself was doing the same, albeit a little covertly. All the horrific anti-Muslim carnage took place during more than four decades of Congress rule. The doors of the Babari Mosque were opened for Hindu worship during the tenure of Nehru’s grandson, Rajiv Gandhi. The Mosque itself was pulled down during the regime of another Congress Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao.

Dr Pande was, however, just one individual. That made his work all the more important, not just from the Muslim but from the point of view of the entire country. India’s deconstructed history is like a time bomb; unless it is defused, India cannot survive in one piece. Not for very long.

Bishambhar Nath Pande born on 23 December 1906 in the Madhya Pradesh of Umreth; member UP Legislative Assembly (1952-53); member UP Legislative Council (1972-74); twice member of the upper house, Rajya Sabha (1976 and 1982); Governor of Orissa state (1983-88); recipient of the highest national award Padma Shri (1976); author of several books, including The Spirit of India and The Concise History of Congress; died in New Delhi, 1 June 1998. THE MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA by M H Faruqi. Courtesy: Impact International, London, Vol 28, July 1998

“Every civil building connected with Mahommedan tradition should be levelled to the ground without regard to antiquarian veneration or artistic predilection.”

British Prime Minister Palmerston’s Letter No. 9 dated 9 October 1857, to Lord Canning, Viceroy of India, Canning Papers.

September 28, 2009

Presidential Address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, Karachi, 11th August 1947

Presidential Address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, Karachi, 11th August 1947

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I cordially thank you with the utmost sincerity for the honour you have conferred upon me – the greatest honour that is possible for this Sovereign Assembly to confer – by electing me as your first President. I also thank those leaders who have spoken in appreciation of my services and their personal references to me. I sincerely hope that with your support and your cooperation we shall make this Constituent Assembly an example to the world. The Constituent Assembly has got two main functions to perform. The first is the very onerous and responsible task of framing our future Constitution of Pakistan and the second of functioning as a full and complete Sovereign body as the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. We have to do the best we can in adopting a provincial constitution for the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. You know really that not only we ourselves are wondering but, I think, the whole world is wondering at this unprecedented cyclonic revolution which has brought about the plan of creating and establishing two independent Sovereign Dominions in this subcontinent. As it is, it has been unprecedented; there is no parallel in the history of the world. This mighty subcontinent with all kinds of inhabitants has been brought under a plan which is titanic, unknown, unparalleled. And what is very important with regard to it is that we have achieved it peacefully and by means of an evolution of the greatest possible character.

Dealing with our first function in this Assembly, I cannot make any well-considered pronouncement at this moment, but I shall say a few things as they occur to me. The first and the foremost thing that I would like to emphasise is this – remember that you are now a Sovereign Legislative body and you have got all the powers. It, therefore, places on you the gravest responsibility as to how you should take your decisions. The first observation that I would like to make is this: You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the state.

The second thing that occurs to me is this: One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering – I do not say that other countries are free from it, but, I think, our condition is much worse – is bribery and corruption. (Hear, hear.) That really is a poison. We must put that down with an iron hand and I hope that you will take adequate measures as soon as it is possible for this Assembly to do so.

Black marketing is another curse. Well, I know that black marketeers are frequently caught and punished. According to our judicial notions sentences are passed or sometimes fines only are imposed. Now you have to tackle this monster which today is a colossal crime against society, in our distressed conditions, when we constantly face shortage of food and other essential commodities of life. A citizen who does black marketing commits, I think, a greater crime than the biggest and most grievous of crimes. These black marketers are really knowing, intelligent and ordinarily responsible people, and when they indulge in black marketing, I think they ought to be very severely punished, because they undermine the entire system of control and regulation of foodstuffs and essential commodities, and cause wholesale starvation and want and even death.

The next thing that strikes me is this: Here again it is a legacy which has been passed on to us. Along with many other things, good and bad, has arrived this great evil – the evil of nepotism and jobbery. This evil must be crushed relentlessly. I want to make it quite clear that I shall never tolerate any kind of jobbery, nepotism or any influence directly or indirectly brought to bear upon me. Wherever I will find that such a practice is in vogue, or is continuing anywhere, low or high, I shall certainly not countenance it.

I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the Partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of every one of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling that exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done. A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgment there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record its verdict in favour of it. And what is more it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that that was the only solution of India’s constitutional problem. Any idea of a United India could never have worked and in my judgment it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do?

Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the wellbeing of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in cooperation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that every one of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.

I cannot emphasise it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in the course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community – because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis, and so on – will vanish. Indeed, if you ask me this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free peoples long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time but for this. (Applause.)

Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State. (Hear, hear.) As you know, history shows that in England conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state. (Loud applause.)

The people of England in the course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the nation.

Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and cooperation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest Nations of the world. (Loud applause.)

I have received a message from the United States of America addressed to me. lt reads:

‘I have the honour to communicate to you, in Your Excellency’s capacity as President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, the following message which I have just received from the Secretary of State of the United States:

‘On the occasion of the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly for Pakistan, I extend to you and to members of the Assembly, the best wishes of the Government and the people of the United States for the successful conclusion of the great work you are about to undertake.’

Source: G.W. Choudhury 1967, p.19-22 and R. Ahmad 2002 (Vol VI) p.355-366 (Original appears in Dawn, Hindustan Times, Morning News and Leader, 12th August 1947; and in Star of India, Pakistan Times and Civil & Military Gazette, 13th August 1947)

September 26, 2009

Alama Iqbal and vision of Pakistan

Filed under: History of Pakistan, Independence movement — Moin Ansari @ 9:20 pm
Tags: ,

Urdu History

Filed under: History of Pakistan — Moin Ansari @ 6:18 am
Tags:

HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE SYSTEMS OF THE SUBCONTINENT

History of Urdu

by

 class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”">Moin Ansari

Updated Oct. 2009. Duplicate paragraphs deleted and some errors connected. The subcontinent of South Asia is rich in cultural diversity and is made of many races, nationalities, and religions. It is the birth place of at least two of the major religions on the planet, and the nursing ground of many of the worlds languages. Tracing the genealogy of a language is as easy as driving through a minefield. One has to avoid religious dogma and xenophobia. It is said that South Asian may have as many as 114 different dialects. Many of the South Asian languages fall into distinct language groups.

South East Asia too has many language families. For example modern Nippon has:

1) The Kanji The Chinese based Japanese language

2) The Japanese language

3) The “Gaigin” or foreign language based Japanese (i.e hamburger-maru).

THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND THE INDO-IRANIAN LANGUAGES
World linguists divide the world into these major language groups:

1) The Indo-Iranian group of languages
2) Indic Group of languages
3) The Semitic Group of languages
4) The Latin Group of languages
5) The Chinese Group of languages
6) The American Group of languages
7) The African Group of languages
8) Other

Arabic is a ‘Semitic’ language. The other major member of the Semitic group of languages is ‘Hebrew’. Except for the Mekran coast and Sind the Arab influence on the subcontinent has been minimal. As such it is not surprising that Urdu does not use the Arabic script. Urdu uses the Persian script (subtle differences in vowel “liason”, fonts, alphabets, pronunciation, joining, sounds…. not readily understood by the casual observer). Many subcontinental languages including Pushto, Baluchi, Persian etc. all belong to Indo-Iranian group of languages.

THE SOUTH ASIAN LANGUAGE SYSTEMS
Like Japan the South Asian subcontinent may have three traceable language systems.

1) The original languages of the IVC. The archaic pictographic Harappan based languages that thrived in the basin of the Indus and today survive in South India (though the pictographic script is lost) etc.

2) The languages that were imported into the subcontinent like Farsi, Arabic and Sanskrit.

3) The Brahmini based languages that thrived elsewhere in the subcontinent.

Depending on the theory that you accept these language families may or may not belong to group two.

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape Bookmark and Share Add to Technorati RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | November 27th, 2007 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

NORTHERN “INDIA” THE CULTURAL CAPITAL OF SOUTH ASIA SPAWNS URDU
Even though she is a thousand years old, Urdu is considered a young language. This multi-cultural South Asian language, rich in literature, and history can be understood by millions around the world. Urdu is a Turkish word (Ordu) that translates to “lashkar” an “army camp” or an “army caravan”. The English word “horde” is of the same origin. The language developed as a means of communication between the soldiers of different nationalities who served under the kings.

Urdu started out as an army “language” where people of different religions and nationalities mixed together and wanted to talk to each other. Out of the cauldron, a new language and a new culture came into existence. This new culture centered around Lucknow and Delhi, in Northern India and is responsible for the renaissance, growth and proliferation of art, painting, music, and architecture of pre-British South Asia.

The culture born of the confluence of many languages and many religions exuded a sophistication now found in the North Indian and Pakistani population. The emperors, kings, rajahs, nawabs and badshahs of the region supported with gold and silver the poetry and the literature that was an essential part of their court.

The new languages were very instrumental in the transformation of the nationalities and races that inhabited the Northern part of the South Asian subcontinent. Many South Asian languages, Kashmiri, Gujjar, Punjabi, Gujrati and Hindi are very similar to Urdu, and have a lot of commonalities with Urdu.

Urdu is a mixture of languages including Persian, Arabic and Turkish. Today the Urdu language is the national language of the republic of Pakistan and is a constitutionally recognized language of the republic of India. Some Indian states also recognize Urdu as a state language. Indian occupied Kashmir has voted for Urdu as the state langugage. All provinces of Pakistan voted to accept Urdu as the provincial languages. In countries neighboring India and Pakistan the language is understood and appreciated. The language is understood in many Persian Gulf countries and Mauritius, Fiji, South Africa, East Africa, Maldives, and a large immigrant population in Europe and America.

Dr. Munawar Anees adds: “There is at least one Urdu daily out of London but none in Hindi…and there is a Urdu daily coming out from the Gulf; several dozen monthly, quarterly and annual magazines published by the immigrant community”.

In actuality there are more than one Urdu dailies in England, and several weeklies from New York and Los Angeles and many cities have periodicals. Some of the best supporters are Sikhs and Hindus.

Of the many things that are common to the subcontinent, Urdu is surely one of them. Perhaps this bridge can be used to bring peace to our poverty ridden region. The following pages will trace the history of the many languages that encompass the subcontinent.

Urdu is written in the Arabic script like Farsi, Javi, Maldivian, Old Turkish, several Central Asian languages, Pashto, Baluchi, and Western Gurmukhi Punjabi.

PERSIAN AND INDIC GROUP OF LANGUAGES
According to many linguists, Pushto and Baluchi, including Persian , belong to the Iranian group of languages and Punjabi, Hindi, Urdu, Gujarati etc. belong to Indic languages. However this is not clearly defined. Most linguists claim that Urdu is not a ‘form’ of Persian. Many linguist claim that Urdu and Persian have different syntax, phonology, and morphology. However some linguists proclaim that both Persian and Urdu belong to the Indo-European group of languages and have a common base. Punjabi and Urdu speakers can clearly understand and comprehend Persian where as Gujrati and Hindi speakers cannot understand Persian and Arabic. Urdu, because of its rich heritage can be conjugated in different ways. It can be conjugated in the Sanskrit manner, or the Persian or the Arabic manner.

THE HISTORY OF URDU AND OTHER LANGUAGE SYSTEMS IN SOUTH ASIA
by Moin-Ansari

اردو ھے جس کا نام ھمي جانتے ھین داغ

سارے جہاں میں دھوم ھماري زبان کي ھے

Urdu  class=”mceItemHidden”> pre=”Urdu “>hai jis ka naam hamin jaantay hain Daagh
 pre=”">Saray jahan main dhoom hamari zaban ki hai!!!

URDU
Urdu is a language spoken and understood by about a billion people on this planet. It is one of the major languages of Asia. It however remains almost totally unknown in the West, especially America. This apathy about Urdu is partly due the fact that the Subcontinent is largely ignored in matters of culture and edification. The Lingua Franca of Northern India is understood by every sixth person on this planet. The resilience of this wonderful language is almost unprecedented. The language crosses culture, religion, creed, caste and national boundaries. With some official patronage in the land of its birth, the language is known by many names. Urdu is spoken in the far corners of the globe.

The original and formal full name of the language is Zaban-e-Urdu-e-Mualla. The long title has been shortened to the nick name Urdu. Urdu papers are published from all major cosmopolitan centers of the planet, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, London, Bradford, Manchester, Toronto, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Islamabad, Lahore, Delhi, Karachi, Srinagar, and hundreds of other cities. Urdu language radio broadcast inundate the airwaves on Short-wave, Medium-wave and FM. Today the language is encroaching the Internet. From the shopping malls of Singapore, to the skyscrapers of Dubai, from the jungles of Nairobi to the beaches of Fiji, from the ski slopes of Kashmir to the streets of London, from the shops of Toronto, to the taxis of Chicago– Urdu is survives as a live and vivacious testament to its speakers.

As varied as Chinese in accent and dialect, it is understood by more people who speak Mandrin. Its history is as controversial as the history of its peoples. Almost as old as English, the language had humble beginnings as a pidgin dialect that slowly evolved into a polished language. Urdu led to the cultural unity of Northern India. It has impacted the British Empire and it effected the lingua franca of the world– English. Many of the words used in English have South Asian origins. Kabob, Sahib, Raja, Qamarband, Bazaar, Pajama, Bengal, Curry, Saffron are only some of the examples of Urdus influence on the rest of
the planet.

In any discussion of cultural and religious unity, and in any discussion of mystical Sufisim, (one of the highest forms of Islamic and religious thoughts), Urdu remains the common factor between the peoples of various religions and creeds of Northern and Western parts of the Subcontinent.

According to Barbara Metcalf, (in an interesting discussion on Urdu in her book Islamic revival in India), Urdu was indeed a major factor that led to the Northern Indian Hindu-Skih-Muslim “Mughlea” culture with its lavish architecture and profound literature, and rich Indian-Middle-Eastern-Sino-Central-Asian heritage. Urdu spans religions and races. It always has and always will. It was the language of Muslim kings and Hindu rajas, and Sikh princes and Parsi courtiers. It spawned a culture and architecture that has survived centuries.

People have died for it, and people are as parochial about it as the Franco-phones are about French in Quebec. Its detractors are jealous of its popularity, and its enemies hate the phenomenal growth the language has seen.

It continues to grow day and night, sometimes at the expense of other languages and dialects.

This article tries to trace the origins or Urdu and other language systems in the South Asian Subcontinent. Though it is relatively a young language it is rich in culture, poetry and literature. This article attempts to trace the genealogy of the language and delineates the differences between Urdu and Hindi.

The article also discusses the other language systems in the South Asian Subcontinent. Let us begin by looking at the linguistic systems in the world.

THE ORIGINS OF URDU
Urdu was influenced by Persian and adopted the Persian script as opposed to the Arabic script. One of the many reasons why the language is spoken around Delhi and developed as a “lingua franca” in the first place was that it was spoken around Delhi, seat of the first and later the most extensive Muslim conquests.

Thus, its vocabulary was heavily influenced by Arabic and Persian right from the time when it began to develop as a separate language.

Mahmud of Ghazni invaded India in 1000 A.D. His second invasion was against Jaypal in 1001. At this time Persian and Arabic was introduced to the subcontinent. Firdausi is considered one of the first poets of Urdu. By the year 1100 the house of Ghaur had been established. The Muslim conquest of India had been formalized. Urdu had begun. The military camps had all sorts of people in them. When they wanted to communicate they spoke their own languages and dialects. These people communicated and gave birth to a new language. Urdu or Askasi was a Turkish word which means “lashkar” or army from a camp. Some called the language “askari” (word also means military in Turkish).

Here is another author giving us sources on the origins of Urdu:

There is evidence (presented by Baba-e Urdu or father of Urdu, Moulvi Abdul  class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”Abdul “>Haq) that Urdu sayings can be reliably attributed to Nizamuddin Auliya and Baba Farid Ganj Shakar, who lived in the Sultanate period. And, of course we have the vast apocryphal literature attributed to Amir Khusrau, which is in a language surprisingly close to modern Urdu.

Since Khusrau was associated with Balban’s court, it is very likely that the language was understood and spoken there. The name was eventually shortened to Urdu. From its earlier use in the sub-continent it was written in the Arabic script. Its vocabulary came from vernacular Hindi,Punjabi, Sanskarit to which were gradually added Persian, Turkish and later English words.

This is what Mansoor Khan of Cleveland, Ohio says about origins of Urdu:

Ameer Khusro is considered by some the first Urdu poet. At his time this language was used only for some poetry purpose and was called “Rekhta” not Urdu untill Mirza Ghalib’s time. Ghalib was first Urdu prose writer in the form of letters to his friends. He called it “Urdu-e-Mu’alla” means superior Urdu to distinguish from the version spoken by masses.Ishfaq”

The Slave Dynasty of India was firmly established in India between the years 1206-1290. These were the days of the creation of URDU. The Khiljis ALSO provided Urdu a cradle in the years 1290-1320. The Tughlaqs officially used Persian as the court language but they gave Urdu the importance it deserved.

The Lodhis used Urdu as the court language. Stanley Wolpert in his book A New History of India says the following about Sikandar Lodhi (1498-1517):

” has been hailed as the wisest and most dedicated , hard working , and far-sighted sultan ever to sit upon Delhis the throne. He wrote poetry himself and invited scholars of every sort to his side, encouraging the compilation of books on medicine (Ma’dan-ul-shifa) as well as music (Lahjat-i-Sikandar-shahi)”

Urdu was given great patronage and the language clearly on the way to becoming the Lingua Franca of at least northern India. During the Lodhi era, Urdu was FIRMLY past the crib, and was in the population. With Babur’s advent he immediately recognized Urdu as the language to be dealt with. Both Babur, Sher Shah Suri and Humayun glorified the language.

Stanley Wolpert in his book A New History of India says the following about the year 1595:

The importance of Persian cultural influence in the Mughal Empire and court can hardly be exaggerated: it was found in Akbars Sufisim but also in the reintroduction of Persian as the official language of Mughal administration and law (Persian had been used by the Tughlaqs but not the Lodis). The elegant decadence of Mughal dress, decor, manners, and morals all reflected Persian court life and custom. Mughal culture was however more than an import; by Akbars era, it had acquired something of a “national” patina, the cultural equivalent of the Mughal-Rajput alliance. The new syncretism which has come to be called “Mughlai” is exemplified by Akbar’s encouragement of Hindi literature and its development. While the Persian and Urdu languages and literature received the most royal patronage and noble as well martial attention, the emperor also appointed a poet laureate for Hindi. Raja Birbal (1528-83) was the first poet to hold the honored title, thanks to which many other young men of the sixteenth century were induced to study the northern vernacular that has now become India national tongue, helping to popularize it through their poetry and translations of Persian classics. Most popular of the Hindi works of this era was the translation of the epic Ramayana by Tulsi Das.”

This is what “Yaswant Malaiya” <mala@cs.colostate.edu> says:

According to what I have seen, the term “Urdu” dates from Shahjahan’s time (1628 to 1658) when he built the fort in Delhi. Other terms have been used for it (Hindavi or Rekhta) but around 1850 the term Urdu was in common use.

However if we define Urdu by its basic structure, it can perhaps be dated to as far back as 13th century or so. The Farsi poet Amir Khosrow (1253-1325) wrote verses in a dialect that can be regarded to be Urdu.

Firdausi (940-1020), who wrote Shah-Nameh, was certainly a great poet, but I am not aware of him writing Urdu.

You can see a translation of Shah-Nameh at
http://www.cit.ics.saitama-u.ac.jp/hobbies/iran/shahnameh.html

However in a way, you can say that Urdu existed around 1000 AD. Many manuscripts of Apabhransha books from that period are now known. Apabhransha is regarded to be the old form of modern north Indian languages.

At the time of the birth of Urdu, Sanskrit was NOT a spoken language, it was more like Latin and Hebrew, available to scholars. The fifteenth century saw the rise of the Mughal empire (1526-1857), and these three centuries were the golden period of Urdu.

Delhi and Lucknow became centers of Urdu poets and writers. Poetry became the fond habit of the rich and the poor. Great eulogies (”qaseeda”) were written for the kings and the nawabs, and the poets were paid handsomely in gold. On the death of the loved ones great obituaries (”marseas”) were written. The sonnets in the form of “ghazzal” were written for lovers and other topics.

Around the nineteenth century, poets like Iqbal used Urdu to rile the masses against the British colonialism.

URDU AND HINDI …..WHICH CAME FIRST… THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG SYNDROME
The earliest use of Brahmini is disputed but the earliest known inscriptions in Brahmini are in the Muyara period, possibly from Chandragupta’s period found at Sohguara, Mahastan; unless we can date the Piparawa casket to right after Buddha’s cremation. Here is what an Indian historian (In an interesting article on Urdu: A Historian Looks at Hindi-Urdu Debate 8 December 1995; Copyright: India Abroad Publications) says about Urdu and Hindi:

`Hindi” and `Urdu” did not exist as languages; they were to be formed out of the myriad languages of northern India by soldiers (`Urdu’ means `language of the camp’) and others who needed a common language (over the regional tongues of the north, such as Bhojpuri, Mythali, Khari Boli, Braj, etc. Certainly, there was no relationship between a particular language and a particular religious group. The nobility (including Hindus and Muslims) preferred Persian as the tongue of the elites: common folk (including Hindus and Muslims) spoke their local languages and used local idioms which transcended religion.

In the ongoing debate over Hindi-Urdu, most commentators betray a minimal familiarity with the historical and linguistic record and yet, they can write with confidence about Hindi-Urdu.

Hindi and Urdu are modern languages: in a very real sense, their most effective development began after 1947 when they became the State languages of India and Pakistan respectively. It was after that date that Hindi was Sanskritized …”

The earliest use of the word “Hindi” was by Sharfuddin Yazdi in Zafarnama (1424). Hindi somply means zaban-e-Hind the language of Hind.

Urdu-Hindi phrase book: (http://www.gorp.com/atb/cwasia/g1146.htm)
Shams-Ul-Ulama, Maulana Mohammad Hussein Azad has done extensive research on the history of Urdu in the subcontinent. His autobiography is the autobiography of Urdu in the Punjab and in the subcontinent.

This is what “Yaswant Malaiya” <mala@cs.colostate.edu> says:

I have seen many scholars express the view that Urdu and Hindi are basically the same language.

Language of the street is the basic language. There can be two views and one can choose one of them.

1. Some consider the right Hindi a language from which every possible Farsi/Arabic word has been replaced with a Sanskrit one. Similarly many regard Urdu as the language in which every noun is from Farsi/Arabic as much as possible. If you believe that Urdu came into existence only during late 17th century, and that it is spoken by a small minority in India and a large fraction of the Pakistanis; you can take this view.

2. Other possible view is that Urdu/Hindi is basically the same language that has many variations. There is literary Urdu, there is literary Hindi, there is common speech and there are dialects. If you take this view then Urdu/Hindi is an old language, popularly used and understood by a large population.

Many take the second view.

Here is Naufal Khan twho disagrees with the single language point of view.

This really doesn’t support your viewpoint. First of all, none of the universities (not even the ones you’ve listed) teach a single “language” called Hindi/Urdu. Many schools have Hindi/Urdu programs but they do maintain a very clear distinction between Hindi and Urdu. The elementary / very_beginner conversation courses (usually for foreigners) might lump the two together – mainly due to the smaller no. of students and absolute novice level of students where they’re pretty much at “hindi/urdu phrasebook” (that you later refer to) level – but very soon (i.e. as soon as they need to start writing and have acquired the minimal conversational skills), the two get forked.

However if we define Urdu by its basic structure, it can perhaps be dated to as far back as 13th century or so. The Farsi poet Amir Khosrow (1253-1325) wrote verses in a dialect that can be regarded to be Urdu.

Firdausi (940-1020), who wrote Shah-Nameh, was certainly a great poet, but I am not aware of him writing Urdu.

You can see a translation of Shah-Nameh at
http://www.cit.ics.saitama-u.ac.jp/hobbies/iran/shahnameh.html

However in a way, you can say that Urdu existed around 1000 AD. Many manuscripts of Apabhransha books from that period are now known. Apabhransha is regarded to be the old form of modern north Indian languages.

At the time of the birth of Urdu, Sanskrit was NOT a spoken language, it was more like Latin and Hebrew, available to scholars. The fifteenth century saw the rise of the Mughal empire (1526-1857), and these three centuries were the golden period of Urdu.

Delhi and Lucknow became centers of Urdu poets and writers. Poetry became the fond habit of the rich and the poor. Great eulogies (”qaseeda”) were written for the kings and the nawabs, and the poets were paid handsomely in gold. On the death of the loved ones great obituaries (”marseas”) were written. The sonnets in the form of “ghazzal” were written for lovers and other topics. Around the nineteenth century, poets like Iqbal used Urdu to rile the masses against the British colonialism.

According to many linguists the basic difference between Hindi and Urdu linguists is that Hindi-ites believe that “Kharri boli” was the language spoken by the populace of Delhi. According to Hindi-ite linguists around 1000 AD, the Delhi army used “kharrri boli” (standard Hindi) as the base language and started speaking “Urdu” and the two languages Urdu and Hindi developed side by side.

Many linguists and historians on the other hand proclaim that URDU or Askari is a language that developed as a result of the interaction between Persians, Turks, Central Asians and other people in the army. The army began speaking a language and it spread to the populace with minor variations.

Hindi and Urdu, have similar linguistic structure. Unfortunately some parochial writers consider them different languages based on ‘religion’. One Indian says the following:

“The Sanskritized Hindi is, as you say, as much of an enigma to the North Indian as it is to the South Indian or to the Bengali, and is therefore region-neutral (unlike normal, “filmi” Hindi).”

Here is what one Pakistani linguist says:

Persian and Urdu have the same syntax…..EXACTLY THE SAME SYNTAX. Most of the nouns are the same. The conjugation is exactly the same. I converse with my Persian friends in broken Urdu. Pushto and Baluchi is so similar that YOU cannot even tell the difference. I can understand Iqbal’s poetry in Persian by payng more attention. It is like reading DIFFICULT Urdu. Pakistan’s national anthem can be understood in BOTH languages, Urdu, and Persian.

   

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Pushto and Balauchi are so close to Persian that we do not need any tranlations with Afghans, or Iranians. We learn the Quran from the age of five. Persian and Arabic are second languages in Pakistan. We learn them as a matter of fact.

Please refrain from telling us what the relationship of Persian and Arabic is to Urdu. You lose your credibility. Urdu was the language of the Subcontinent for the best part of the pre and post Mughal century. Hindi was never spoken during that era. Urdu was the lingua franca of Northern India during the Mughals era and remains the lingua franca of Northern India and Pakistan. The current Sanskritized version of official Indian Hindi was brought back to life by Hindu fundamentalists who wanted to revive a dead language like Latin, called Sanskrit. It has been done before with Hebrew. Urdu because of its rich heritage can be conjugated in different ways. It can be conjugated in the Sanskrit manner, or the Persian or the Arabic manner. Example. Khabar can be conjugated as Khabrain ( Sanskrit) or Ikhbar ( Arabic). Many words like KURSI or MAIZ are conjugated with Persian plural forms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is what an Indian linguist says:

What we call Urdu is nothing but Hindi with more ‘borrowed’ Persian words just like Hindi having more Sanskrit words. Again Urdu speakers, mostly people belonging to ‘Islamic’ faith in the sub-continent, have adopted ‘Arabic’ script where as Hindi speakers have adopted ‘Devanagari’ script.

Hindi and Urdu, having the same linguistic structure are considered different languages based on ‘Religion’ just like Dutch and German ARE different. Just like French is different in France than the one spoken in belgian. Similarly
there are several distinct forms of Arabic.

Hindi is an ‘apabramsha’ version of ‘Pali’, the language of Buddhists, which is itself an ‘apabramsha’ variety of Classical Sanskrit, which is derived from Vedic Sanskrit.

Khari boli (standard Hindi) spoken around Delhi formed the base of the common language “adopted” by Afghans, Arabs, Persian,and Turks to “interact” with the local population.

In Hindi, “pen” is “ pre=”is “>qalam”, “newspaper” is “akhbar”, “life” is “zindegi”, etc. etc. the list goes on and on. There has been “Sanskritising” of Hindi/Urdu but it certainly isn’t complete.

This is what Dr. Vijay Prashad ithaca, NY says: (The writer is Professor of
History at Cornell University)

A Historian Looks at Hindi-Urdu Debate 8 December 1995; Copyright: India Abroad Publications Richard F. Wilcox (I.A., Sept.22 )

“seems to write from another century; when he speaks of successive `Muslim rulers,’ he does not seem to recognize that in the historical record it was not `Muslims’ who ruled in India from the 10th century to the 18th century, but Turks, Mughals, Afghans, Marattas, etc. To purse this line of argument will require separate treatment, but such loose statements reveal the lack of historical understanding which is allowed to be perpetuated in our media.”

THE BIRTH AND SPREAD OF SUFISM IN SOUTH ASIA PROPOGATED URDU
The Lingua Franca of most Sufis was Urdu. This common langugae led to the
cultural and religious unification of Norhtern India. This is what Kalim Khawaja of Ellicot City Maryland says about the advent of Islam in the South Asia (The Minaret:October 1995,Jamada II 1416)

After the establishment of the rule of Muslim kings in Northern India in the
seventh century, many Sufi saints migrated to India from West Asia. These Sufis integrated Islam in the Indian soil by adopting many prevailing indigenous Indian practices. It was that crucial effort at Indianizing Islam that soon made Islam an Indian religion and earned it a big flock from among the native inhabitants of India. These Sufis used the medium of poetry, music and social events in addition to discourses to popularize Islam.

Urdu poetry was the medium for prolyzitizing to the poor, the disenfranchised and the ones who were low on the caste echelon. The sifis used Urdu to propogate the message of tolerance and unity. The Sufi message crossed Sikh, Hindu and Muslim boundreis. The culture of the Delhi-Lucknow was of course a conglomeration of earlier  class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”earlier “>Muyara, Slave. Mughal and Gupta dynasties—an apogee of celebration of Turkish, Persian, Afghan, Pathan, Mongol and local native Buddhist, Brahman, Rajput and other cultures. Our languages Urdu, Punjabi, Pahari, Kashmiri, Gujjar, Pushto, Saraiki, Hindkoh, Baluchi, Barouhi, Sindhi, Gujrati, and Mekrani all grew up during the same time. Rekhta and Apabhransha grew up at the same time. Prakrit, Sanskrit and Pali were formalized. Vedas were indeed translated and written into Devanagri during the era of Akbar. Our
dress, our poetry, our prose our cuisine, our demeanor is but a confluence of cultures of the Middle East and South Asia.

According to David Gilmartin in his book Empire and Islam: Punjab and the making of Pakistan (Page 8) “As late as the middle of the ninteenth century, the population of much of southern and western Punjab had been pastoralist, migrating between the river valleys and the ‘barr’ the flat uplands tracts between the rivers. But in the late nineteenth and early  class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”early “>twnetieth centuries much of southwestern Punjab had come under canal irrigation—leading both to the settling of pastorialists and to the migration of settlers from central Punjab…from Urban populations, with ties to the Mughal past, to only recently settled pastoral populations, the confession of Islam linked together people of wide diversity.”

The confession of Islam was spread by the great Sufi saints of those times.
Urdu was the medium of instruction and Urdu was the great prolyzitizing (sic?) force in the Punjab and in all of India. According to David Gilmartin in his book Empire and Islam: Punjab and the making of Pakistan (Page 40) ” “western  class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”western “>Punjabs conversion to Islam is usually credited to the great sufi mystics of the Delhi sultanate period—Baba Farid ganj-e-Shakar of Pakpattan, Shaikh Bahawal Haq Zakariyya of Multan, Saiyid Jalaludding Bokhari of Uch, and others.

Many Punjabi tribes have traced theri conversions to these medieval times… As Richard Eaton argues the pattern of conversion in rural Punjab adapted to both spreading agricultural way of life and to the political and cultural hegemony of the imperial Muslim state. The construction of sufi khankahs (hospices) and later sufi tombs produced smbolic cultural outposts of the power of Islam and of the Muslim state in a world where local, tribal  ”>identitities continued to be of vital importance. Imposing sufi tombs constructed by Muslim sutans (Footnote P41: The tughlaqs patronized many important sufi shrines in Punjab, constructing important tombs at the shrine of baba Farid and of Shah Rukh-e-Alam in Multan………)…(Page 43) in the cunturies before the British arrived, networks of shrines loosley linked within the sufi orders spread through much of the province…(page 45)..the Mughals apparently used the support of the sajjada nashins to extend their hegemony and to dramatize the religious foundation of their regime…the sufi shrines thus served as critical links between the Punjab countryside and the power of the imperial Muslim states.

Most of the sufis were either trained by the Deobandis or sued Farangi Farangi “>Mahall Mahall “>Nizamiyya inspired curriculums to teah the Quran Hadis, Fiqah, Logic and Jursipudence to the new Muslims of the Punjab. The influence of Farangi Mahall and the Deobandis with lavish donations from the UP, was pivotal to the survival of the sufi outposts in the Punjab. According to David Gilmartin in his book Empire and Islam: Punjab and the making of Pakistan (Page 54): The organizational model for the reformist ‘ulema was the ‘darul ulum’ founded in 1867 at Deoband in the United Provinces, a religious school…though the influence of the school at Deoband was greatest in the heartland of the old Mughal empire, it provided a model to spread the influence of these reformers to much of the rest of India–including the Punjab. As Barbara Metcalf points out, the school at Deoaband attracted contributions from numerous Punjabis, particularly those living in cities and towns. Perhaps more important, it ultimatley spawned several schools in Punjabpatterned on the Deoband model.

URDU PRESS IN THE PUNJAB
According to David Gilmartin in his book Empire and Islam: Punjab and the making of Pakistan (Page 78): The Urdu press became a political force among Lahore’s Muslims with launching in 1880s of the Paisa Akhbar, the first Urdu daily with a mass circulation (Footnote page 78: Its circulation reachd 13000, in the early 1900s..S.M. Feroze, Press in Pakistan, Lahore National Publications, 1957, 69-72. For circulation figures see also N.Gerlad Barrier and Paul Wallace, The Punjab Press 1880-1905, East Lansing: Asian Studies Center, Michigan State University, 1970 101-102). But the most important Muslim leader of this type was Zafar Ali Khan……a graduate of Aligarh…who rose of prominence in the years after 1911 when he moved his fathers newspaper, Zamindar, to Lahore and established it as a daily…

THE URDU BASED MUGHALEA CULTURE OF DELHI AND LUCKNOW
The Delhi Mughlea culture (both Hindu and Muslim) was based on Urdu. The Mughal empire cannot be divorced from the “Mughlea” edification and the “Mughlea” culture. Growing this culture involved creating and supporting institutions that would functions as green houses for Muslim intellectual growth. Guardians of the nurseries of this culture were individuals and families whose entire purpose of existence was research into Islamic ideas. They wrote the curriculums for the schools, and took Islam to the nooks and coreners of South Asia. During the height of the Mughal empre they assisted in guiding imperial religious thought (giving religious advice to Akbar, and assisting the emperor Awrunzeb Alimgir in writing the Fatwa e  class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”e “>Alamgiri). During the decline of the Mughal empire, they carefully guarded and revived Islamic thinking in South Asia. During the British rule some of these families carefully created a vision for the youth of South Asia. They gave them a path and these greenhouses indeed did create leaders like Mohammed Ali Juahar, Abul Kalaam Azad, Abd-al-Bari, Jinnah, Suhrawardi, Feroze Khan Noon, Khaliq-Uz-Zaman, Vaqar-ul-Mulk, Iqbal and Sir Syed and Liaqat Ali Khan.

SOUTH ASIAN CIVILIZATION AND MUGHAL CULTURAL HERITAGE
Languages play a very importnat part in creating culture. Even though Sikhs are great ptrons of Urdu, Gurmaki led to the creation of the Sikh culture.

Was the Mughal period (when Jehangir was the wealthiest man on Earth) our last most glorious era? We are proud of the Mughlea era that thrived in Northern India. If Indians and Pakistanis trace our culture from the fabulously rich Mughlea period of our common history. Many Muslims spoor our lineage from the sands of Arabia. Many trace their roots from the deserts of Rajputs. Huns and Aryans and Jats have many things in common with the Hindus. The Hindus and the Muslims have a common bond. We have amalgamated the wealth of the Indus Valley and the Gangetic Civilizations.

While our genealogy hazed in Mohen-ja-doaro and Harappa many Pakistanis claim that the Pakistani civilization originated in Mecca and Medina, transplanted itself across the gulf of Arabia and incubated itself in Samarqand, Isphahan, Ghazni and finally flourished in Lucknow and Delhi. If the Mughals had not carefully nurtured the Pakistani civilization, it would not have survived in Lahore, Peshawar, Quetta, Mirpur and Karachi. Many Pakistanis claim that Pakistan is the successor state to the mighty Mughal empire. Most Indians (Hindus and Muslims) will disagree with that assessment. This is the schism that has generated more hatred and war in this part of the world than any other.

URDU SPREADS: SURVIVES BRITISH COLONIALISM
The golden period of Urdu was during the Mughal era. On the arrival of the British, Urdu suffered terribly. The fall of Tipu Sultan was a fall from which Urdu never actually recovered. Overnight the official language was changed to English, and Urdu was uncerimonously un-crowned as the lingua franca of the subcontinent. During the nineteeth century, the British started teaching Urdu as Hindustani. The British not only sent Bahadur Shah Zafar into exile they also sent Urdu and the entire culture based around Delhi into oblivion. For a thousand years the court language and the art and literature of the subcontinent was based around Urdu. This lagacy was destroyed.

Some where along the way, perhaps due to the patronage of the rulers, the Urdu language got branded as the language of Muslims and Sikhs.

In an interesting article on Urdu: A Historian Looks at Hindi-Urdu Debate 8 December 1995; Copyright: India Abroad Publications

`Hindustani’ was the name given to the language of the camp, to Urdu; this was the common parlance of northern India by the late nineteenth century. At this time, Bharatendu Harischandra and Pratap Narain Misra tried to fashion a politics around language; they argued that there was an intrinsic connection between Hindus and Hindi. Harischandra and Misra’s attempts to make this connection did not by itself create the problem which we are rehearsing today. In April 1900, the lieutenant-governor of U.P., Anthony MacDonnell wanted to undermine the established Indian bureaucrats (who used Urdu as the language of their work — this despite the fact that there were Hindus and Muslims in the administration); MacDonnell insisted that Hindi in the Devangri script be used for administrative purposes, thereby undermining the previous bureaucrats as well as making the question of the script a political communal problem.

In the 1901 Census, the British insisted that the language of Muslim be entered as Urdu and the language of Hindus be entered as Hindi. The agitation over Nagri became a communal agitation. The Al-Bashir of 21 September 1901 pointed out that there was little distinction between Urdu and Hindi; the real difference was between the language spoken in towns and language spoken in the countryside. The Nagri agitation was to drag the language of refinement and culture into the morass of communal hatred.

Religious zealots came forward and tried to revive the Sanskrit based languages and the Sanskrit based scripts. Circa: 1900. Certain segments of the Hindu political establishemnt wanted to REPLACE Urdu and and Persian as the official language of the court and government. The one nation agitators (Hindu-Hindi-Hindustani) religious zealots started agitating for the Devanagri script. As a result of this agitation the Devanagri-Sanskrit script REPLACED the Persian Urdu langauge in the 19th century and this led to widespread agitation which was expressed by the creation of the Muslim League in 1906 (see Ira Lapidus..History of Islamic Societies). As soon as the Devanagri script was adopted by the government, the language was SANSKRITIZED, all Arabic-Persian words were quickly repalced by archaic sanskrit vocabulary…..that is STILL alien to the speakers of the language of Northern India.

So the language spoken in Pakistan today is prety much the language that existed int he courts and the streets of Northern India. The language broadcasted by AIR is an alien language that had died a natural death. Persian and Arabic and Turkish words were listed and purged from the official dictionaries. The revival of Sanskrit had begun. A new Sanskritized “Hindi” was transplanted as the official instrument of the elite.

Right before the British left India, Urdu was treated like a step child. Hindu religious zealots did not want “foreign” influences in India, so they began the “ethnic cleansing” on Urdu. The “foreign” words of Urdu were taken out, and words Tatsama words (words in the same form as they appear in Sanskrit ) from a dead language called Sanskrit were injected into Urdu. This new ethnically cleansed language officially called Hindi (actually Sankritized Hindi) is now the national language of a “secular” country called India. The official Hindi is Urdu WITHOUT the Persian and Arabic words.

Hindi according to many Hindus is an ‘apabramsha’ version of ‘Pali’, the language of Buddhists, which is itself an ‘apabramsha’ variety of Classical Sanskrit, which is derived from Vedic Sanskrit.

Urdu is one of the languages recognized in the Indian constitution. Urdu is the state language of the Indian part of Jammu and Kashmir. The language is clearly understood on Bangladesh and even in Nepal, Burma and Sri Lanka. If ine know Urdu one can get by in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and even in Kuwait. Urdu is the national language of Pakistan, and is the provincial language of all provinces of Pakistan, namely, Punjab, Sarhad, Balauchistan, Kashmir and Sindh. Urdu in India, is officially alive only in Kashmir. The rest of India speaks it, but Indian officialdom refuses its existence. Many South Indians are resentlful of Hindi and claim that the politicians of Northern India have tried to “impose” Sankritized Hindi (without Persian or Arabic words in it) upon the people.

Northern Indians still speak Urdu, but call it Hindi. Southern Indians have no affinity with Hindi and they almost “refuse” Hindis existence. The result is linguistic CONFUSION in India. The language spoken by the North Indian people and the language broadcasted in news bulletins across the Indian air waves have no relation to each other. Many many Indians understand Urdu but they do not understand the Sanskrit ridden news broadcasts (the official Sanskritized-Hinduized version of Urdu).

URDU EXPANDS: URDU FINDS ANOTHER HOME IN THE PUNJAB
Urdu lives on the streets of Northern India. It is however called Hindi. While the official Hindi is a Sanskrtized language, the language on the streets of Northern India remains the older  class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”older “>non-Sanskritized version. The migration of the language Eastword preceded the decline of the language in Northern India, where under British patronage, and Hindu benefaction, Hindi was fast becoming the lingua-franca

THE SIKHS AS GREAT CHAPIONS OF URDU. THE ORIGINS OF GURMUKHI (A FORM OF PUNJABI)
The Sikhs are and have been …to be continued….written but not published.

  • alt.language.urdu.poetry, Urdu/VOA site: www.gpg.com/radio/index/html
  • For more information please see: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ibrahim.html
    alt.language.urdu.poetry and also see
  • Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape Bookmark and Share Add to Technorati RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | November 27th, 2007 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

    SIKH PATRONS OF URDU:

    Some authors belittle the differences between Urdu and Hindi and compare them to be as unimportant as the small differences between Dutch and German. However Urdu proponents say that the two languages are conjugated differently. Even though the conjugation is not necessarily one of the main ways separating languages, conjugation DOES separate the languages from the roots. Another difference between Hindi and Urdu is, their writing system. The Muslim Sikh and many Hindu rulers, the government, the official court system and the Urdu speakers, mostly people belonging to Islamic faith (though there have been many many prolific Sikh and Hindu poets and writers) in the sub-continent, used the ‘Arabic’ script where as a section of the Hindu population kept the Sanskrit script alive and Hindi speakers have adopted the ‘Devanagari’ script.

    Guru Goband Sings is a prime example of a Sikh who used and wrote not only in Urdu but also in Persian. Most of Akbars Nine gems spoke and wrote Urdu and Persian.

    Quaid congratualates Ceylon on independence feb 1948

    Message on the attainment of Dominion Status by Ceylon, Karachi, 4th February, 1948

    The attainment of dominion status by Ceylon in the wake of India and Pakistan is a matter of great satisfaction and rejoicing to us, and on behalf of the people of Pakistan and myself I extend to you our sincerest congratulations on this happy and historical occasion. We in Pakistan will watch your progress with the most friendly and sympathetic interest as some of the problems confronting your Island are similar to ours. We have both suffered from exploitation at the hands of a foreign power and now that a new era has been ushered we shall have to strive every nerve to improve the lot of the common man, so sadly neglected heretofore. The problem confronting us is by no means small or easy but we must tackle it boldly if we are to prove ourselves worthy of our newly won freedom and sovereign government of the people.

    Ceylon is rich in material resources and talent and I have no doubt that under the guidance of her great leaders she will make rapid strides on the road to good government and prosperity and will play her rightful part in promoting goodwill and friendship throughout the world. Pakistan has the warmest goodwill towards Ceylon, and I am sanguine that the good feelings which exist between our two peoples will be further strengthened as the years roll by and our common interests, and mutual and reciprocal handling of them, will bring us into still closer friendship. Once again, I wish all prosperity and a glorious future of Ceylon.

    Pakistan Zindabad

     

    Source: Waheed Ahmad 2003, Vol. VII p.164-5; K.A.K Yusufi 1996, Vol. IV p.2674-5
    Originally appeared: Pakistan Times, 5 February 1948; Dawn, 12 February 1948

    September 24, 2009

    Quaid’s Eid message to the nation Oct 1947

    Eid-ul-Azha Message to the Nation, Karachi, 24th October 1947

    God often tests and tries those whom He loves. He called upon Prophet Ibrahim to sacrifice the object he loved most. Prophet Ibrahim answered the call and offered to sacrifice his son. Today too, God is testing and trying the Muslims of Pakistan and India. He has demanded great sacrifices from us. Our new-born State is bleeding from wounds inflicted by our enemies. Our Muslim brethren in India are being victimised and oppressed as Muslims for their help and sympathy for the establishment of Pakistan. Dark clouds surround us on all sides for the moment but we are not daunted, for I am sure, if we show the same spirit of sacrifice as was shown by Ibrahim, God would rend the clouds and shower on us His blessing as He did on Ibrahim. Let us, therefore, on the day of Eid-ul-Azha which symbolizes the spirit of sacrifice enjoined by Islam, resolve that we shall not be deterred from our objective of creating a State of our own concept by any amount of sacrifice, trials or tribulations which may lie ahead of us and that we shall bend all our energies and resources to achieve our goal. I am confident that in spite of its magnitude, we shall overcome this grave crisis as we have in our long history surmounted many others and notwithstanding the efforts of our enemies, we shall emerge triumphant and strong from the dark night of suffering and show the world that the State exists not for life but for good life.

    On this sacred day, I send greetings to our Muslim brethren all over the world both on behalf of myself and the people of Pakistan. For us in Pakistan, this day of thanksgiving and rejoicing has been overshadowed by the suffering and sorrow of 5 million Muslims in East Punjab and its neighbourhood. I hope that, wherever Muslim men and women foregather on this solemn day, they will remember in their prayers these unfortunate men, women and children who have lost their dear ones, hearths and homes and are undergoing an agony and suffering as great and cruel as any yet inflicted on humanity. In the name of this mass of suffering humanity I renew my appeal to Muslims wherever they may be, to extend to us in this hour of our danger and need, their hand of brotherly sympathy, support and cooperation. Nothing on earth now can undo Pakistan.

    The greater the sacrifices we are made to undergo the purer and more chastened shall we emerge like gold from fire.

    So my message to you all is of hope, courage and confidence. Let us mobilise all our resources in a systematic and organised way and tackle the grave issues that confront us with grim determination and discipline worthy of a great nation.

    Pakistan Zindabad (API)

    September 22, 2009

    Quaid’s interview to Reuters May 1947

    Interview with Mr. Doon Campbell, Reuters’ Correspondent, New Delhi, 21st May 1947

    Q. What sort of relationship do you envisage between Pakistan and Hindustan?

    Ans. Friendly and reciprocal in the mutual interest of both. That is why I have been urging: let us separate in a friendly way and remain friends thereafter.

    Q. How would you divide the armed forces? Do you envisage a defence pact or any other kind of military alliance between Pakistan and Hindustan?

    Ans. All the armed forces must be divided completely, but I do envisage an alliance, pact or treaty between Pakistan and Hindustan again in the mutual interest of both and against any aggressive outsider.

    Q. Do you favour a federation of Pakistan states even if there is to be partition of Punjab and Bengal?

    Ans. The new clamour for partition that is stated is by the vocal section of the caste Hindus in Bengal and the Sikhs in particular in the Punjab will have disastrous results if those two provinces are partitioned and the Sikhs in the Punjab will be the greatest sufferers; and Muslims under contemplated Western Punjab will no doubt be hit, but it certainly will deal the greatest blow to those, particularly the Sikhs, for whose benefit the new stunt has been started. Similarly in Western Bengal, caste Hindus will suffer the most and so will the caste Hindus in Eastern Punjab.

    This idea of partition is not only thoughtless and reckless, but if unfortunately His Majesty’s Government favour it, in my opinion it will be a grave error and will prove dangerous immediately and far more so in the future. Immediately it will lead to bitterness and unfriendly attitude between Eastern Bengal and Western Bengal and same will the case with torn Punjab, between Western Punjab and Eastern Punjab.

    Partition of Punjab and Bengal, if effected, will no doubt weaken Pakistan to a certain extent. Weak Pakistan and a strong Hindustan will be a temptation the strong Hindustan to try to dictate. I have always said that Pakistan must be sufficiently strong as a balance vis-à-vis Hindustan. I am therefore, deadly against the partition of Bengal and the Punjab and we shall fight every inch against it.

    Q. Will you demand a corridor through Hindustan connecting the Eastern and Western Pakistan States?

    Ans. Yes.

    Q. Do you envisage the formation of a Pan-Islamic state stretching from the Far and Middle East to the Far East after the establishment of Pakistan?

    Ans. The theory of Pan-Islamism has long ago exploded, but we shall certainly establish friendly relations and cooperate for mutual good and world peace and we shall always stretch our hand of friendship to the near and Middle East and Far East after the establishment of Pakistan.

    Q. On what basis will the central administration of Pakistan be set up? What will be the attitude of this Government to the Indian States?

    Ans. The basis of the central administration of Pakistan and that of the units to be set up will be decided no doubt, by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. But the Government of Pakistan can only be a popular representative and democratic form of Government. Its Parliament and Cabinet responsible to the Parliament will both be finally responsible to the electorate and the people in general without any distinction of caste, creed or sect, which will the final deciding factor with regard to the policy and programme of the Government that may be adopted from time to time.

    As regards our attitude towards Indian States I may make it clear once more that the policy of the Muslim League has been and is not to interfere with the Indian States with regard to their internal affairs. But while we expect as rapid a progress as possible in the various states towards the establishment of full responsible government, it is primarily the concern of the ruler and his people.

    As regards the position of the states in the light of the announcement made by His Majesty’s Government embodied in the White Paper of the 20th of February, I wish to make it clear that the states are at liberty to form a confederation as one solid group or confederate into more than one groups, or stand as individual states. It is a matter entirely for them to decide. And it is clear, as I can understand, that paramountcy is going to terminate and, therefore, they are completely independent and free. It is for them to adjust such a matter as there may be by virtue of their treaties and agreements with the paramount power. They must consider as completely independent and free states, free from any paramountcy, as to what is best in their interest and it will be open to them to decide whether they should join the Pakistan Constituent Assembly or the Hindustan Constituent Assembly – Constituent Assemblies must be and will be two sovereign Constituent Assemblies of Pakistan and Hindustan.

    Q. In general terms what will be the foreign policy of Pakistan? Will it apply for membership of the United Nations?

    Ans. The foreign policy of Pakistan can only be for peace and friendly relations with all other nations and we shall certainly play our part in the membership of the United Nations.

    Q. On which major power is Pakistan most likely to lean?

    Ans. The one that will be in our best interests. It will not be a case of leaning to any power, but we shall certainly establish friendship and alliances which will be for the benefit of all those who may enter into such an alliance.

    Q. What sort of relationship do you envisage between Pakistan and Britain?

    Ans. The question can only be decided by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan and as I understand the situation, a relationship between Pakistan and British can be established which will be really beneficial for both. Pakistan cannot live in isolation, nor can any other nation do so today. We shall have choose our friends and I trust, wisely.

    Q. What are your views in regard to the protection of minorities in Pakistan territories?

    Ans. There is only one answer: The minorities must be protected and safeguarded. The minorities in Pakistan will be the citizens of Pakistan and enjoy all the rights, privileges and obligations of citizenship without any distinction of caste creed or sect.

    They will be treated justly and fairly. The Government will run the administration and control the legislative measures by its Parliament, and the collective conscience of the Parliament itself will be a guarantee that the minorities need not have any apprehension of any injustice being done to them. Over and above that there will be provisions for the protection and safeguard of the minorities which in my opinion must be embodied in the constitution itself. And this will leave no doubt as to the fundamental rights of the citizens, protection of religion and faith of every section, freedom of thought and protection of their cultural and social life. – API

     

    Q & A text sourced from photocopy of original: Dawn, 22nd May 1947 (with thanks to Mr. Inamullah Khawaja). See also copy in Zaidi, Z.H. (ed) (1993) Jinnah Papers: Prelude to Pakistan, Vol. I Part I. Lahore: Quaid-i-Azam Papers Project, p.845, which was obtained from an original typewritten document containing corrections in Jinnah’s own handwriting as well as his signature.

    Related Documents: Appendix 1

    September 20, 2009

    Quaid’s Interview to the AP April 1934

    Interview to the Associated Press regarding his impression of the meeting of the Muslim League Council, New Delhi, 3rd April 1934

    After two days’ (01) deliberations of the Council meeting, which was the most representative that I have seen during my connection with the League, extending now to over 20 years, I must say I was immensely impressed with most of the speeches that were made there by various leaders, who came from different provinces in India. The League is perfectly sound and healthy, and the conclusion I have come to is that Musalmans will not lag behind any other community in serving the very best interests of India. To condemn the White Paper, one does not require special arguments, one has only got to read the White Paper (02) proposals and understand them, and that is enough. But while many of us feel that this treacherous scheme is almost at our door – and I for one have hesitated to declare my views with regard to the scheme – the problem of all problems which still confronts us is how to avert the scheme being foisted upon India. That cannot be achieved, and will not be achieved, until there is unity between Hindus and Muslims.

    India looks forward to a real, solid, united front. Can we even at this eleventh hour bury the hatchet, and forget the past in the presence of imminent danger, and close our ranks to get sufficient strength to resist what is being hatched both at Downing Street and in Delhi? It is up to the leaders to put their heads together, and nothing will give me greater happiness than to bring about complete cooperation and friendship between Hindus and Muslims; and in this desire, my impression is that I have the solid support of Musalmans. The Council has passed a resolution (03) which is before the public. It clearly indicates how that unity can be achieved immediately. On my return to India, I have seen abundant evidence that public opinion, both Hindu and Muslim, thinks alike in terms of the political evolution of the country.

    The emphasis which Muslims place on the Communal Award (04) is only an indication of their desire to make sure that any national demand which they join to put forward on behalf of the country will incorporate the safeguards which Muslims consider to be a minimum. Muslims are in no way behind any other community in their demand for national self-government. The crux of the whole issue, therefore, is: can we completely assure Muslims that the safeguards to which they attach vital importance will be embodied in the future Constitution of India?

    Next Page »

    Blog at WordPress.com.