The old fogey cannot write a word of English, before spilling venom against Pakistan and Pakistanis. It is as if his favorite goat was stolen by the bearded one, and Mr. Akbar will continue to harangue Pakistan every chance it gets. This time the old fart is talking about the inane statement by egotistically impaired General Kapoor. M.J. Akbar an apologist for everything Indian tried to justify the silly statement of the juvenile General. M.J. Akbar should fully know that it wasn’t the “sentence”, it was the thought behind the sentence, the mentality behind the thought and the doctrine behind the mentality that concerned the world. Even Mr. Holbrooke could not contain himself, and remarked that these insane comments about the ability to conduct limited warfare under a nuclear umbrella—must be private comments.
The doctrine of limited engagement with Pakistan is such an explosive subject that the Soviets and the Americans never considered it. The issue is not the statement the issue is the sanity of the person contemplating wars with both China and Pakistan at the same time. The egregious nature of the comment comes from the fact that General has no idea about the devastation possibly from Nuclear Weapons.
One of the more curious episodes in recent weeks is the indignation with which Indian Army chief General Deepak Kapoor’s statement that India’s forces were ready to face war on two fronts simultaneously, against China and Pakistan, was received. The Islamabad establishment has treated this as a virtual declaration of war. Our Obsession with Smoke and Smokescreens M.J. Akbar (Byline), 18 January 2010
General Mankshaw would have a good laugh over what M.J. Akbar has said about “Generals do not wage war”. The stupid statement shows the hubris and arrogance that resides in the man who only has contempt for Islamabad and Pakistanis. This level of hatred is rare in the world. Amazingly the Gulf newspaper employs this xenophobe.
The nightmare scenario for India is a concerted, coordinated offensive by China across the main Himalayas, and by Pakistan on its Kashmir wedge. This is, conversely, the dream scenario of General Headquarters in Pakistan. General Kapoor was doing his job when he made that statement.
Neither China nor Pakistan want to have a war with Bhrat (aka India). The wold knows it is the other way around. Bharati support for the Tibetan anarchists, the Xinjiang activists, LTTE terrorists, Baloch malcontents, and TTP mercanaries is well known around the planet. Who is Mr. Akbar trying to bluff?
American officers took their final orders from the White House, but they had plenty to say in-between. The most recent case was last year’s debate on a troop surge in Afghanistan. The Pentagon not only told the White House, which was dithering, what it wanted, but made sure the American voter and the citizens of Pakistan and Afghanistan got the message as well. The infection has reached the stiff upper lips of Britain: generals there make demands for equipment through the media. Discipline cannot completely sanitize the military brass from the influences of the democratic spirit, and its institutions.
Mr. Akbar just contradicted himself. First he said that Generals do not declare war—then is proves that they do.
China did not react sharply to General Kapoor’s comment, although it can hold its own in any sparring match. It may be argued that it did not need to do anything but laugh. A little after General Kapoor’s claim, the Government of India admitted, formally, that China had eaten away vast amounts of (presumably unpatrolled, or sparsely visited) border territory. Even more interesting than the government’s admission was the fact that Indians seemed beyond caring. The opposition parties shrugged and concentrated on screaming at one another; television, which gets hysterical when a leaf flutters, had other things to do. Clearly, media reserves its visceral reactions only for its western rather than its northern border. This is maybe because the occupation of distant, barren land cannot compare, in televisual terms, with the throbbing drama of the heights and valleys of Kashmir.
Mr. Akbar diminishes the threat from Bharat to Pakistan. The purchase of Pakistan specific arms, the targeting of Pakistani cities by Bharati missiles, the development of “The Cold Start Strategy”, the placement of Bharat’s latest jets near the Pakistani border, the fact that 80% of Bharati forces are facing Pakistan—are all indications of Bharat’s ill intentions towards Pakistan.
Pakistan’s threat perception is a valid one. Pakistan has faced war from Delhi, and it continues to neutralize RAW machinations in Pakistan. This is not a schme for money—Pakistan takes its defense very seriously.
Islamabad’s reaction has nothing to do with any threat from India, because there is no threat from India. India does not desire an inch of land beyond the Ceasefire Line or the international border. Equally, it will not surrender an inch of what is under its control. Pakistan, however, has built a layered case before America which boils down to this: it cannot fight all of America’s enemies on the Frontier, or those who treat the Frontier as sanctuary for the conflict in Afghanistan, as long as Indian guns are pointed at its back. It needs relief in the east to fight in the west. Washington has bought this argument, and Delhi has obliged as unobtrusively as possible. Our two-front General Kapoor has quietly presided over the withdrawal of over 40,000 troops from the Kashmir valley, and their transfer to the eastern Himalayas under the cover of rising worry about China. It’s very neat actually: we use China, possibly with Beijing’s knowledge, to help out America in its Pakistan war.
Mr. Akbar again contradicts himself. He again reiterates the paranoia which we all have heard before.
As long as there is no change in ground realities, this game can be played to triangular, or even quadrangular, satisfaction. Alas, everyone is not playing the same game. The spurt in terrorist violence in Srinagar during the last fortnight could be aimed at disturbing this dainty strategic daisy chain. Specialists are warning of an impending attack on the Indian mainland.
The Geneal’s acolyte then begins issuing threats to both Pakistan and America
The delicate diplomatic balance could crumble if Pakistan and America push too hard, and believe that they can maneuver Delhi into a final settlement on Kashmir. There is very little space for negotiations on Kashmir itself, given that Pakistan is searching a major dilution of the status quo and India, at least at the moment, will agree on only the Ceasefire Line as the solution. Is the sudden talk of National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan being shifted to a powerless Governor’s bungalow indicative of a major change in Delhi’s Kashmir policy? He was a status quoist. Dr Manmohan Singh thinks, perhaps, that he can remobilise the constituency that cheered the nuclear deal with the United States. That may be easier in theory than practice. Pakistan, after all, is far more explosive than any number of nuclear plants. Khaleej Times. Was General Deepak Kapoor’s two-front statement part of the smoke or the smokescreen?
Every time we tray to get used to Mr. Akbar’s polemics, we are jarred to reality. Mr. Akbar’s job and future retirement depends to his continued belligerance towards Pakistan—that is the only way he can prove his bosses that he an OK INdian.
The Indus Valley Civilization now known as Paksitan
Pakistan existed 5000 years ago as the IVC
The Pakistan Ideology
by
Moin-Ansari
Original March 16th, 1996 and Updated February 7th, 2009
| NEW YORK | RUPEE NEWS | March 16th, 1996 | Moin Ansari |
Lest we forget the ideology of the Hinduvata Mahasab, let us quote it right here. Lest some dismiss it as a relic of the past, let us remind them that the BJP was in power in in Delhi and holds a major vote in the Lok and Rajha Saba. For those who may say that this quote is a historical anomoly belonging to the hsitory books, let us remind them that Mr. Narendar Modi, Mr. Adhvani and Mr. Bal Thackery have cloned themselves by the millions and this very same thinking was used to burn, rape and massacre more than 2000 Muslims in Gujarat just a few months ago.
“I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars: (1) Hindu Sangathan, (2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Moslems, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the Frontiers. So long as the Hindu nation does not accomplish these four things, the safely of our children and great-grandchildren will be ever in danger, and the safety of the Hindu race will be impossible. The Hindu race has but one history, and its institutions are homogeneous. But the Musalmans and Christians are far removed from the confines of Hindustan, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab and European institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made of these two religions. Afghanistan and the hilly regions of the frontier were formerly part of India, but are at present under the domination of Islam. . . .Just as there is Hindu religion in Nepal, so there must be Hindu institutions in Afghanistan and the frontier territory; otherwise it is useless to win Swaraj. For mountain tribes are always warlike and hungry. If they become our enemies, the age of Nadirshah and Zamanshah will begin anew. At present English officers are protecting the frontiers; but it cannot always be. . . .If Hindus want to protect themselves, they must conquer Afghanistan and the frontiers and convert all the mountain tribes.” Pratap of Lahore, Lala Hardayal in 1925. Quoted by Dr. Ambedkar in his book “Pakistan”
When there are problems in Pakistan many look at the government and think of the present administration in power as the state. While the head of every government boldly declares “Le etat c’est moi” (I am the state), all of us who are disenfranchised, suppressed, and repressed need to take a cold hard look at the government. We should understand the difference between he government and the state. The government could be evil but the state of Pakistan does not belong to the government, the state of Pakistan belongs to the people of Pakistan, it belongs to us. 5561st re-birthday! Congratualations to Indus Pakistanis
Neither the strife in FATA, nor the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, nor the externally sponsored hooliganism and killings in Swat that have become the hallmark of today’s news, nor the band of marauders and mercenaries that infiltrate our borders to create malaise and mayhem in our land, can detract us from remembering the anniversary of the day that we decided to create a land for the Muslims of the subcontinent—a land we later named Pakistan. Pakistan: Another Indian prophecy of doom. Here we go again. The first one came in 1947.
THE PAKISTANI RESILIENCE IN THE FACE OF THREATS: Mountbatten, Nehru, Indira, Kruschev, Johnson, Carter, Kissinger (Nixon), Gobachov, Clinton, Armitage (Bush), Karzia (Bush and Vajpayee/Sing) have all threatened Pakistan: The Pakistanis are used to it…so what else is new?!! Pakistan’s Nuclear Program should be seen in the backdrop of these threats.The capacity of Pakistan to sustain some fifteen major disarticulations in polity, power, and structure and still preserve a national identity is a phenomenon one is tempted to explain by recourse to the supernatural.
Pakistan which has been pummelled by external events (three wars with India, secession of Bangladesh, 3.5 million Afghan refugees) and disrupted by internal fissures (4 periods of martial law totalling 27 years and ethnic violence in Sindh) to a degree which no other state established since 1945 has suffered. In this respect it stands as an exemplar of a nation whose adversities “common sense” might suggest make its viability impossible.
Yet its continued existence defies the reality induced by such speculation. The enormity and persistence of these difficulties and the resilience of the nation in absorbing and somehow surviving them must be regarded with awe if not admiration.” RALPH BRAIBANTI
This salute is dedicated to the 1200 men and women who died defending our borders as well as the thousands who were innocent victims of aggression on our shores. In-spite of the murders, and in-spite of the bombs, life in Pakistan goes on, and the Crescent and the Star flutters high on our sky scrapers and pulsates proud in our hearts. Let this anniversary of our Lahore resolution be a lesson to our enemies, that we remember our dedication to our cause, and promise to keep the dream of our fathers of our nation, Jinnah, Liaqat-Ali Khan and Iqbal alive.
Trail of freedom from the bowels of hell in Bharat to freedom in Pakistan
We remember the 1 million lives lost in creating a country, and also rededicate ourselves to the fact that “Pakistan manzil nahin, Nishan e Manzil hai”. Thatmanzil was defined by Iqbal, Liaqat, Jinnah and many others who carry the banner in the land of the Crescent and Star. Despite some impediments we have not lost track of the “manzil“. Pakistan as it existed 5000 years ago
‘India is no more a country than the Equator’.Winston Churchill
The British Indian Empire included Iraq, Aden, Somalia, Burma, and more than 500 states of the Subcontinent
The British Empire spanning continents
The Muslim majority areas of the Subcontinent should have been part of Pakistan. Many Muslims wanted to stay and fight in the “Darul Harb” ’till it was changed to “Darul islam“. (notice islam with lower case “i” which depicts islam=peace). The Quaid’s vision was to separate based on demographics.
Patel and others cheated us out of a real separation.
The more then 500 independent princely states of the Subcontinent
The State of Hyderabad wanted to stay independent after 1948 but was run over by Patel
The Princely state of Bombay Presidency
The Princely state of Baroda
Before separation
After separation
After the Muslims won the right for separate electorates, Jinnah supported the Dalits to get the same right. This was wholeheartedly opposed by Mr. Mohandas Gandhi. In the Round Table Conferences in 1930-32, the concept of separate electorates for the Untouchables and Dalits was raised by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, as a way to ensure sufficient representation for the minority Dalits, in government.
… Gandhi was a so-called “high caste”. High castes represent at small minority in India, some 10-15 percent of the population, yet dominate Indian society in much the same way whites ruled South Africa during the official period of Apartheid. Dalits often use the phrase Apartheid in India when speaking about their problems.
.. Gandhi’s main critic and political opponent, Dr. Ambedkar, for whom our journal is named and the first Dalit in history to receive an education ..
The All India Muslim League session of 1936
1938 RESOLUTION ASKED FOR SEPARATION:Even earlier in 1938 Sir Abdullah Haroon moved a resolution for establishing independent Muslim states in the north-west and eastern zones. The word states continued to be used in subsequent sessions of the All India Muslim League till about 1943. Originally the two zones were meant to be autonomous and sovereign and it was only when the British and the Hindus insisted that Punjab and Bengal were to be partitioned that Pakistan began to be talked about as one state.
THE PAKISTAN RESOLUTION OF 1940: The Lahore Resolution (later known as the Pakistan Resolution) The Lahore resolution moved by Fazlul Haq at the 27th Session of the All India Muslim League, at Lahore on March 23, 1940 stated:
“that geographically contagious units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial adjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are in a majority, as in the north-west and eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.”
What is the Two Nation Theory exactly? The moniker “‘two’ ‘nation’ ‘theory’” is a misnomer. The theory of nationalities states that “India does not have a homogeneous population”. There are many racial, ethnic and linguistic groups in India. India is not a national state, India is not a country, but a sub-continent composed of “nationalities”. The two nation theory clearly states that that there are several nationalities in the subcontinent, and the Hindus and the Muslims are the largest of the two nations. Hindus and Muslims are different therefore Muslim majority areas must exist separately. Chaudry Rehmat Ali’s “Pakistan proposal asked for SEVERAL MUSLIM STATES in the subcontinent.”
In this document a map of India has also been published showing India split into different states, named as Pakistan, Guruistan, Usmanistan, Bangsamispan, Hindoostan comprising Rajistan, Kathiwar, Maharashtra, Rajistan and Dravidia. This pamphlet was reproduced in 1934 (Ref: The Great Divide by H. V. Hodson page 81). Karakal Pakistan’ existed as autonomous region of USSR.
He claimed that the destiny of whole Millat in the continent of “Dinia” (changed name of India) and its dependencies lies in the integration of Muslims into 10 countries: Pakistan, Bangistan, Usmanistan, Siddiqistan, Faruqistan, Haideristan, Muistan, Maplistan, Saristan, Nasarastan and than to be coordinated into Pak. Common Wealth of Nations.
Hanoodia:243 principalities or Rajwaras
Hindoostan: Rajistan, Kathiwar, Mahrashtra, Rajistan and Dravidia
Saristan
Nasarastan
Haideristan
Siddiqistan
“Pakistan” (P=Punjab, A=Afghania, K=Kashmir, I=Islam, TAN=Baluchistan) in the Northwest including Kashmir, Delhi and Agra: “
Bangistan” in Bengal:
“Osmanistan” in Hyderabad; “Siddiquistan” in Bundelhand and Malwa; “
Faruqistan” in Bihar and Orissa: “
Haideristan” in UP: “
Muinistan” in Rajasthan: “
Maplistan” in Kerala:
“Safiistan” in “Western Ceylon” and “Nasaristan” in “Eastern Ceylon”, etc.
The map was published by Rahmat Ali in 1934 and came to be widely circulated in his pamphlet called “Now or Never” among the Muslims of the Subcontinent.
Rahmat Ali was disgusted at the bias of the British and referred the “British-Banya alliance” presumably in He even declined to refer to an “India” as having ever existed at all and instead called the subcontinent “Dinia”, and the oceans and the seas around India as the “Pakian Sea”, the “Osmanian Sea” etc. He urged the Dalits, Sikhs, Buddhists to rise up against the Hindus. In in “Sikhistan” he asked them to be independent. He urged all of the supressed peoples to rise up against supression.
This is what we asked for.
We were cheated out of this.
ANALYSIS OF THE TWO NATION THEORY:
The two nation theory enunciates that the subcontinent is made of several nationalities, the Hindus and the Muslims being the largest of the two. India is as big as Western Europe and contains many many racial, religious, linguistic, and ethnic groups. The Hindus and the Muslims are two separate nations, in terms of diet, attitude, social behavior, economic tendencies, social interaction, behaviors, and attitude.
According to many Pakistanis “The two nation theory did not solve all the problems of the subcontinent. However it did save 200 million Muslims (those emancipated in Pakistan and Bangladesh) from social economic and political servitude. The servitude is proven by the decadent condition of Indian Muslims in a “secular” Indian state. Perhaps it sacrifices 150 million Indian Muslims. But the alternative was 450 million Muslims in servitude.” “Secularism” in “India” means “Hinduism Light.“
Nationhood is defined as the tendency of a nation to exist. No two nations have the same reason to exist. USA and Canada exist separately, though you may think that both nations have English speaking population, with similar accents, similar religions, similar culture, similar economic structures, and similar racial and ethnic backgrounds. Do you hear America question the validity of Canada to exist. I believe that the USA has the power to take over Canada, if it really wanted to. BUT the USA recognizes the right of the Canadians to exist separately.
THE TWO NATION THEORY & THREE STATES: The Two Nation theory cannot be debunked because there are more then one Muslim country in the subcontinent. The Hindu nation lives in more than one country (India, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Burma, Sri Lanka, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Bangladesh). The Chinese nation lives in several states (Taiwan, China, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia). Similarly the Muslim nation (transcending all racial, ethnic, caste and linguistic boundaries) can live in several states. There are several Arab Muslim countries too. The country of Pakistan as a unified Muslim country in the subcontinent was actually asked for the Bengali nationalists. Jinnah acquiesced.
The “Nationalistic” Indian attitude towards the TNT: Many modern Indians have a what Pakistanis consider a “strange” attitude. Pakistan should not exist, because it would be better for Indian Muslims, better for Indian Hindus, better for Pakistanis. Pakistanis ask “How do they know it would be better for us?” And who are they to judge our feelings, and tell us what is better for our nation?” If a nation is defined “as a tendency of a people to seek a country”then the Muslims of the Subcontinent are a nation. They point out to one insignificant point or the other in Pakistan to devalue the “raisan d’etre” of Pakistani nationhood. This attitude spell perpetual warfare.
PAKISTANI NATIONHOOD: Pakistanis justify the existence of the country by explaining that “India was never ONE NATION. India is as big as Western Europe and has more nationalities than Europe. The subcontinent has always been a conglomeration of states and nationalities. If one looks at the “Indian” map during the Mughal era, or during Vikramadatya’s era, one will see dozens, sometimes hundreds of STATES. Pakistanis believe that “Akhand Bharat” was a figment of the imagination of Gandhi and the Jan Sangh. Just because the British called it India, does not mean that it was one nation ever or will be one nation ever.”
Plutarch expressed this sentiment well some centuries ago: “A conqueror is always a lover of peace. He would like to make his entry into your cities unopposed.” Does India talk peace in the Plutarchian sense?
SUMMARY AND ABSTRACT ON SOUTH ASIAN SCHISMS
This article presents the arguments of political stratification and nation forming that were in the air in the Forties. The arguments against the Subcontinental nationhood are discussed at length. The arguments for a Pakistani nation are analyzed in depth. Arguments from both sides are presented and refuted.
The history of the creation of India and Pakistan is not always in teleological progression. We have lost a lot of history by tracing our history by traveling through chronological diaries and self aggrandizing biographies. Neither Pakistani nor Indian history books have done an adequate job of tracing our roots. Neither explain “partition” properly.
The Pakistani text books ignore Hindu contributions to our common struggle against colonialism, and seem ashamed of the common lineage with Hindus—(Indus Valley, Buddhism), Pakistani historical narratives underplay the role of the nationalist Indian Muslim leadership, Jauhar, Azad and Suhrawardi, and over emphasize the importance of the RSS and Jan Sangh. Pakistani textbooks ignore the Sufi contributions to our struggle of independence and restrict discussion of Sufiism to Shah Waliullah and a few others.
The Indian textbooks fail to see the Pakistan movement as a provincial and minority rebellion against the Nehruite Marxist-Leninist Federalism that was the hall mark of the INC. The Indian textbooks fail to mention the three wings of Congress, the Nehruite secular wing led by Nehru, the fundamentalist and communal wing led by Rai, the religious wing led by Gandhi, and the extreme nationalist wing led by Patel. The Bharat text books fail to recognize that fact that Gandhi was and was seen as a religious leader by the minorities and by a large section of the Hindu populace. The Indian text books over glorify many Hindu periods, fail to mention the Hindu Buddhist wars, diminish Brahamanism and Brahamanic cruelties towards non-Brahmans, relegate the Mughal era to the greatness of Akbar, ignore the Hindu communal organizations, demonize Muslim leaders who differed with Gandhi, brand secular and moderate Muslim leadership of the Muslim League as communal leaders, overlook the frailties of the INC leadership that led to the Hindu-Muslim schism, and fail to recognize the radical non-secular part of the Congress that scared the minorities.
The Indian textbooks neglect to mention the accomplishments of the Muslim League Muslim leadership that tried to safeguard the interests of the Indian Muslim minorities by fighting for separate electorates for the Muslims, and tried to guarantee the rights of the minorities through the Cabinet Mission Plan and by demanding one third of the representation in parliament. This ingenious plan would have guaranteed a fair and equitable settlement. However vested interests in the INC would not allow this.
The article has some in-bred biases towards the Pakistani point of view. No apologies are given for this slant. The purpose of the article is not convince people, simply to present facts and analysis.
THE FORTIES: THE THEORIES IN AIR
Freedom is in the air. The Union Jack is to come down. How do wedeal with independence? Are we mature enough to behave as civilized nations? The years preceding our independence was an intense time. The Freedom Movement created many leaders and many movements. Neither the Muslims nor the Hindus nor the Sikhs were monolithic groups. Each political group had many leaders. Many times the leadership seemed to head in different directions. The Harrow-Eaton Oxbridge led INC under the leadership of Motilal Nehru was a very different Congress. The INC led by his son Jawaharlal Nehru was a very different INC.
The INC had several factions that split and made up. Similarly the Muslim Movement had factions and grouping in it. Disgruntled elements in each of the major parties went and formed their own political parties and contested the elections. Each group had sub-groupings and subdivisions. There were more than 550 states in the Subcontinent. The Forties gave us the opportunity to forge a country in the Subcontinent or create many nations. As a people we failed to remain at peace. As countries we failed to keep the peace. As nations we failed to usher in an era of prosperity into the Subcontinent. Today let history teach us some lessons.
Most readers are familiar withGandhi’s great hunger strike against the so called Poona Pact in 1933. The matter which Gandhi was protesting, nearly unto death at that, was the inclusion in the draft Indian Constitution, proposed by the British, that reserved the right of Dalits to elect their own leaders. Dr. Ambedkar, with his degree in law from Cambridge, had been chosen by the British to write the new constitution for India. Having spent his life overcoming caste-based discrimination, Dr. Ambedkar had come to the conclusion that the only way Dalits could improve their lives is if they had the exclusive right to vote for their leaders, that a portion or reserved section of all elected positions were only for Dalits and only Dalitscould vote for these reserved positions.
Separate electorate was vehemently opposed by Mahatma Gandhi on the grounds that the move would disintegrate Hindu society. If the Dalits had gotten a separate electorate, this would have ensured certain constituencies which would have been reserved for them. Only the Dalits would have been able to vote for the candidates contesting those seats. This would have given them real leaders and real participation in the elections.
Gandhi was determined to prevent this and went on hunger strike to change this article in the draft constitution. After many communal riots, where tens of thousands of Dalitswere slaughtered, and with a leap in such violence predicted if Gandhi died, Dr. Ambedkaragreed, withGandhi on his death bed, to give up the Dalits right to exclusively elect their own leaders and Gandhi ended his hunger strike.
Later, on his own death bed, Dr. Ambedkar would say this was the biggest mistake in his life, that if he had to do it all over again, he would refuse to give up Dalitonly representation, even if it meant Gandhi’s death.
ONT VS. TNT:
The Two Nation Theory is in direct contradiction of the One Nation Theory. There were proponents of the One Nation Theory in the Indian National Congress and many Muslims believed in the One Nation Theory. Similarly there were many Congressional Leaders that believed in the Two Nation Theory. There were many variations of the TNT and there were many variations of the ONT . On the one hand the TNT espoused many countries in the Subcontinent, on the other is espoused two countries.
Rama Rajha vs Darul Islam: The ONT had many variations too. There were fundamentalist minority of Muslims who also supported the ONT and had declared India as “Darul Harb” (Area of war) with a view to convert it to “Darul Islam” (Area of peace). The religious right espoused a religious Brahman theocracy based on the dharma. “Ram Rajha” were proposed with forced eviction and/or conversion of all Non-Hindus by some of the fundamentalist parties on the right.
United States of India vs. Mahabharta vs India and Pakistan There were the secular versions of the ONT and there were many that propagated a United States of India. The secular and moderate wings of the Congress and the Muslims won the day, and the fundamentalist on both sides lost the elections.
POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER: India had 400 million people. The Muslims were a minority, and because of colonialism had lost the political power in the Subcontinent. The British had taken actions to snatch the control from the Muslims at all echelons of power. The Muslims were demoralized, penury-stricken and were unable to compete with the the more affluent and more educated Hindus. Separate electorates allowed them to elect their own representatives, but the fear of “majoratarianism” scared the minority. Indian “democracy” still does not have any safeguards to prevent “majoratarianism” from dictating to the minority. Requests for one third seats in parliament were not acceptable to the Indian National Congress, and though on many occasions agreements were reached, pressures within the Congress did not allow the agreements to materialize.
The Cabinet Mission Planwas the closest the INC came to an agreement with the Muslim League. It was under these circumstances that they marched for freedom. The following narrative helps us remember the historical chronology and the ideological battles that were waged then and are being waged now over the internet.
The supporters of the TNT won the elections and won the arguments, and the believers of the ONT lost the elections. The INC and the Jamat e Islami were rejected by the Muslims. The TNT became fact and the ONT remains a fascination by many. These pages will distinguish the origins of the ONT and the TNT.
POST INDEPENDENCE PRESSURES VALIDATE THE TNT: Post-independence chronologies have shown us that religious pressures in both India and Pakistan have forced the moderate parties to take religious decisions. Today in India moderate Pakistani parties like the Muslims League characterized as communal. Today in Pakistan and moderate parties like the Congress are characterized as religious parties.
THE 360 VIEW: STATES FORMED ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION Pakistan of course is not the only sate formed on the basis of religion.
Throughout history there have been states formed on the basis of religion. The Holy Roman Empire, The Turkish Ottoman Empire, Lebanon, Israel, the Federated/ Confederated Republic of Cypriot Turks, and more recently Bosnia have all been formed on the basis of religion. Many of these states survived for centuries and indeed thrived. The basis of many “states” in the Indian Republic is indeed based on religion (though this is usually disguised). Haryana is one prime example of a state that was separated from the Punjab on the basis of religion. Sindh, was divided on the basis of religion with the cognizance and approval of the Indian National Congress.
BANGLADESH AS THIRD COUNTRY IN THE TWO NATIONS The creation of Bangladesh is the fulfilled prophecy of the Lahore Resolution. The TNT is not affected by the creation of Bangladesh. Pakistanis claim that “The Two Nation theory cannot be debunked because there are more then one Muslim country in the subcontinent.” The Hindu nation lives in more than one country (India, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Burma, Sri Lanka, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Bangladesh). The Chinese nation lives in several states (Taiwan, China, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia). Similarly the Muslim nation (transcending all racial, ethnic, caste and linguistic boundaries) can live in several states. There are several Arab Muslim countries too.
The country of Pakistan as a unified Muslim country in the subcontinent was actually asked for the Bengali nationalists. Jinnah acquiesced Bangladesh faces the same religious pressures as Pakistan with regard to religion. The separation from Pakistan was cognizance of a geo-political reality and the development of minority and regional rights, the same rights that Jinnah tired to guarantee in his famous Fourteen Points. The TNT and Jinnah sought a weak center and strong provincial rights. Neither India which bases it provinces and states on linguistics AND RELIGION, nor Pakistan, nor Bangladesh nor Sri Lanka have been able to resolve the question of religious and ethnic minorities. The creation of Banglasdesh, the de facto division of Sri Lanka and the “special status” accorded to Kashmiris within India are indeed recognition of the TNT in its various forms. Jamaat wants BD to be declared an Islamic state :
01 May 1997, Thursday, 23, Zilhaj 141720 DHAKA, April 30: Bangladesh’s Jamaat-i-Islam party on Wednesday renewed its demand for the country to be declared an Islamic state.20 “The constitution must recognize the sovereignty of God through declaring the country an Islamic Republic,” Jamaat’s secretary general Matiur Rahman Nizami told reporters .20 Nizami said the 10-month-old government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed had failed to play a “positive role” in political and socio-economic areas and said law and order had severely deteriorated over the past few months.20 “We think everybody is worried at the present situation of the country,”he said and announced a two-month campaign beginning on Thursday to drum up support for Jamaat’s demands for an Islamic state. Jamaat backed Awami League during its campaign against the BNP government of former prime minister Khaleda Zia, who resigned in May last year.97AFP20
GANDHI ON CREATION OF PAKISTAN
In an interesting book called “Birds of a feather flock together” by Anwar Shaikh the author says the following:
“The fact that the Indians did not have to fight the British for freedom, absolves them of the usually leveled charge of divide and rule. The British ruled several communities and they were politically and morally obliged to give a fair healing to all of them. It was the attitudes of mutual hatred, which contributed to the communal divisions, but came to be ascribed to the British. This is the truth that Gandhi described when he said:
….but if both of us – Hindus and Muslims – cannot agree on anything else the Viceroy is left with no choice .
It was not the British, who divided India: it is the Congress and the League that had agreed to partition as the solution and Mountbatten was not to blame”.Gandhi assured .
THE ONT PROPONENTS: THE NATIONALISTIC INDIAN ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE TNT: Many modern Indians have a what Pakistanis consider a “strange” attitude. Pakistan should not exist, because it would be better for Indian Muslims, better for Indian Hindus, better for Pakistanis. Pakistanis retort 93How do they know it would be better for us? And who are they to judge our feelings, and tell us what is better for our nation? If a nation is defined as a tendency of a people to seek a country then the Muslims of the Subcontinent are a nation. Pakistanis justify the existence of the country by explaining that 93India was never ONE NATION. India is as big as Western Europe and has more nationalities than Europe. The subcontinent has always been a conglomeration of states and nationalities. If one looks at the ‘Indian’ map during the Mughal era, or during Vikramadatya’s era, one will see dozens, sometimes hundreds of STATES. Pakistanis believe that “Akhand Bharat” was a figment of the imagination of Gandhi and the Jan Sangh. Just because the British called it India, does not mean that it was one nation ever or will be one nation ever.
“THE PAKISTAN IDEOLOGY” EXPLAINS “WHY PAKISTAN?: For those who TRULY want to understand Pakistanis, let us go over the excerpts from: Ideology of Pakistan by Prof. Saeeduddin Ahmad Dar
The Muslims of South Asia are a nation in the modern sense of the word; The basis of their nationhood is neither territorial, nor racial, nor linguistic nor ethnic; They are a nation because they profess the same faith Islam; They are entitled to self-determination. The areas where they (Muslims) are in dominant majority should be constituted into sovereign states/state; Wherein they should be enabled to order their lives in individual and collective spheres in accord with the teachings and requirements of Islam asset out in Holy Quran and Sunna; and The state should endeavour to strengthen the bonds of unity among Muslim countries. The Ideology of Pakistan stems from the instinct of the Muslim Community of South Asia to maintain its individuality by resisting all attempts to absorb it by the Hindu society. They believe that Islam is incompatible with Hinduism. Historical experience has shown that Islam and Hinduism have two different social orders and given birth to two distinct cultures and that there is no meeting point between the two.
TNT: WHY PAKISTAN
Let us give you a skeleton argument of WHY Pakistan was needed. The creation of Pakistan can be explained in the following sentences:
a) The Lahore Resolution proposed 2 Muslim states in the subcontinent and India in the middle in accordance with the Two Nation Theory. Pakistanis believe that TNT is alive, EVEN After 1971 or else BD would have folded into India. Many nations live in more than ONE country. The Arabs (Libya and Egypt etc.) live in more than one country. The Hindu nation lives in more than one country (Nepal, Bhutan) etc., etc. Etc. The creation of Bangladesh does not negate the Nationalities Theory of the Subcontinent.
b) In 1947 Hindus in India controlled almost all parts of life in the Subcontinent. To emancipate the Muslims a SEPARATE quarantine (Green house where the economically depressed Muslims could be nurtured) area had to be created to allow MORE opportunity to the Muslims.
c)The Muslim League wanted a Muslim majority land because they feared that the Hindus would totally subjugate their Islamic entity. Most Pakistanis feel that this has actually happened to the 100 million Muslims who were left in India today.
d) The Muslim League did not want/plan a population transfer. However this did happen. Both sides blame each other. The population transfer took place.
e) If the population transfer had not taken place (and Pakistan still had a 30% Hindu population), would Muslims have achieved something in Pakistan? Would Muslims have gotten a free ride in business with Hindus dominating the businesses in Pakistan? The answer to these questions are not simple. If the Hindu majority towns in Pakistani Sind are any indication, there would have been no problem.
f) In 1945 the Congress accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. So did the Muslim League. Then the Congress led by Jawaharlal Nehru made a volte face and rejected it. So then did the Muslim League. It was clear that Nehru did not want to risk the chance of the leadership of India going out of his hands. Nehru was as much responsible for Pakistan as Jinnah. If Pakistan had been created a multi-cultural multi-communal entity, with the entire Punjab and the entire Bengal (as envisaged by Quaid-e-Azam) then we would have a very very different Subcontinent. We got what Quad-e-Azam called a 93moth-eaten-Pakistan94 (it was this moth-eaten Pakistan or nothing). It was very difficult for this moth eaten Pakistan to survive (without any infra-structure, industries etc.). If a multi-cultural, multi-communal Pakistan had been allowed to evolve perhaps we would NOT have had three wars!
THE ORIGINS OF THE TWO NATION THEORY AND THE TRANSITION TO THE NATIONALITIES FACT What started as the Nationalities theory was labeled “The two nation theory” and ended up as the SEVERAL NATIONALITIES FACT. The TNT has been around for centuries. Quaid-e-Azam,Mohammad Ali Jinnah on one occasion said that the struggle for Pakistan started when the first Muslim set foot on the shores of Sindh. This is what Al Beruni in his treatise Kitab-Ul-Hind about the differences he observed between the two communities: “The Hindus entirely differ from the Muslims in every respect. One might think that they had intentionally changed them into the opposite, for our customs do not resemble theirs”.
Al Beruni enumerates the following reasons for the complete and entire isolation of the Muslims as a community from the Hindus: “All their (Hindu) fanaticism is directed against those who do not belong to them. They (Hindus) call them (Muslims and others) impure, and forbid having any connection with them, be it inter-marriage, or by any other kind of relationship, or by sitting, eating, and drinking with them, because thereby they think why would be polluted”. In early eleventh century Al-Biruni observed:
“In all matters and usages they (Hindus) differ from us (Muslims).
He wrote:
“They are totally differ from us in religion, as we believe in nothing in which they believe and vice versa.”
According to Beruni:
“the Hindus considered the Muslim “Malachha” i.e. impure and for bid having any connection with them, be it intermarriage or any bond of relations hip, or by sitting, eating and drinking with them, because thereby, they think they be polluted.
Expressing his views on Hindu-Muslim relations in the twentieth century Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah observed:
“The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither intermarry, nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different.”
TNT: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HINDUS AND MUSLIMS
Here is a Pakistani patriot arguing about the differences between the two nations:
“Dress codes between Hindus and Non-Hindus are apparent in any gathering, specially among women. Standards of modesty for women are very very different. We speak Urdu, you cleansed Urdu of all Persian and Arabic words and speak Hindi. Your literature consists of Tagore and others, ours of the later stages of Iqbal. Our heroes are your enemies (Auranzeb and Mahmud of Gazni). Our scoundrels are your heroes (Shivajee). Our architecture is Moghal in nature- symmetrical with domes and minars. Yours is stupa shaped and temple-like. Our temples are decorated with writings, yours are pictographic representations abhorrent to Muslims. Our civilization is traced from the deserts of Arabia, the sands of Persia and the fertile valley of the Indus.
Yours is traced from the depths of Somnath, and the war plains of the Ganges. Our names are different than yours. Our value systems are based on Judeo-Christian monothieism and the ten commandments. Yours are based on a conglomerations of books that originated in Hindu mythology. Your laws are based on the Hindu Rashtra (or secularism), ours on the ten commandments . We eat meat and relish beef. For you Sex is religious and requires display and celebration, for us sex is private and a duty for procreation. You are vegetarian and abhor beef . On religious holidays we pray and scrifice animals, you celebrate fire. We pray five times a day and want the aazaan to monitor our day, you go to temples every week. We pray towards Mecca, you go to pilgrimage to the Ganges. We bury our dead, you cremate them. We are all equal, you have a caste system. We share our foods, you cannot share between castes. We revere the widows, you used to burn them.We are required to slap back, you believe in ahmisa. We believe in heaven and hell, you believe in re-incarnation.”
HINDU ORIGINS OF THE TNT: The ” Two Nation Theory” had been in the Hindu pot since the 8th century and was formally enunciated by many in the Hindu Mahasab. Here is Mr. Sarvakar.
“Several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. These our well-meaning but unthinking friends take their dreams for realities. That is why they are impatient of communal tangles and attribute them to communal organizations. But the solid fact is that the so-called communal questions are but a legacy handed down to us by centuries of a cultural, religious and national antagonism between the Hindus and the Muslims. When the time is ripe you can solve them; but you cannot suppress them by merely refusing recognition of them. It is safer to diagnose and treat deep-seated disease than to ignore it. Let us bravely face unpleasant facts as they are. India cannot be assumed today to be a unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary these are two nations in the main, the Hindus and the Muslims in India.” Speaking at the Hindu Maha Sabha Session held at Ahmedabad in 1937, Mr. Savarkar. Quoted by Dr. Ambedkar in his book “Pakistan”
“I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars: (1) Hindu Sangathan, (2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Moslems, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the Frontiers. So long as the Hindu nation does not accomplish these four things, the safely of our children and great-grandchildren will be ever in danger, and the safety of the Hindu race will be impossible. The Hindu race has but one history, and its institutions are homogeneous. But the Musalmans and Christians are far removed from the confines of Hindustan, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab and European institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made of these two religions. Afghanistan and the hilly regions of the frontier were formerly part of India, but are at present under the domination of Islam. . . .Just as there is Hindu religion in Nepal, so there must be Hindu institutions in Afghanistan and the frontier territory; otherwise it is useless to win Swaraj. For mountain tribes are always warlike and hungry. If they become our enemies, the age of Nadirshah and Zamanshah will begin anew. At present English officers are protecting the frontiers; but it cannot always be. . . .If Hindus want to protect themselves, they must conquer Afghanistan and the frontiers and convert all the mountain tribes.” Pratap of Lahore, Lala Hardayal in 1925. Quoted by Dr. Ambedkar in his book “Pakistan”
Critics that accused Golwalkar of fascism have often pointed to his extreme right-wing and Anti-Muslim bigotry. In his 1939 book, “We, Our Nationhood Defined”, Golwalkar expressed praise of Hitler, saying:
“To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the semitic Races — the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by.”
“The Christians committed all sorts of atrocities on the Jews by giving them the label “Killers of Christ”. Hitler is not an exception but a culmination of the 2000-year long oppression of the Jews by the Christians.”MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Jagarana Prakashana, Bangalore, 1966, p.210
As listed above it is Ironic that the TNT originated as a result of the parochial writings of major Hindu leaders like Mr. Savarkar, Haldi Ram, Golwaker, Lal Lajpat Rai who were proclaiming that Hindus and Muslims were separate nations and the Muslims should be expunged from the land of the Hindus. When the Muslims saw that the Hindus were targeting them, the Muslims decided to act.
Contrary to the common belief that Jinnah originated the two-nation theory, actually it was Savarkar who propounded the theory years before the Muslim League embraced the idea. Savarkar had commanded all the Muslims to leave ‘Bharat’ to pave the way for the establishment of Hindu Rashtra. When Jinnah introduced his two-nation theory, Savarkar announced, “I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah’s two-nation theory… It is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.”
“His (Savarkar’s) doctrine was Hindutva, the doctrine of Hindu racial supremacy, and his dream was of rebuilding a great Hindu empire from the sources of the Indus to those of the Brahmaputra. He hated Muslims. There was no place for them in the Hindu society he envisioned.” (Freedom at Midnight, by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins).
So the hate campaign against Muslims was well in place even before the partition of erstwhile British India. This and many other significant factors forced Jinnah to demand a separate nation for Muslims as he believed that Muslims would not be safe in India — a prophetic declaration indeed! There is no denying the fact that Jinnah was secular to the marrow and would never have wished to cut ties with India, but circumstances compelled him to do so. However, he had not harbored grudges against India or its leaders. He had kept his house on Malabar Hill, thinking he could weekend there, while running his country from Karachi on weekdays, but destiny had something else in store for the estranged neighbors of the Asia Partition.
When Nathuram Godse pumped three bullets into Gandhi, a section of the Hindu community compared him with Judas. The writing was on the wall. The divide was evident. In some areas people mourned the death of Gandhi, and in other areas they distributed sweets, held celebrations, and demanded the release of Godse. Gandhi’s crime was that he had demanded security for Muslims. Syed Alvi Teheran Times August 17th, 2008
The seeds of partition were actually sown by the stalwarts of Hindu Mahasabha, primarily the quartet of Savarkar, Gawarikar, Apte, and Nathuram Godse. Independent India’s history is testimony to the fact that in a conflict between the forces of secular nationalism and religious communalism, the latter has always ruled the roost. Secular forces have more often than not ended up playing into the hands of communal forces. Such has been the history of independent India, and it is again on display in Jammu.
The actual chronology was not so simple. Most Leaguers realized the fact that initial the Congress had been a moderate and liberal party, but could the fate of the Muslims be trusted on the Nehru dynasty. Could other religious movements not overtake the INC secular ideology. Would majoritarianism not destroy the Muslim ethnicity? The result of their action was Pakistan. The historical basis of the TNT can be traced back to Shivajee. The TNT was proposed by Lala Rai. The TNT was formally articulated from the Muslim side by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, then announced by the president of the Muslim Leagues Mohammad Iqbal in 1930. It was preached by Quaid-e-Azam and adopted by the entire Muslim League. The TNT demanded the end of the artificial state called “India” that had been forced upon the people of the subcontinent by the British.
BRITISH ORIGINS OF THE TNT: The division of Sub-Continent into different Federating Units has an old history. It was a British MP, John Bright, who immediately after mutiny in 1857 suggested that the Empire be broken up into several smaller states (Ref: Liberty or Death by Patiriek French P. 88) with complete autonomy, ultimately becoming independent states.
MUSLIM ORIGINS OF THE TNT: Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan and other reacted. John Bright again in 1877 clearly said ‘that after British withdrawal India will have five or six great independent sovereign states like those of Europe (Ref: Rahmat Ali by K. K. Aziz P.51 1987 Ed.).
The TNT wanted the subcontinent to be returned to its pre-British status that existed through the centuries, the status that had allowed many states to exist in the subcontinent. India had more than five hundred independent states even during the British colonial era. The Lahore Resolution demanded the partition of the subcontinent (and the creation of TWO Muslim states in the subcontinent) on the basis of the TNT in 1940. The TNT was proven in 1947 when India was “partitioned” and “India” returned to its natural and normal state, which consisted on many nation states. In 1947 the TNT became the The Nationalities Law.
BECAUSE OF THE FAULTY BOUNDARY COMMISSION MUSLIM LANDS WERE TRUNCATED AND MUSLIMS WERE ETHNICALLY CLEANSED OUT OF THEIR HOMES.
“The greatest migration in history was the exchange of 11.5 million people between India and Pakistan in 1947 accompanied by the massacre of another half a million. The migration of 3.5 million Afghan refugees into Pakistan from 1979 to 1987 was almost as disruptive. The separation of Bangladesh was, until the dismemberment of the Soviet empire in 1991, the only successful secession of the post World War II era. Three wars with India over what is essentially a boundary dispute bloodied with ethnic cleansing in Kashmir, and now continued turbulence and terrorism based in part on drug distribution and in part on the presumption of the development of nuclear weapons capacity. Ralph Braiabnti
PAKISTANI STABILITY:
“The critical role of Pakistan as a factor in international stability and global politics can only be appreciated when it is placed in the context of a global resurgence of Islamic identity. The pre-eminent characteristic of Pakistan is its Muslim episteme. When established in 1947 in the name of Islam it was the most populous Muslim nation in the world. While the secession of Bangladesh in 1971 reduced it to second place after Indonesia, it remains one of the most conspicuously fervent of the fifty-four member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) that declare themselves constitutively Islamic. The invocation of Islam as its raison d’etre places Pakistan as one of the few nations, along with the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia founded explicitly on religious doctrine rather than by historical accident or colonial invention. A realistic assessment of its role in the world requires a survey of its ideological universe – Ummah – the global commonwealth of Muslims.Ralph Braibanti.
THREATS TO “INDIA”
“Yet it is the India of Gandhi which remains in the American imagination and distorts at every angle our impressions of India and hence our view of Pakistan. Modern India unambiguously regards itself as the dominant power in the region. It has waged war with China, three wars with Pakistan, occupied the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, annexed the Portuguese enclave of Goa, seized the princely Muslim state of Junagadh, annexed the Himalayan state of Sikkim, exerts political control over Nepal and Bhutan, intervened militarily in Pakistan’s civil war which established Bangladesh, intervenes in the Tamil-Sinhalese violence in Sri Lanka, continues to conflict with Pakistan over the boundary of the Siachen glacier and is adamant in its refusal to implement a series of United Nations resolutions starting in 1948 calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir. In view of these well-defined instances of hegemonic impulse there can be little wonder about Pakistan’s concern that its security technology should match India’s. In his autobiography, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, analyzed the strategy of the United States to bring India and Pakistan together as a buffer against China. He deftly characterized the Pakistani view of India, “The idea of becoming subservient to India is abhorrent and that of cooperation with India, with the object of promoting tension with China, equally repugnant.”
THREATS TO PAKISTAN ARE ALWAYS EXAGGERATED:
“The capacity of Pakistan to sustain some fifteen major disarticulations in polity, power, and structure and still preserve a national identity is a phenomenon one is tempted to explain by recourse to the supernatural Pakistan which has been pummelled by external events (three wars with India, secession of Bangladesh, 3.5 million Afghan refugees) and disrupted by internal fissures (4 periods of martial law totalling 27 years and ethnic violence in Sindh) to a degree which no other state established since 1945 has suffered. In this respect it stands as an exemplar of a nation whose adversities “common sense” might suggest make its viability impossible. Yet its continued existence defies the reality induced by such speculation. The enormity and persistence of these difficulties and the resilience of the nation in absorbing and somehow surviving them must be regarded with awe if not admiration.”
PAKISTAN MANZIL NAHIN NISHAN E MANZIL HAI: Alama Iqbal showed us the “manzil”. We don’t want a caliphate nor a religious theocracy; Not a means to wage war or expansion; Not through conquest or capturing capitals; not to threaten anyone, but just so that we can all live together in peace.
“Unlike any other Muslim nation, Pakistan has a complicated web of relationships with the entire world of Islam (Ummah). It is a mistaken notion to think of Pakistan exclusively in the context of South Asia or the South Asian subcontinent. Having fragmented from that subcontinent with no exclusionary topographical boundaries separating it from the Indian states of Punjab and Rajasthan and the disputed area of Kashmir, that assumption is easy to make. But it is erroneous. The topographical barriers separating Pakistan from its western and northern neighbours – Afghanistan, Iran and China – are much more formidable, but the cultural affinities are greater still. Afghan-Pushtu culture oversteps the Durand Line. Baluch-Brahui tribal culture is found in the Baluchistan of Pakistan and in the Baluchistan of Iran.
These links with its western neighbours existed long before pre-partition India. Indeed all the boundaries in the area, such as the Durand Line, the Radcliffe Boundary and the McMahon Line were drawn to satisfy colonial interests; not to delineate ethnic/linguistic/cultural identities. The relationship with Afghanistan, always fraught with difficulties, has been woven into a denser web in consequence of Pakistan’s pivotal role in the Soviet-Afghan War. The links with Turkey and Central Asia have historical roots. The Muslims of the subcontinent absorbed, as Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi has so poignantly written, “layers of immigrants from Arabia, Iran, Central Asia and the Afghan mountains; the greatest impact was made by the Central Asians, because they seem to have been the most numerous and also because the ruling dynasties were overwhelmingly Turkish.” Qureshi states that the painting of such artists as Chugtai and poets such as Hali, Iqbal and Ghalib all have an Iranian flavour. He quotes the “great thinker” Shah Waliu’llah who suggests that the Muslims of India were travellers in a strange land dreaming of the roses, nightingales, cypress forests and running springs of Iran and Central Asia. This romanticized view of the wellsprings of Pakistani culture was reinforced by the separation of Bangladesh in 1971 and the emergence of strengthened bonds with the Islamic states to the West.
“Tu shaaheen hai, basaira kar pharaon kee chatanon pur”
1. If your heart is alive and alert then gradually Allah gives his banda different way to look at things.
2. Both Mulla and Mujahid say Allah-O-Akbar, Although words and meaning are same, but there is a difference in purpose
3. Although both Vulture and Falcon fly in the same sky, both have different way of living, vulture flies low and lives on dead bodies, where as falcon flies high and lives on preys.
“The economic and political facet of this cultural affinity takes form in the Economic Cooperation Organization established in 1993 by ten contiguous states – Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and the six Central Asian Islamic Republics. It supersedes the entity known as Regional Cooperation Development (RCD) formed in 1964 by Turkey, Iran and Pakistan which was never very effective. This new organization (ECO) holds greater promise than the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation of 1983 (SAARC). The latter has been crippled by the relatively overwhelming size of India and fear that India’s conduct defines a hegemonic propensity of ultimate danger to Pakistan. The relative success of the Economic Cooperation Organization and the failure of SAARC are institutional reflections of the tighter linkage of Pakistan with Central Asia than with the subcontinent. The connections with the Arabian Peninsula are also significant. Changing the name of the industrial city of Lyallpur to Faisalabad after Saudi Arabia’s late monarch, Saudi Arabia’s financing the International Islamic University in Islamabad and the King Faisal Mosque, one of the largest in the world, are but a few symbols of the Arabian connections.
The training of large numbers of Mujahideen (freedom fighters for religion) in Pakistan to fight in the Afghan-Soviet war, and the participation in that war of Saudi Arabian fighters has had a curious aftermath. Many of these warriors, left without a cause, are now in Bosnia along with Iranian mercenaries. Some are said to be in an underground resistance movement against the Saudi regime. If this is so, it thrusts Pakistan ever more deeply into the maelstrom of international Muslim political activities.” Ralph Baiganti
Step one: Current day Pakistan
Step two: Take control of Pashtun areas
Step 3: Confederation of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This is Central Asia
Step 4: Work with the Muslim world
Step 5: Grow the Muslim world
STRATEGIC POSITION OF PAKISTAN:
“The critical geopolitical position of Pakistan recalls the views of Sir Halford J. Mackinder, Professor Karl Hausholer and Admiral Alfred Thomas Mahan. It was Mackinder. writing in 1904 who first used the expression “geographical pivots of history. He advanced the idea of the “heartland” i.e. that whoever controls a central strategic or pivotal area, controls the surrounding, area, the range of control expanding in concentric circles. These ideas profoundly influenced Karl Haushofer, an army major general then professor of geography at Munich University. Haushofer was introduced to Adolf Hitler by Rudolf Hess. Haushofer’s theories influenced Hitler but eventually Hitler ignored his advice and sent him to a concentration camp. Haushofer’s son, Albrecht, an art historian who had also written on geopolitics, was imprisoned participation in a conspiracy to overthrow Hitler and was executed by a firing squad. Shortly thereafter, his father committed suicide. Admiral Mahan advanced the same notion in terms of seapower – whoever controls the sea has influence if not control over adjacent landmasses.
The precipitous decline in the respectability of geopolitics during and after the Second World War was due in part to the repugnance toward anything associated with Nazi doctrine or behaviour. Haushofer’s early influence on Hitler was widely regarded as the ideological paradigm for Hitler’s grand design of conquest. The fact that Haushofer was banished for advising against the German invasion of the Soviet Union did not lift the stigma. Later, nuclear warfare with the possibility of long-range destruction seemed to minimize the need for actual control of areas of land or sea. The geopolitical explanation of global strategy can be carried too far. The Mackinder-Haushofer paradigm was extremist in the sense that it did not take other factors such as climate and human behaviour into account. Ellsworth Huntington, a pioneer in analyzing geographical influences on human development, labels the Mackinder-Haushofer theories “fallacious”.
The blemish of their association with Nazi policy is evident in Huntington’s criticism. Writing during the height of Hitler’s power, he groups the Mackinder-Haushofer paradigm with the racist theories of Houston S. Chamberlain and Count Joseph A. deGobineau. In recent years there has been a marginal renewal of interest in the influence of geography on politics. The awareness of the criticality of “chokepoints” or “flashpoints” has contributed to this new interest. It is neither prudent nor accurate to label this development as geopolitics. The simple term “political geography” as developed by Isaiah Bowman as early as 1921 is a more useful and accurate designation. In the past decade a growing number of analysts of international politics such as Paul Kennedy, Ewan Anderson, William Pfaff, Saul Cohen, Jack Child have turned to classical geography for some explanation of contemporary issues. The rising incidence of low intensity non-nuclear conflicts in which control of pivotal areas of land and sea is critical also contributes to a reassessment of geography. Pakistan fits perfectly into a politico geographic paradigm. The geographic arc embracing Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan to the west and Kashmir to the east may well be the next source serious of conflict in the world. It may originate in the west, in the east or in both places at once.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union created a geopolitical vacuum in Central Asia. The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has created new allies. The rise of China creates new realities in West Asia. The resurgence of Islam in the six Central Asian republics and in Xinjiang has provoked competing ambitions of Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for influence in the area.
All the superpowers are staking out their territory in the rich lands of Central Asia. The continued instability of Afghanistan and increase the danger. Pakistani- Chinese nexus and the growing Pakistani-Russian entente places Pakistan in a pivotal position. All of India’s neighbors share a distrust of India. Pakistan is at the epicentre not only by virtue of geography, but also because of its history, religion, culture and ethnicity. Whatever fire may emerge from this tinderbox, Pakistan will be a pivot. Pakistan can turn the spigot off or on. Bharat if it ever wants to be a local or regional player must recognize Pakistan, in letter and spirit and embrace it as a friend. Without India’s acceptance of Pakistan, its regional ambitions will never come to fruition.
In 2009, the Dalit, Muslim and Communist again tried to form alliance against the Indian National Congress. The alliance did not win. The 450 million, Dalits, Untouchables and Scheduled castes are Bharat have been left out. This is the unfinished business of 1947. The liberated Dalits will one day once again write the history of South Asia.
” the differences in India, between the two major nations, the Hindus and the Muslims are a thousand times greater when compared with the continent of Europe.
India is not a national state, India is not a country, but a sub-continent composed of nationalities, the two nations being Hindus and Muslims whose culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, name and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, laws and jurisprudence, social and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions, outlook on life and of life are fundamentally different nay in many respects antagonistic. Mohammad Ali Jinnah
As an ardent fan of the Professor Dr Ahmed Hasan Dani’s concept of Pakistani history and a protagonist of the Indus people philosophy of Ahtizaz Ahsan, it is always a joy to hear about another book about the ‘Melluhas’ of the Pakistani Civilization.
The Melhulans were the Indus people who lived on the River Indus. They were the early ancestors of the present day Pakistanis. the DNA results from the remains of the people in the graves show a 98% congruence with the Baluch, Punjabis, Pakhtuns and Sindhis of the current era. This is why Professor Dani, Ahtizaz Ahsan and this author want to refer to the “Indus Valley Civilization” as the Pakistani Civilization. The temple education from across the border notwithstanding. the facts remain that the people of the Indus is spectacularly different than the people of the Ganges. It is the stupidity of the leaders of the Ganges to refer to themselves as Indusians or “Indians”. The could call themselves Ganians or the rural people or whatever. They were certainly not the urban people of the Pakistani Civilization.
The temple education in Bharat teaches them that their land extends from Kabul to Raj Kalhani (mythical island East of Hindu Bali in Indonesia). Thus this temple education prohibits them from accepting any of the countries in their borders–Tibet, Sikkim, Bhutan, Nepal, Lanka, Mayanmar, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Pakistani Mehergarh civilizition preceded Pakistani Indus Valley Civilization
Any intellectual capital that can refute this irredentist, revanchist “Akhand Bharat” type of thinking. The book is not available on Amazon.com. Here is a review by Naeem Tahir.
This maps looks like the map of Pakistan. It is. It is the map of Indu Valley 3500 years ago. This is the map of the Indus Valley Civilization which existed 5000 years ago on the banks of the Indus. This represent the Indus Pakistanis (see Indus Saga by Ahtizaz Ahsan, and Professor Dani's prolific writings). The IVC was not Hindu. They buried their dead, wrote a non-Sanskirt pictographic language, ate beef, did not know the horse, wre not vegetarian, wrote right to left, did not know the horse (No Arjun), and did not worship any of the Hindu pantheon (Arjun, Agni, Mithra, Nag). This map shows the Indus Valley Civilization which traded with the Muslim Moses in Mesopotamia. Pakistan is the latst Muslim incarnation of the IVC. The Indus people banded together to live togther as they had lived together for thousands of years. This was the contract once the Britain left. Bharat never existed as a united country--WHAT PARTITION?. This map shows the later stages of the IVC in Lothala and part sof Gujerat. The original IVC thrived only on the banks of the Indus (http://moinansari.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/pakistan-existed-5000-years-ago-as-ivc.gif)
Books on ancient history and research are usually read by those who are interested in the subject or those who are working on the subject themselves, but they have no attraction for the average reader. So it is a pleasant surprise to read Naeem Tahir’s book, ‘Melluhas of the Indus Valley 8000 BC — 500 BC’, which is comparatively less ‘heavy’ than the average tome on the subject. A beautifully produced book of two hundred and fifty pages, it features reproductions of the art work of that era and tells in simple, easy to understand language about the life and times of our ancestors who are part of our heritage and ancient civilization. For history lovers it provides an absorbing read of our historical and ancestral past.
In his interesting prelude, Naeem Tahir has stated that he began by wanting to know more about his own ancestors and build up a family tree, but the search for a credible lineage soon turned into a search for roots and he ended up delving deeper into the fascinating history, archaeology, anthropology and civilisations of South East Asia and in particular the Indus Valley. Thus his search developed a stronger focus, which ultimately led to the writing of the book after a decade of reading and research since his first foray into finding his lineage. He concludes with the question, “Have I reached the truth?” and answered it with a quote by Greek philosopher Xenophanes, ‘No man knows or ever will know the truth, for even if one happened by chance to say the complete truth, nevertheless one would not know it.’
The introductory note has been written by the late Professor Dr Ahmed Hasan Dani, who said, “This study for the first time, speaks about the people who were instrumental in building our great past. Full of engrossing illustrations, maps photographs and little known facts about the ancient Indus people, this book is both valuable reference material and a readable book of general interest for all those who take pride in their national heritage.”
Archaeology and Museums Department Director General Dr Fazal Dad Kakar said, “The great value of this book lies in creating a comprehensive profile of the people who developed one of the greatest civilizations of humanity. His ten years of study have ended with the production of a remarkable document.”
Professor Emeritus, Dr Anwar Dil has written a detailed review essay on the book, which will be helpful for those who want to know and understand the contents of the book to the fullest. He has taken it chapter by chapter using many references by other scholars and an updated bibliography and ends his review with the question, “Is it possible that the Melluhas that Naeem Tahir holds up in his book with such devoted affection as his ancestors had become ossified and their social and economic life weakened or was it a natural disaster like the one that struck Harappa where several hundred unburied dead bodies were discovered lying scattered in a street? A full length study is needed to approach these and related questions from the perspective of the rise and fall of civilizations.” The book has been designed and produced by Ayesha Taslim. — Ishrat Hyatt. ‘Melluhas of the Indus Valley’:An interesting addition to history books. Wednesday, September 09, 2009 By Naeem Tahir Publisher: PNCA Price: Rs2,000
Pakistani Mehergarh civilizition preceded Pakistani Indus Valley Civilization: Pakistan is the home of several Civilizations. As we navigate the corridors of time and look into the seeds of time we discover the seven thousand year old Mehergarh Civilization that encompassed much of Pakistan. After the demise of the Mehergarh Civilization the Indus Valley Civilization came to its zenith around 3500 BC.
If one looks at the map of the Indus Valley Civilization one is astonished that the civilization was within the borders of current day Pakistan. The Mehergarh and the Indus Valley Civilizations were not “Hindu“. The Indus Valley Civilization for example buried their dead, used a pictographic language, read right to left, did not use horses and did not worship the Hindu pantheon. Similarly the Mehergarh Civilization was similar in character.
4 Ancient Superpowers: China (Yangtze valley), Egypt (Nile Valley), Iraq (Tigris Valley), Pakistan (Indus Valley)
THE FOUR SUPERPOWERS OF PROTO-HISTORY: China, Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan. The Nile, the Tigris-Euphrates delta, the Yangtze Delta, and the Indus, are the wombs of all civilizations on our earth. These river valley spawned and nurtured humanity. Imagine a world with four superpowers at peace with each other. Imagine a planet where each civilization was immersed in humongous construction projects, urban edification and trade. . How did these proto-world powers interact with each other? Imagine a civilization without any implements of war. Let us look into pre-history and peek into the “seeds” of time. Let us look at the valleys of the world that engendered the Superpowers of the ancient world..
The IVC was on the banks of the Indus which is present day Pakistan
PAKISTAN 5000 YEARS AGO:-The Indus Valley Civilization of South Asia was one of the inceptive civilizations on the planet. It was contemporaneous with the Chinese, Egyptian, and Sumerian civilizations. These were the times when the Egyptians were building huge monuments to their God-kings,the pyramids and the Sphinx. These were the centuries when the Chinese were building palaces for the Shun dynasty. These were exciting eons in the Holy lands too.
These were the centuries when Moses was battling the pharaohs, Abraham was building the Kaaba, David was ruling the kingdom, and Solomon was building the Temple of Yahweh. It was during these centuries that the Indus Valley Civilization flourished and reached its zenith in South Asia.
The IVC built well planned municipalities for its citizens. While the Egyptians spent three generations of their labor force (estimated between 20,000-10000) building useless mausoleum-pyramids to bury the God-kings, the Harappans were successful in eradicating, disease, hunger, and malnutrition.
The Harappans of the IVC did not build huge commemorative, deifying, dedicatory, cenotaphs. The Harappans of Meluhha-IVC built the finest cities of the third millennium.
Mehergarh situated strategically near the Bolan Pass, is located at the foot of the Balochistan hills on the Katchi plain southeast of Quetta. A 9000 year old site of settlement, Neolithic Mehergarh consists of four mounds. Supported by the Pakistan Department of Archeology, French archeologists have been carrying out extensive excavations there for some years. These excavations, studies and research have led to pushing back these settlements to some 9000 years.
Accessibility: Mehargarh is well connected by road, air and by train with the rest of the country by Quetta
The 5000 yeard old Pakistan as it interacted with the other 3 superpwoers
The Pakistani civilization interacted with many regions of the world
The history of Baluchistan is fascinating. Mehergarh is the oldest agricultural site in the Subcontinent. The artifacts found there go back 7000 years. The people of Mehargarh have been living peacfully with the Indus Valley Civilization for tousands of years. During the British colonial rule no such province existed. It is a merger of many independent states. At the end of the colonial era the Provinces of West India decided to band together and form Pakistan.
Gandhi did not bring the British Empire to its knees—they had already decided to leave. By supporting the war “Recruiter-in-Chief”, Sergeant Major Gandhi extended colonialism, and sent thousands to their death as cannon-fodder.
By supporting the British in the Boer War, their war against the Zulus, and the World Wars, Mr. Gandhi actually extended the life of the Empire and enhanced their ability to hold on to the Subcontinent. Using Mr. Gandhi as the self-proclaimed “Recruiter-In-Chief” help send thousands of People to the war effort of the British.
“It costs us millions to keep Gandhi in poverty” Sarojini Naidu Friend of Gandhi
Map of the British empire with hundreds of states in the Subcontinent
Map of Pakistan that was proposed
Gandhi vehemently supported the prolongation of the British Raj in South Asia. He was a loyal citizen of the British Empire, which he thought was the most benevolent in the world. He wanted to perpetuate the Empire–so he coerced Indians to go and fight for the empire..he as its “Recruiter In Chief”.
Mr. Gandhi was firmly opposed to independence..the entire spectrum wanted independence,e Jinnah, Ambedkar, Akali Dal, the Muslim League, Jamiat e Ulema Hindh, the RSS and the Jan Sangh—only Gandihi wanted “dominion status” based on on British overlordship.
This bitter divide split the Congress between Gandhi and Nehru. Here is Gandhi asking Nehru “to Go Slow”–a euphimism for continue the British Raj.
I have not been able to find the letters on the internet–but Jaswant Singh narrates them in his book Jinnah. they are listed on Pages 158-161 (hardcopy).
Page 159: In a letter dated January 4, 1928, he [Gandhi] told Nehru..’you are going to fast’….’you should have taken time to think and become acclimated. Most of the resolutions you framed and got carried could have been delayed for a one year. Your plunging into the Republican army was a hasty step….’but I do not mind these acts of yours [badly timed, ill-judged resolutions] so much as I mind your mischief-makers and hooligans. I do not know whether you still believe in Non-violence. But even if you have altered your view, you could not think that unlicensed and unbridled violence is going to deliver the country. If careful observation of the country in the light of your European experiments can convince you of the error of the current ways and means, by all means enforce your views, but please do form a disciplinary committee
“On January 1928, Gandhi responded to Nehru’s denail of the Gandhian self. he tells Nehru that he mush have historically suppressing his tru self al these years. he is free to ‘revolt againsg me’. The article criticizing Nehru and the work of the Madras annual session were a misfire all around. ‘I had to notion of the terrible extent of [our] differences’. Whou you were in state [of self-supression], you overlooked the very things which appear to you now as my serious blemishes’. Similar criticisms on previous occasions were noticed because while you [were] under stupefaction, these things did not jar you as they do now…’the differences between you and me appear to me to be so vast and racial that there seems no meeting ground between us.
Page 159: An angry Nehru replied on 11 January 1928: It amazes me to find you using langauge which appears to be wholly unjustified…you have….specially slected some resolutions for…criticism and condemnation…You have referred to discipline..
Nehru then cut to the substance…’you have described the Independence Resolution ‘hastily conceived and thoughtlessly passed”..no stretch of language can justify the use of the words “hastily conceived..thoughtlessly passed”…a demand of independence and all that implies has come to mean a great deal for me and I attach more importance to it than to almost anything else..I doubt if anyone outside a small circle understands your position..
Nehru then turned to the more general questions of Gandhi’s ideas and leadership, questions which bear more directly on the modernity–post modernity divide. ‘You know how intensely I have admired you and believed in you as a leader… I have done so spite of that fact I hardly agreed with anything that some of your previous publications–India Home Rule [Hind Swaraj] etc–contained. I felt and feel that you were and infinitely greater then your little books. Since you have come out of prison [Feb. 1924] something seems to have gone wrong…You…repeatedly changed your attitude…most of us were left utter bewilderment…I have asked you many times what you expected in the future and you answers have been far from satisfying..you..said that..you expected the khadi movement to spread rapidly…the miracle has not happened..I am beginning to think if we are to wait ’till khadi becomes universal in India, we shall have to wait a ’till the Greek Kalends…out khadi work is almost wholly divorced from politics…What then can be don? You say nothing..you only criticize and no helpful lead comes from you…
Page 160: Nehru then turns to worldview..”Reading many of your articles in Young India, –your autobiography etc.– I have often felt how very different my ideals were from yours…You midjudge greatly, I think the civilization of the West and attach too great importance to its many failings..I nehing think that the so called Ramraj was very good in the past, nor do I want it back. I think that western or rather industrial civilization is bound to conquer India…Everybody knows these defects and the utopia and social theories are mend to remove them
..I doubt very much if the fundamentally causes of poverty are touched by [your remedy of village employment and constructive work]…You do not say a word against the semi-feudal zamidari [landlord] system…or against the capitalist exploitation of both the workers and the consumers.
Gandhi was not non-violent. Gandhi was Sergent Major in the British Army. He supported all the British wars, Boer, Zulu, Kaffir, WW1 and WW2. He threatened the British –”if we had the atom bomb we would use it against Britian”. He urged the government of Bharat (aka India) to wage war on Pakistan.
Martin Luther King used Thoreau, not Gandhi. As stated earlier–Dr. King did not follow fasting or filling the jails as they would not have worked in the USA. Dr. King thus followed Thoreau not Gandhi—despite the claims of the missionary who wanted to use Gandhi to convert all of Bharat to Christianity. The title “Mahatma” was to fool the poor Hindus into believing that Gandhi was an incarnation of Christ–this is how they converted thousands of Hindus to Christianity. All this is well document by Dr. Watson in his books
in the 60s, the hippy generation had no knowledge about the true colors of Gandhi–so there was some euphoria. The truth as it becomes more and more available will further eliminate all vestiges of the nonsense that has been accumulated.
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 | DefensebriefsIntellibriefsTranslate to: RSS feed: Save/Share |
The article is reflective of the broken down education system in India and elsewhere. Some get their history lessons from strange places? ….The Neocon abridged Encyclopedia edited by the RSS racists?
Read the books by Gandhis grandsons and read Wolpert.Even the BJP has rejected Gandhi. Gandhi did not bring the British empire to its knees.
The British empire teetering on bankruptcy had no choice and had already decided to leave
The exhausted British had already decided to leave all her colonies after the 2nd world war. Gandhi first introduced Hindu religious symbols to the Secular Indian National Congress and then tried to make all of India succumb to a racist Hindu Rajha rule.
Mr. Gandhi’s support for the British wars (Boer, Zulu, Word War) actually extended the life of the empire. They could have been kicked out of the Subcontinent decades before 1947, but for the obsequious Mr. Gandhi who “loved the empire.”
Gandhi’s only role in South Africa was to support the British wars. Gandhi was a failure in South Africa and a failed attorney in Bombay. Gandhis sole contribution to history was to make 150 million Muslims of India subservient to the Hindus. Attempts to make another 300 million subservient continue. He was very racist and the record shows his racist comments about the natives.
Gandhi won a medal from the British for his service in the British wars.
This was the Gandhi view of the Africans. Another post lists all the racist comments that he had made towards the Africans.
Mr. Gandhi was a total failure in South Africa. His sole gain was to ask his fellow Indians to support the British war efforts. He was imported into India by the bigoted Birla machinery to introduce religion symbols of a secular party called the Indian National Congress.
Gandhi’s political failures, his marketing gimmicks, his cartoonish monk clothes, his personal inadequacies, his sexual perversion, his illicit affairs with Western and Indian women, his pedophilia, his love affair with public display of enemas, and his tolerance of Patel and the Hindu bigots of the RSS and Jan Sangh are all enumerated even in Indian history books. His two grandsons recently discuss all these aspects in recent books.
He repeatedly called Hitler “a friend” and then says, it is not just a ceremonial greeting. He told the Jews to commit mass suicide.
Gandhi used to beat his wife up routinely and did not eliminate the caste system in India. Gandhi slept naked with his niece and other women to prove that he could control his manliness. Take a minute. Learn about the real leaders of the Subcontinent, Abdul Sattar Edhi, Shah Waliullah, Moinuddin Chisti, Qadir Khan, Abdus Salaam, Iqbal, Jinnah, Moudoodi, and Sir Syed.
These penury stricken Indians still live the same way. The Untouchables are at the bottom end of the ladder. Ms. Maywati the Dalit leader calls Mr. Gandhi as the worst enemy of the Dalits.
The real question that perplexes Muslims is how could Arabs be India’s friend?
Mr. Syed’s sycophantic fantasies about Mr. Mohandas Gandhi’s character and accomplishments are based on the broken education system of the Middle East which regurgitates India’s marketing Inc. propaganda as history to the gullible Arab youth.
Mr. Mandela was incarcerated for belonging to the South African National Congress, a party shunned by Mr. Gandhi. Mr., King must have learned his orgies from Gandhi. Mr. Gandhi was a total failure in South Africa. His sole gain was to ask his fellow Indians to support the British war efforts. He was imported into India by the bigoted Birla machinery to introduce religion symbols of a secular party called the Indian National Congress.
Gandhi’s political failures, his marketing gimmicks, his cartoonish monk clothes, his personal inadequacies, his sexual perversion, his illicit affairs with Western and Indian women, his pedophilia, his love affair with public display of animas, and his tolerance of Patel and the Hindu bigots of the RSS and Jan Sangh are all enumerated even in Indian history books. His two grandsons recently discuss all these aspects in recent books.
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 | DefensebriefsIntellibriefsTranslate to: RSS feed: Save/Share |
The temple indoctrinated brutes in the Indian Education Department perpetuate the History of the Indian National Congress ()INC0 as the History of South Asia. All those that oppose the INC are portrayed as villains, and all those that support the INC are portrayed as villains. Jaswant Singh tried to break that deeply entrenched paradigm, but it confuses the young minds and they are forced to believe their icons–which more or less belong to the INC.
The demonization of Mohammad Ali Jinnah continues. By demonizing Jinnah, it is easier to demonize all Pakistanis.
The Congress Party of Bharat doesn’t go through the the periodic convulsions that the BJP goes through. Congress Party officials toe the “company line” on Jinnah. Mohammad Ali Jinnah is reviled by the party and his demonization is taught to school children all over Bharat who grow up hating the man, and the founder of Pakistan. Bharati history books are replete with condemnation of the man and his mission–focusing on rumor, innuendo and every trick in the book that tarnishes the image of one of the greatest politicians of our time
There are no second opinions on Jinnah in India. All conflicting opinions are treated as treason and quickly stifled. By eliminating all shades of opinion about the Muslim League, the Bharati research establishment guarantees the same mistakes to be repeated again and again. Understanding Jinnah helps in understanding Pakistan and Pakistanis. Demonizing him creates hatred, bigotry and racism.
The history of Bharat focuses on “Direct Action Day” but doesn’t discuss the reasons leading up to the frustration of the Muslims of the Subcontinent. Bharatis learn about Gandhi’s fasting but see that the fast against the separate electorates denied the Dalits their right–for which they hate Gandhi forever. Why India’s Dalits hate Mohandas Gandhi?
Three myths are are perpetuated by the INC mafia.
1) The first one one is to destroy the character of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Unable to find an iota of corruption, or any other activity, they stoop low–a shred of a tale about a tea party where ham was served. Notwithstanding the fact that pepperoni, pork sausage and ham are all available all over the world made out of beef, or turkey or chicken or even soya. The story by Mr. Akbar is not damning, but the Indian media has been running with it since it was published. Mr. Akbar S. Ahmed used the incident as cheap publicity to sell his book– and to support his agenda about making Pakistan a secular republic. However that minor issue is now used by those who wish to indict Jinnah is some sort of scandal. The biggest one they can find is a tea party sandwich.
2) The second myth is that somehow Gandhi created and approved Pakistan.The Geographical Two Nation Theory: Pakistan existed 5000 years ago as the “Indus Valley Civilization”. It was the glorious struggle of the millions of Muslims of South Asia which created Pakistan–not Gandhi’s compliance with the British. Why we created Pakistan? Gandhi didn’t create Pakistan–he opposed it, just like he opposed separate electorate for Dalits, and just like he opposed the Cabinet Mission Plan. Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that … if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. MOHANDAS GANDHI DECLARED WAR ON PAKISTAN WHICH COST HIM THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. The British left South Asia because of Jinnah & Bose not Gandhi
3) The other myth is about a peaceful protest that has been blown totally out of proportion. Direct Action Day, also known as the Great Calcutta Riot,was on 16 August 1946—a day of a peaceful protest by the Muslims League-however the INC, the RSS and Jan Sangh had already prepared the groundwork for massive rioting and manslaughter of Muslims in the city of Calcutta (now known as Kolkata) in the Bengal province of British India. The rioting was used by the Hindus to force the British to partition Bengal and Punjab. The bigots blame the rioting on “Direct Action Day” on Jinnah, and the racists use this to demonize Jinnah and showcase the so called violent tendencies–a trait of all Muslims. Ghost of Jinnah still haunts Bharati leaders: 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan dirge
Betraying the Muslim cause, and in contradiction to all norms the Viceroy Lord Wavel called upon Pandit Nehru to form an interim government which he did without any participation form the Muslim League. This was absolutely not acceptable to Jinnah, Suhrawardy or any other Mulsim Leaguer or the Muslims at large. Jinnah per the wishes of Suhrawardy proclaimed 16 August as Direct Action Day. On that day Muslims were expected to gather in large numbers to proclaim their adherence to the concept of Pakistan Shaheed Suhrawardy declared a holiday for that day in Calcutta.
“Britain wants to hand over power to the Indians and the Cabinet Mission is here to find out suitable machinery for the transfer of power Congress tells the British ‘Give us power, we shall sweep away all opposition We shall suppress the Muslims We shall bring the scheduled caste to heel and we shall annihilate the adivasis Give us the police, your army and arms and we shall reproduce an armageddon in the name of a united India.’
This I call insanity induced by the lust for power We do not intend to start a civil war but we want a land where we can live in peace We are a nation and, we believe, we have something to contribute to the civilization of the world But are the British and the Congress prepared to give us Pakistan peacefully and with grace? If not, then, are the Muslims prepared to fight? I have long pondered over these questions Let me now honestly declare that every Muslim of Bengal is ready and prepared to lay down his life for Pakistan Now I call upon you, Mr. Jinnah, to test us. Khan, Liaquat Ali, The Resolution of the All-India Muslim League (1945-46), National Archives of Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan (photostated copy), pp. 35-47. Also see, Ittefaq: Suhrawardy ed., op.cit., pp. 57-58.
On a previous occasion, when no holiday had been proclaimed, there had been disturbances between Hindus and Muslims; people were dragged out of their cars and insulted. Now Hindus objected to the proclamation of a holiday and made extensive, secret preparations to attack Muslims. Neither the Intelligence Branch concerned with the activities of terrorists and revolutionaries, nor the Criminal Investigation Department, both of which were manned almost wholly by Hindus. gave the Prime Minister any information regarding these preparations and he was caught unawares.Lieutenant General Sir Francis Tuker, GOC of the Eastern Command during the last eighteen months of British rule in India, writes: “Hindu Mahasava was at the root but Hindu Police dominated the Intelligence Branch and the Criminal Investigation Branch of the police who kept the government in darkness.” See his book, While memory serves, Cassell and Company Ltd, London, 1950 (Quoted in Ahmad, op. cit., p.72).
On 16 August at the Ochterlony Monument Maidan, whilst he was addressing a crowd, gathered from all parts of Calcutta and the suburbs, he received news that processions were being obstructed and attacked by the Hindus and anti-Muslim riots were taking place in many areas. It was the Muslim holy month of Ramadan (fasting). Suhrawardy ordered the Muslims to disperse and go back to their homes. The crowd was very large, many with children in their laps, having come from all over the city, from the neighbouring areas of Howrah and the 24-Parganas, and from the Jute and Cotton Mill areas. As the crowd was returning home they were set upon by the Hindus, provoking an anti-Muslim riot on a scale far greater than the one in 1926.
The Commissioner of Police, a Britisher, did not know Calcutta and its problems and was unable to deal with the situation with only a small police force. The Riot Commission, which was set up by the British government as a result of the riot, reports that immediately after the riot began the Prime Minister rushed to Lalbazar Police Headquarters to attain first hand information and, being apprised of the grave situation, demanded deployment of the army on the very first day of the riot. . Hossaina, op. cit. , pp. 136-137. Tuker corroborates this refusal, saying that “Brigadier Sixsmith gave Mr Suhrawardy the usual reply that the troops best fulfilled their task by keeping open the main routes and increased their effectiveness most economically by throwing out mobile patrols from these main arteries.” See his book, While memory serves, op. cit., p. 158
But Governor Burrows rejected the demand, primarily to divert the strong anti-British sentiments, generated during the Rashid Ali Day, observed in Calcutta in June 1945 and which he hoped would worsen Hindu-Muslim relations.115
Captain Ali was a member of the Indian National Army, which had been created by Subash Chandra Bose to fight the British during the Second World War. He was caught, tried and sentenced to a seven-year jail term. Captain Ali had sought Muslim League support during his trial and Suhrawardy, defying a government ban, headed a large protest procession, along with other top League and Congress leaders.116
116. Prominent leaders were Abul Hashim, Sarat Chandra Bose, Surendra Mohan Bose and Kiron Shankar Roy. See ibid,. p. 137.
The Governor also turned down Suhrawardy’s suggestion to put pickets between Hindu and Muslim localities, creating a bulwark which would help to separate the two communities (a suggestion adopted much later, when the damage had already been done and a number of Muslim localities had been destroyed and thousands of Muslims massacred). Instead, Burrows heeded the advice of the Commissioner of Police that the civil power was capable of dealing with the situation and that there was no need to deploy the army. It was only when Suhrawardy threatened to resign that the Governor reluctantly pretended to agree and three or four days later merely ordered the army to stand by. Suhrawardy, accompanying the Governor and the army commander on a tour of inspection on 18 August, showed them an area of Calcutta, Suvabazaar , which was strewn with the bodies of dead Muslims. This was predominantly a Hindu area, with some Muslim houses and shops. The army had had no knowledge that this was a riot area and the Commissioner of Police, himself, had had no information that there had been riots there. It was a “big discovery” of “wholesale slaughter” of Muslims and the Governor and the General were deeply shocked.117
117. Tuker writes: “Buses and taxis were charging about loaded with Sikhs and Hindus armed with swords, iron bars and fire arms.” About the number of deads, Tuker writes: “1 do not know-no one knows-what the casualties were…All one can say is that the toll of dead ran into thousands. ” See his book, While memory serves, op. cit., pp. 161,163,165.
Appointment of Punjabi police. At that time Calcutta was a city of 6 million people but it had only a 1200-man police force of whom, only 63 were Muslims.118 118. Hossain, op. cit., pp. 136-137.
Of the officers, with the exception of one Deputy Commissioner and one Officer-in-Charge, the remainder were Hindus.Hossain, op. cit., pp. 136-137.
The riot had spread so far that even government officials were not beyond direct involvement. The 1200-man police force was, therefore, not only too small to cope with the situation but suspect in its loyalty as well. In this situation Suhrawardy decided to appoint 1,200 trained Muslim Punjabi Sepahis to achieve equity in the balance of the city’s police force.Hossain, op. cit., pp. 136-137.
Hindu leaders protested against this to the Governor, who asked Suhrawardy to desist from recruiting Muslim Punjabi Sepahis. Instead, he suggested recruitment of the same number of trained Muslim Bengali Sepahis. Suhrawardy argued that trained Muslim Bengali Sepahis could not easily be found and that he needed trained forces immediately to contain the riots. He also argued that the police force of Calcutta was composed of Gurkhas, Sikhs, Rajputs and Jats, and there was no Hindu Bengali. He agreed to appoint an equal number of Muslim and Hindu Bengalis only after dismissing the existing force. However, the Governor did not agree to this proposal and urged him not to appoint trained Muslim Punjabi Sepahis. Burrows finally consented to his proposal only when the Prime Minister again threatened to resign on this issue.Hossain, op. cit., pp. 136-137.
Suhrawardy immediately recruited 1,200 trained Muslim Punjabi Sepahis to keep a balance in the police force and ordered Muslim Officers-in-Charge to be posted in 21 of the 22 thanas. He personally took charge of the Police Control Room from one British Officer and mobilized the police force himself to quell the riots.
There were hundreds of occasions when Suhrawardy himself, often clandestinely clad in the uniform of a European military officer, drove through the affected localities to save the lives of the defenceless victims, Muslims and Hindus alike. Suhrawardy’s critic, Hassan Ispahani, while giving a pen-picture of this carnage, praises his role in bringing the riot under control. He says: “I have not seen a man work so hard and act so swiftly to try and control a conflagration as Suhrawardy did.”Ispahani, Hassan, Qaid-e-Azam as I knew him, Forward Publications Trust, Karachi, Pakistan, 1966, p. 193.
During the riots he arranged free lodging and food for many Hindu families, including ninety-five Hindustani milkmen, his own Hindu haircutter Nogen Sheel and Hindu washerman Kunja Dhopa.Rahman, op. cit., pp. 170-171.
Among Suhrawardy’s trusted personal attendants was Shibu, also a Hindu from Orissa, who served him most faithfully even during those troubled years. Peace soon returned to the riot-torn city.
Peace emissary. The riots perturbed the British government. Viceroy Lord Wavell visited Calcutta on 25 August and saw the carnage himself.Huda, M.N., Suhrawardy-ke jamon dekhecchi (As I saw Suhrawardy), Ittefaq: Suhrawardy ed., op. cit., p. 158.
The Muslim community of Calcutta covered the city with thousands of posters, symbolically written in red ink, charging him with the responsibility for the riot and calling upon him to leave.Ahmada , op. cit., pp. 148-149.
Dhaka received him with the same slogans. The Viceroy wanted to know from Prime Minister Suhrawardy how he could be held responsible for the riot.Ahmada , op. cit., p. 149.
Suhrawardy explained that the riot was a consequence of the formation of the interim government without Muslim League representation and the deeply-held Muslim belief of a deliberate British creation of Hindu-Muslim misunderstanding as a rationale to hand over power only to the Congress Party.Ahmada , op. cit.
He further warned that what had happened in Calcutta would repeat itself all over India unless the British government changed its policy. Suhrawardy also convinced him that a united India was impossible and cooperation of the Muslim League was essential if India was to be saved from civil war. Before he left Bengal, Lord Wavell asked Suhwardy to work as an emissary between himself and Jinnah.128. Ahsana, op. cit., pp. 20-21; Ahmada, op. cit., p. 149; Ahmadb, op. cit., p. 72.
Suhrawardy saw Jinnah in Bombay on 6 September and Lord Wavell in Delhi two days later, and succeeded in bringing about a rapprochement between them. They first met on 16 September in Delhi. Lord Wavell assured Jinnah that he was ready to accept the Muslim League demand, and the Muslim League announced on 15 October its decision to join the interim government headed by Pandit Nehru.In the interim ministry Sri Jogendra Nath Mondal was nominated from Bengal which was a big farce in the then political situation and shows how apathy and anti-Bengali were the Muslim League leaders from other provinces, especially Jinnah. Suhrawardy called this an injustice to Bengal, but Jinnah did it.
On this occasion Jinnah admitted that Suhrawardy had saved the country from a perilous situation.130. Ahsana, op. cit., p. 21.
Here is some more information about the riots.
Relying on secret documents of the British Government released in 1967, the legendary constitutional authority, H M Seervai, concluded, “Gandhi used non-violence as a political weapon, and was prepared to support, or connive at, violence to secure political goals.” (Constitutional Law of India, Supplement to Third Edition, 1988, Pg 143 of Introduction). Seervai cites the following in support of his statement:
1) In mid 1918, Gandhi supported the War Conference main resolution of recruiting Indians to fight on the side of Britain and her allies if it ensured the acceptance of Congress-Muslim League scheme for Home Rule.
2) Gandhi wrote to the Viceory that he wanted to be “Recruiter-in-Chief” for the Empire
3) Gandhi stated in an interview to News Chronicle, London, that the Viceroy could remain in charge of military operations and India could be used as a base for such military operations provided that a National Government was immediately formed.
4) In an interview with Lord Wavell on August 27, 1946, Gandhi told him that “If India wants a bloodbath, she shall have it.”
Communal riots in 1947: Who were the architects & why?
Tracing the roots of the 1947 riots:The roots of the riots in 1947 date back to 1906:
At the request of the Muslims of Bengal, in 1905, Lord Curzon announced the partition of Bengal. It was the beginning of of the Muslim awakening from the long slumber of self-pity and “reveling in the glory of yester year”. The British wanted to divide Bengal, to allow the Muslims some sense of self rule.Partition of Bengal’s implications for Bangladesh & Pakistan then and now
Map of Bengal 1906: THe partition of Bengal and the riots
The Muslims formed a majority in all of Bengal (which included Bengal, Bihar and Orissa). East Bengal, present day Bangladesh was a Muslim Majority area and West Bengal at that time included both present day Orissa and Bihar where also Bengalis would become minorities. Bengal was the epi-centre of Indian Nationalism. Bengali ideas influenced whole of India. The Muslim Bengalis Waqar ul Mulk, Mohsin ul Mulk had led a campaign for Muslim rights.
According to the 1941 census 53.4 per cent of the Bengalis were Muslims and the rest Hindus, with a minuscule proportion of Buddhists and Christians thrown in. The province was divided into five administrative divisions, which were further subdivided into districts, as follows : Presidency division, consisting of the districts of 24-Parganas, Nadia, Murshidabad, Jessore and Khulna and the Presidency town of Calcutta ; Burdwan division, with the districts of Howrah, Hooghly, Midnapore, Bankura, Burdwan and Birbhum ; Rajshahi division, with the districts of Rajshahi, Pabna, Malda, Dinajpur, Bogra, Rangpur, Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling ; Dacca division, with the districts of Dacca, Faridpur, Barisal and Mymensingh (the largest district in British India) ; and Chittagong division with the districts of Chittagong, Chittagong Hill Tracts, Noakhali and Tipperah. Apart from these districts of Bengal, the people of Sylhet district of Assam, adjoining the Tipperah and Mymensingh districts of Bengal, those of the princely state of Cooch Behar adjoining Jalpaiguri and Rangpur, and a large number among the people of the princely state of Tripura, and among those of the districts of Manbhum nad Singhbhum in Bihar also largely spoke Bangla, and therefore were Bengalis. A map of the erstwhile province of Bengal, as it existed till the midnight of 14th August 1947 is at Fig. 1. The Bangla-speaking areas outside Bengal are also shown in the same map.
There was a vague and unofficial division of the province into three parts : East, West and North. West included the Presidency and Burdwan divisions ; North, the Rajshahi division ; and East, the Dacca and Chittagong divisions. There were substantial differences in the geography and the culture of the three parts. The West, particularly Burdwan division, had no navigable rivers, and some parts of the division were semi-arid ; however, the division had very large reserves of coal in its Ranigunge coalfields which had sired a large number of heavy industries in the region, including an integrated steel plant at Burnpur. The North was bounded by two great rivers, Padma and Jamuna (different from the Jumna or Yamuna which flows by Delhi and Agra ; this Jamuna is the Bengali incarnation of the mighty Brahmaputra of Assam). The region was criss-crossed by a number of swift-flowing tributaries of the two rivers. The East, as opposed to the two, was a low-lying flood plain, being a delta created by three huge rivers : Ganga, a snow-fed river, rechristened after entering Bengal as Padma; Brahmaputra, ditto, Jamuna ; and Meghna, a short but wide river fed only by rain, but from some of the rainiest places in the world, including Cherrapunjee. Certainly the major rivers, and practically all their tributaries and distributaries were navigable right through the year. In fact the usual means of locomotion in British East Bengal used to be the country boat, the nouka.
To oppose the partition in 1906, Swadeshi movement came into action. The RSS already mobilized used this as an excuse to create mayhem. Under presrrue of the Swadeshi movement and Hindu mahasaba Lord Curzon cancelled the partition of Bengal.
Here is a report from Bangladesh about the riots. I had the opportunity to go through the write-up of Tilak R. Sikri in the Washington Post captioned “”India’s Survivors of Partition Begin to Break Long Silence” that referred to the untold sufferings of the people who were the victims of communal riots that made millions of people homeless and hundreds of thousands of them killed. In recalling the fateful scar of communal riot he mentioned how the Hindus suffered, but he did not mention what happened to the Muslims who suffered more tragically, as they (Muslims) were minority and the victims of the Hindus and their Sikh allies in Punjab. Tilkar failed to mention who were the masterminds of that communal riot that made the partition of the subcontinent inevitable.
Muslims, even their leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah, could be happy if the subcontinent remained undivided. They opted for a separate homeland for the Muslims when Hindu leaders denied to provide equitable rights to Muslims in independent India.
Hindu leaders agreed on partition of the subcontinent, as they thought and hoped that the dismemberment of India would be a temporary arrangement and reunification of India was a matter of time. History says that the riot of 1947 was masterminded to divide Bengal and Punjab, which were Muslim majority provinces at that time. Riots would not have occurred if they were not politically motivated. Neither innocent people would have been displaced or massacred; if Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister and his preceptor Gandhi would not had set a pre-condition that division of India “must mean a division also of Bengal and Punjab.” (See Nehru’s letter written on May 23, 1947, to Ashraffuddin Ahmad Chowdhury, the Congress President of Tripura, now Comilla, and district.) Nehru also did not keep secret the goal of his demand.
He in the same letter informed Ashraffuddin, “That is the only way to have a United India soon after. If we have a United India straightway, without such division that will, of course be very welcome.”
It is known to all that the Sikhs of Punjab and the Bengalees of Bengal wanted to have independent Punjab and Bengal. Sikhs of the Punjab were incited to stand against the Muslims and they were instigated that they would become the slaves of the Muslims if they would side with the Muslims for an independent sovereign Punjab, as the Muslims were slightly Majority over the Sikh in Punjab. Hindus joined hand with the Sikhs in anti-Muslim riot in Punjab. In this way division of Punjab was made inevitable.
When a joint movement of the Bengalee Hindus and Muslims in favour of United Independent Bengal got momentum, both Gandhi and Nehru vehemently opposed the idea. To break the unity of the Bengalee
Muslims and the Hindus Nehru and his disciples warned that Muslims would dominate the Hindus, if Bengal remained undivided. They demanded that Hindu majority region of Bengal Must merge with
India. Nehru publicly declared, each village, even each house of Bengal would have to be divided on communal line. To disunite the Bengalee Muslims and the Hindus and deter the emergence of United
Independent Bengal communal riots were masterminded.
It is easily understandable who were behind the riots of 1947. There were originated due to anti-Muslim communal feelings of the anti-Muslim cliques. Hundreds of thousands of anti-Muslim riots that occurred in India since 1947 unequivocally justify who were and are communal and terrorists. Tilak though in his write-up condemned communal riot, utterly failed to rise above his communal feelings, which was amply exposed in his writing. Communal riots in 1947: Who were the architects & why? Mohammad Zainal Abedin
It was Jinnah and Bose that were responsible for the British leaving South Asia–not Gandhi. http://rupeenews.com/2008/10/06/the-british-left-south-asia-becuase-of-jinnah-bose-not-gandhi/
Here a few quotes from this great freedom fighter who was a friend of Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
“…It is our duty to pay for our liberty with our own blood. The freedom that we shall win through our sacrifice and exertions, we shall be able to preserve with our own strength……” Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose to the Indian National Army in Malaya/Singapore
“Give me blood, and I shall give you freedom!” July 4, 1944, Bose
Gandhi was condemned by the 109th Congress of the United States of America for his racist bigotry. This was just a few years ago–they took into account his entire life.
Gandhi was criticize by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and refused a Nobel Peace Prize which it thought Mr. Gandhi did not deserve. It was a few weeks before his death. They scrutinized his life.
Gandhi achieved nothing–the British were going to leave South Asia anyway–just like they left Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma, and Lanka (no Gandhis there!!!).
Dalits don’t hate Gandhi because of his stick–they hate him for many many reasons–the one most important to them is that he did not outlaw the Caste system and kept them enslaved and Untouchable. That is why they never call themselves “Harijans”.
Gandhi like Akbar was wrong on many counts—on Dalits, brining religious symbols to Bharat, drumming out Muslims from INC, brining in bigots like Patel into the INC, allowing Patel to take over Hyderabad, killing 29,000 Indian National Army soldiers, assassinating Bose, asking Indian government to wage war on Pakistan, etc etc
Dr. Ambedkar, who told him: “Gandhi is the greatest enemy the untouchables have ever had in India.”
Subhash Chandra Bose’s Daughter about Gandhi: Very often Gandhi is portrayed as a saint, which he was not at all. In my opinion he was a very shrewd politician. He was a lawyer who really knew how to work the system and manipulate people in a positive sense. He certainly made my father resign as Congress president
It was not the fifty year old struggle hedonism in the Ashrams, or Gandhi’s salt antics that convinced the British to leave South Asia it was Direct Action, and the Indian National Army of Subash Chandra Bose. The countrywide opposition to British rule in which the Indian personnel of the three armies participated, crowned by the naval mutiny, was the direct cause of the decision to transfer power. ”
This is the condition of Akbar’s India.
The 1991 census figures show there were 3.45 percent dalits in the household sector, 7.11 percent in non-household industry (meaning factories), and 3.12 percent in the construction industry.http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32667
The reports by Indian Committees are usually do not depict the horrid conditions on the ground. Even the meagre gains are being opposed by the Bigoted racists who want to keep the malichs out of the mainstream
Khandwa, Dec 25 (PTI) Vishwa Hindu Parishad has said they would launch a country-wide agitation if the Centre implements the Ranganath Mishra Commission report, which has recommended reservation for minorities.
VHP will strongly oppose the implementation of Ranganath Mishra Commission, which has recommended 10 per cent reservation for Muslims and five per cent for Christians, International General Secretary of VHP, Pravin Togadia, told reporters here last evening.
The 450 million Dalits are not allowed into homes–read the international and Arundhati Roy’s reports on the matter.
As a result of the work of Jinnah, at least two thirds of the Muslim escaped the enslavement (see Sachaar Report), but the Dalits remain in bondage.
Mr. Singh’s ephiphany about Jinnah’s charcater is echoed by in rare forthright admisison of “The Times of India“ (TOI) which provokes its leaders with the following headlines “Jaswant’s view on Jinnah has scholarly backing“. But the TOI has it only partially right. The most accurate source on Mohammad Ali Jinnah is not Ayesha Jalal’s critical analysis of the man. The best source of information on Jinnah is Stanley Wolpert (if you must have a gora as a source) and the Mohammad Ali Jinnah Foundation of Pakisan. The Pakistani historians, Salima Karim (Mohammad Ali Jinnah was not secular), Dani and others have meticulously researched every aspect of the life of the founder of the nation. Of course the research that portrays him in a good light is not sensationalized by triumphant Bharati media.
It is a lot easier to fall back to accept the stereotype of Jinnah than to see him for what he was, Asia’s most brilliant barrister who made a constitutional case for Pakistan and won his argument against Gandhi, Nehru, the entire Congress and the British Empire.
Fifty-two years ago, on Jan. 30, 1948, Mohandas Gandhi was shot dead by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu extremist. Godse and his friend Narayan Apte were hanged. His brother Gopal and two others were sentenced to life imprisonment for their part in the conspiracy.
Gopal Godse remained in jail for 18 years and now, at 80, lives with his wife in a small apartment in Pune. He is still proud of his role in the murder. Although Godse is largely ignored in India and rarely talks to journalists, he agreed to speak with TIME Delhi correspondent Meenakshi Ganguly.
TIME: What happened in January 1948? Godse: On Jan. 20, Madanlal Pahwa exploded a bomb at Gandhi’s prayer meeting in Delhi. It was 50 m away from Gandhi. [The other conspirators] all ran away from the place. Madanlal was caught there. Then there was a tension in our minds that we had to finish the task before the police caught us. Then Nathuram [Gopal's brother] took it on himself to do the thing. We only wanted destiny to help us — meaning we should not be caught on the spot before he acted.
TIME: Why did you want to kill Gandhi? Godse: Gandhi was a hypocrite. Even after the massacre of the Hindus by the Muslims, he was happy. The more the massacres of the Hindus, the taller his flag of secularism.
TIME: Did you ever see Gandhi? Godse: Yes.
TIME: Did you attend his meetings? Godse: Yes.
TIME: Can you explain how he created his mass following? Godse: The credit goes to him for maneuvering the media. He captured the press. That was essential. How Gandhi walked, when he smiled, how he waved — all these minor details that the people did not require were imposed upon them to create an atmosphere around Gandhi. And the more ignorant the masses, the more popular was Gandhi. So they always tried to keep the masses ignorant.
TIME: But surely it takes more than good publicity to create a Gandhi? Godse: There is another thing. Generally in the Indian masses, people are attracted toward saintism. Gandhi was shrewd to use his saintdom for politics. After his death the government used him. The government knew that he was an enemy of Hindus, but they wanted to show that he was a staunch Hindu. So the first act they did was to put "Hey Ram" into Gandhi’s dead mouth.
TIME: You mean that he did not say "Hey Ram" as he died? Godse: No, he did not say it. You see, it was an automatic pistol. It had a magazine for nine bullets but there were actually seven at that time. And once you pull the trigger, within a second, all the seven bullets had passed. When these bullets pass through crucial points like the heart, consciousness is finished. You have no strength.
When Nathuram saw Gandhi was coming, he took out the pistol and folded his hands with the pistol inside it. There was one girl very close to Gandhi. He feared that he would hurt the girl. So he went forward and with his left hand pushed her aside and shot. It happened within one second. You see, there was a film and some Kingsley fellow had acted as Gandhi. Someone asked me whether Gandhi said, "Hey Ram." I said Kingsley did say it. But Gandhi did not. Because that was not a drama.
TIME: Many people think Gandhi deserved to be nominated TIME’s Person of the Century. [He was one of two runners-up, after Albert Einstein.] Godse: I name him the most cruel person for Hindus in India. The most cruel person! That is how I term him.
TIME: Is there anything that you admire about Gandhi? Godse: Firstly, the mass awakening that Gandhi did. In our school days Gandhi was our idol. Secondly, he removed the fear of prison. He said it is different to go into prison for a theft and different to go in for satyagraha (civil disobedience). As youngsters, we had our enthusiasm, but we needed some channel. We took Gandhi to be our channel. We don’t repent for that.
TIME: Did you not admire his principles of non-violence? Godse: Non-violence is not a principle at all. He did not follow it. In politics you cannot follow non-violence. You cannot follow honesty. Every moment, you have to give a lie. Every moment you have to take a bullet in hand and kill someone. Why was he proved to be a hypocrite? Because he was in politics with his so-called principles. Is his non-violence followed anywhere? Not in the least. Nowhere.
TIME: What was the most difficult thing about killing Gandhi? Godse: The greatest hurdle before us was not that of giving up our lives or going to the gallows. It was that we would be condemned both by the government and by the public. Because the public had been kept in the dark about what harm Gandhi had done to the nation. How he had fooled them!
TIME: Did the people condemn you? Godse: Yes. People in general did. Because they had been kept ignorant.
TIME (FEBRUARY 14, 2000 VOL. 155 NO. 6)
W E B – O N L Y I N T E R V I E W "His Principle of Peace Was Bogus" Gopal Godse, co-conspirator in Gandhi’s assassination and brother of the assassin, looks back in anger–and without regret
‘Gandhi used to systematically fool people. So we killed him’
The lights go off as you reach the dilapidated building in Santa Cruz, in Bombay’s western suburbs. With great difficulty you navigate the stairs and knock on a first-floor door.
"What do you want," asks the lady who opened the door.
You tell her you have come to meetGopal Godse.
"Yes, I’m here," a voice comes from a corner of the dark room. The lady brings a lighted candle and you see the 76-year-old man who underwent 18 years imprisonment for conspiring in Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination.
"I’m sorry the lights are off," Nathuram Godse’s brother says, "You know, this is India and even after 50 years of Independence we have not improved.
"Since Independence our people are accustomed to forget history. Today no one is bothered about the Partition. And no one wants to reunite India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
"Gandhi systematically fooled the people by saying, ‘I’ll accept the Partition of the country over my dead body.’ But still he partitioned India. So we killed him…"
Godse, in an exclusive interview withFirdaus Syed Ashraf:
Do you ever regret Mahatma Gandhi’s killing?
No, never. Gandhi used to claim the Partition would be over his dead body. So after Partition when he didn’t die, we killed him. Usually an assassination of a leader is either for personal benefit or to acquire power. We killed Gandhi because he was harmful to India. And it was a selfless act. No one paid us a single penny for it. Our love for the motherland made us do it. We are not ashamed of it. Gandhi should have been honest to admit that his life was a failure.
You see, right from Pakistan and Bangladesh every Muslim is a converted Hindu. Gandhi’s appeasement attitude (towards the Muslims) went far too much. That was why we killed him. Two hundred and fifty thousand Hindus were killed in Noakhali in October 1946. Hindu women were forced to remove their sindhoor and do Muslim rituals. And Gandhi said, ‘Hindus must bow their heads if Muslims want to kill them. We should follow the principle of ahimsa (non-violence).’ How can any sensible person tolerate this? Our action was not for a handful of people — it was for all the refugees who came from Pakistan.
So, till this day, I have never regreted being one of the conspirators in Gandhi’s assassination. In fact, many of Nathuram’s friends told me after my release, ‘Nathuram ni gadhav pana kela, tyani majha chance ghalavla‘ (Nathuram did you an injustice. He made you miss your chance to kill Gandhi).
Did your family undergo any social pressure after the assassination?
Yes, very much. No one used to be ready to marry girls from my family. So we decided that the first thing we should put across to the bridegroom was that we are related to Nathuram Godse. It is only now that people appreciate our honesty. Now they are ready for marriage (into my family).
If the Muslim League could influence the Muslims in 1947, why was it that the Hindu Mahasabha could not influence Hindus?
(That was) because I don’t have any leadership quality. My talent is to write. And I have convinced my readers with my writing.
Unfortunately, the so-called secular Hindu leaders from the Congress have been ruling the masses since 1885. And they have ruled the country for another 50 years. It is only now that Hindus have become conscious (about the Congress). They have thrown the party out from Maharashtra and all over India.
You cannot gauge a nation in merely five decades. It took 500 years for the Christians to drive away Muslims from Europe. Muslims ruled right up to Spain and Portugal. I don’t know how many years it will take for Hindus to rule the entire Bharat. It may be a decade, or it may be a century.
Did you ever contest elections?
Yes, I contested from Ranchi in Bihar. People asked me why I was contesting there. I said my slogan is ‘Ab ke bar Ranchi se agli bar Karachi se‘. (This election I will contest from Ranchi and the next from Karachi). I was able to secure only 7,000 votes because I did not have any mass support.
According to Nathuram the Sindhu was the only river which was pure as Gandhi’s ashes were not immersed there’
What is the national mainstream?
I can give you an example: There was some inauguration of a dam in Kerala. A Muslim minister was asked to light the lamp. He refused, saying his religion does not permit him to do that! That’s hypocrisy. Whenever you find benefits you keep your Islam away. And when you are asked to light a lamp you say it’s against your religion! That’s why I say Muslims in a mob are not in the mainstream.
Veer Savarkar once said, "If a Vithal is worshipped by a Harijan and you say that he is polluted, then he is no Vithal at all."
How can there be a mainstream in India when there are so many castes? A Maharashtrian has a different caste and culture from that of his counterpart in West Bengal.
Britishers created this caste system. Even in Maharashtra they wanted to create a split between the brahmins and the others. Laloo Prasad Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav are from the same caste. But still they quarrel. Why? Because they are hungry for power. What has tied them and every Indian together is the common culture. That is what we call Hindutva. For example, a marriage between a Mahar in Maharashtra and a brahmin in West Bengal. They come from the same mantras. That is what we call culture and Hindutva.
The most essential thing is why we are together. Because of language? No. Because of our common culture. And that is why from north to south people are going to attend the Amarnath Yatra. Once you forget your culture, the mere existence of the geographical boundary which is termed India will be of no use.
What were your experiences in jail?
When we took the step, we were sure of the consequences. We took it because we loved our nation. Bhagat Singh did not want to liberate his ancestral land. He wanted to liberate Lahore, Pune and the entire nation. So he sacrificed his life. Revolution is integrated with its leader. A man who sacrifices his life is not bothered about petty things. We knew Gandhi’s leadership was not good for the nation. Someone had to jump in the fire. So we did it.
Veer Savarkar was made to do the work which bullocks did in an oil mill. And he did it. Why? Because he was dedicated to the nation. All revolutionaries have to make personal sacrifice. Luckily for us, all the jailers knew we were simple men. They knew our cause. So they never troubled us. And I never violated the prison rules. I studied about life imprisonment and wrote about it.
Can you tell me about your last meeting with Nathuram Godse?
I met him on November 13, 1948 in Ambala jail. It was the day before his execution and there were 20 others with me. Both he and Narayan Apte were jolly.
Nathuram told us that his ashes must not be immersed in any river in India — it must be scattered only in the Sindhu in Pakistan. His explanation was that Gandhi’s ashes have been immersed in all the rivers of the world — even in the Nile, Volga and Thames. But the Pakistan government refused to immerse his ashes in the Sindhu, saying they didn’t want to pollute it with the ashes of a kafir. According to Nathuram the Sindhu was the only river which was pure as Gandhi’s ashes were not immersed there.
How do you see India’s future?
(Laughs) You make me the prime minister and half the problem of this country will be solved. But I think we will improve only if our leaders adopt a selfless attitude. Take for example the education policy. We must set up a target: in 15 years we will educate so many people. And only those people who can read and write will be allowed to vote. In such an eventuality, politicians will get busy educating the masses in order to get votes.
Another problem is the large number of candidates. And many of them are uneducated. We must make some norms to prevent this. Only then we will improve. To date, nobody has any thought of the nation. Otherwise you would never have heard of recovering more than Rs 30 million from a politician’s flat. They don’t have any integration with the nation. They are only integrated with their family and sons-in-law.
What is your opinion about secularism in India?
All these 50 years we practised a mockery of secularism. The magistrate has to ask about the religion of a person before giving a judgment. If a man is a Hindu he gets one kind of justice and if he is a Muslim he gets another. Can you call this secularism? This is what is happening in our country. Even in the Property Act you have different rules for Muslims.
What about poverty in India?
Poverty has increased because resources have not increased. On one side you want to increase the life of a person. On the other, you don’t want to increase the resources. If you have noticed, during the advertisement of family planning on television you never see a Muslim woman saying ‘Hum do Hamare do‘ (We are two, ours two). And these secularists say that family planning is applicable to all of us! I don’t understand why former prime minister Narasimha Rao says ‘If there is a Common Civil Code riots will start all over the country’.
Which do you prefer — the BJP or Shiv Sena?
The Shiv Sena. The BJP is more hesitant to stand by Hinduism. The Shiv Sena supports the killing of Gandhi. People accept them as a Hindu party. When I was honoured, the BJP kept away from it. In Maharashtra the Sena has more respect than the BJP.
Mumbai: The reason why Raj Thackeray admires both Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi is "the way they shook up societies and created uproar," according to the official website of MNS.
However, on Monday, it was the admiration for the Fuehrer which was on display in the Maharashtra Assembly as MNS MLAs bashed up another Legislator in the House. The MNS website has an interesting conversation with the enfant terrible of Maharashtra politics. Excerpts:
"Question: You say you admire Gandhi, who preached non-violence. Then why do your followers heed to violence? The answer: You need to communicate with your opponent in a language they understand, a language they can comprehend."
Beating up SP MLA Abu Asim Azmi for not taking oath in Marathi as he could only understand the language of violence was the message given by Raj and his men, who were mute spectators when some other MLAs did not take oath in the language and instead opted for English.
Hitler’s stormtroopers persecuted Jews and people who opposed the Fuehrer. Raj and Azmi have been at loggerheads since the MNS chief launched his anti-north Indian stir.
Raj told PTI in 2005, "When it comes to organisational skills, there are few who can rival Hitler. Leave aside his negative aspects like the barbaric annihilation of millions of Jews. There are several other things about Hitler, which any leader would. http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_raj-thackeray-admires-hitler-mahatma-gandhi-mns-website_1310381
There are many types of attacks against Pakistan. There are the Bharati (aka Indian) sponsored and armed TTP mercenaries who blow up innocent civilians and attack the Pakistan Army. The bloody attacks attempt to create pessimism and despair.
The other attacks are direct and veiled threats that come from Bharati (aka Indian) military leadres like General Kapoor and from Bharati politicians like Mr. Modi, Adhvani etc.
However the most insidious attacks on Pakistan come from so called “journalists” who are paid to assassinate the Pakistani ideology, tarnish the Pakistani icons, and put a bad spin on any and every event that happens in Pakistan.
Mr. Akbar’s writings stink of Pakistanphobia, and the stake stench affects young minds who grow up in India–with Mr. Akbars distorted view of Pakistan. This patronizing Akbarist groupthink is what keeps South Asia in penury.
M. J. Akbar is one of those pugnacious Indians who makes his living berating Pakistan. All his columns, wheter discussing Kashmir or global warming end up in a rhetorical diatribe against Pakistan, its leaders and its “raison de etre”. Propagandists like Mr. Akbar live in their own cacoon world, in their own fake sense of reality. These Indian Orientalists have learened well from their British master the Orientlaists. Their typical weapon is to first demonize Pakistan, paint them in a certain manner, and then proffer a solution based on the false image.
This is what we wrote about him several years ago when he was fired from Asia Tribune:
“Individuals have options. They can either succumb to commercial interests, or become opinion makers and a change agents. Some sign Faustian deals to rise the ladder of success. Others do not. Some can use the power of the pen to reduce bigotry, and international tensions. He could have been an international writer and columnist. He has chosen to be critic-extraordinaire of Pakistan. Mr. M. J. Akbar is not that visionary. His agenda is simple–make money, on the backs of a perceived enemy.
He doesn’t care, that his animus creates hatred and is responsible for lives lost. Mr. Akbar could have created unbiased reporting in Indian journalism. He did not. He jumped on the bandwagon of chauvinism, contemptuousness and xenophobia. As a result most of the “Indian” media ports more views and news, the main theme—impending doom for Pakistan.
One can imagine his obituary—”known for his anti-Pakistan rhetoric” and “below the belt hits on Muslim separatism.”
Astonishingly, he discusses “democracy” as a theme in all his writings but does not respect the Muslim electorate that created Pakistan. His bias is so clear on Kashmir, Siachin, Sir Creek and every illegal act committed by his government. He calls Pakistan a “theocracy” without understanding the facts and figures of Pakistani politics. Amazingly he either doesn’t know about the lack of support for Islamic parties in Pakistan, or doesn’t mention is to score points with his Hinduvata buddies which help him sell his books.
M.J. Akbar aka, Mobashar Jawed Akbar is one of the idle hands that can type. This does not make him worth reading, unless of course one is into self flagellation. Mr. Akbar, congratulations on getting fired from the Asia Tribune. Now two other firings are waiting for you.
Your 15 minutes of fame are over. It is only so long that your anti-Pakistani rhetoric can sell. After a while it becomes stale. It is a rarity when Mr. Akbar does not berate Pakistan in any of his articles. Whether he is discussing the internal happenings of the Indian elections, or a discussion of religion, Mr. Akbar makes it a point to unleash his venomous tirade against Pakistan. Mostly without reason.
He does indulge in some verity in his book on Gandhi, quoted on this site, but he quickly slips into his comfort zone—lambasting Pakistan, Jinnah, and everything Pakistani.
I guess he wants to be more Catholic than the Pope and prove his “Indian-ness” to his readers. Why would authors sell their souls to be commercially viable.
It is sad coming from a person whose name is Akbar, but one is not surprised he writes what sells in “Indian” papers.
He is acerbic, has peripheral knowledge about the Muslim point of view in the history of the Subcontinent, and is not balanced. He does not even have the decency to respond to letters written to him.”
Mr. Akbar has been writing his nonsense for decades. Anti-Pakistanism is his passport to corporate–which in 1971 was hungry for “Hindu mind with a Muslim name“. While Mr. Mobashar Jawed Akabar has a Muslim name he hides the Muslim names under the initials M.J. His thoughts and his actions might as well be those coming from Nehru. An apologist for the Nehru dynasty he cherry picks quotes and doles them out to Indians as fact. His most notable misquote is about Iqbal. While ignoring Israr e Khudi, Bal e Jibreel, Shikwa and Jawab Shikwa and Dr. Iqbal’s entire body of knowledge in favor of a Muslim nationhood, Mr. Akbar chooses to portray the impression that Iqbal somehow was an Indian.
Mr. Akbar is typical of the RSS and BJP viewpoint on Pakistan–it should not have been, it should not be, and it is going away. The likes of Mr. Akbar have never reocgnized the existence of Pakistan–they never will–only a casket will shut down his racist Pakistanphobia (may he live long and prosper).
There is still time for Mr. Akbar, but experience has shown that people like him do not change. Hubris, ego and a false sense of righteousness stand in the way of humility, humbleness and the right path.
Let us take his current article on Kashmir–which also ended up his his usual claptrap against Pakistan.
His tall claim of “India has accepted the fact of Pakistan” flies in the face of six years of Indian belligerence, war, and sabotage against Pakistan which goes on as we read this article. Of course the statements of Indira Gandhi “NWFP belongs to India and Punjab is along the way” narrated by Henry Kissinger destroy the credibility of of MR. M.J. Akbar.
In his current artilce on Kashmir, India, Pakistan and peace he attempts to place the “Two Nation Theory in the lap of Quaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah–forgetting the Hindu (Haldiram, Sarawarkar, and Golwalkar) origins of the Two Nation Theory as espoused by the Shuddi (conversion of all Muslims) and Shangram (expulsion of all Muslim) movements of the 40s.
As an Indian apologist, he tries to gloss over the fact that India now claims that the “Article of Accession” of Kashmir is now lost, if it ever existed. He also does not mention the fact that Indian forces had already gone to Kashmir, before the Raja of Kashmir left Srinagar.
Balakanizing Pakistan is an ideal of not only the blatant Pakistanphobes like Bharat Verma. Self-hating Islamphobes like M.J. Akbar wants to push Kashmir and the rest of Pakistani provinces into the fate of Sikkim. Instead of making Pakistan stronger, this non-practicing non-religious man has spent a lifetime trying to weaken the “Qila of Islam” (Islam’s fortress. Mr. M.J. Akbar is doing the work of Lord Clive and Mir Sadiq and Mir Jaffar. He thus promotes a three nation, a four nation and five nation theory for Pakistan–but does not shed any linght on the more than 100 nations that have been subjugated by Delhi and who yearn for liberty and freedom.
Mr. Akbar focuses on terror but forgets to recall Bharat’s role in the creation of, arming of, training of more than 80,000 Hindu soldiers for the Mukti Bahni (Source General Manekshaw). Mr. M.J. Akbar also forgets to mention the fact that Bharat was behind the creation of the most cruel terror group on the planet– the LETTE–unleashed on the Sinhalese Buddhists of Lanka. Mr. Akbar also glosses of Indian support for the TTP terrorists, and the murderers of the BLA.
Mr. Akbar mention the “idea” of Pakistan, but does not mention that Bharati RAW is behind the battering, and his writings are in the forefront. He doesn’t mention that the demand for 50 states is just an excuse to seek independence from Delhi. He does not mention the fact that there are 89 insurgencies raging in almost every state of Bharat. How well do Bharatis get along with each other?
Bharat is a failed state by any measure–75% of the population lives under $2 er day. 450 million Dalits are untouchable. 10 million baby girls are murdered before and right after birth because they are not male. Half the population of Mumbia, Delhi, Lucknow, Hyderabad, Benaras, Kolkota etc live, procreate, are born on and die on the sidewalks. To add insult to injury the cities have institutionalized the renting of asphalt and the city charges rent to generations of Bharatis who have been raised on the footpaths. All this while Delhi purchases an obsolete rusty Aircraft carrier for $2 Billion and hundreds of Flying Coffins worth billions of Dollars. Some democracy and some country!
Mr. Akbar discusses the origins of the word India from the Indus, and forgets to mention the absurdity of naming a country after a river in another country. If Dlehi had any sense it would name the country Ghanghia (after the Ganges).
Mr. Akbar’s most laughable claim is when he says that it took five decades os struggle to grant Indians their independence, and it took only 7 years to create Pakistan. Nonsensical circular logic. Mr. Akbar also forgets to mention that it was a joint Hindu-Muslim struggle against the British. One would have to show him the charter of the Indian national Congress when it was formed 125 years ago–it was a British Club to perpetuate the empire.. One would have to remind Mr. Akbar that Mr. Gandhi was “the recrutier in Chief” for the British Empire–sending youth from South Asia as cannon fodder in defense of the empire.
If Mr. Akbar can quote anyone, it should be Prophet Mohmmad, the Caliphs, or Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
Come forward as servants of Islam, organise the people economically, socially, educationally and politically and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody. Muhammad Ali Jinnah
Pakistan not only means freedom and independence but the Muslim Ideology which has to be preserved, which has come to us as a precious gift and treasure and which, we hope other will share with us. Muhammad Ali Jinnah
“Our object should be peace within, and peace without. We want to live peacefully and maintain cordial friendly relations with our immediate neighbours and with the world at large.” Lahore, August 15th, 1947
“My message to you all is of hope, courage and confidence. Let us mobilize all our resources in a systematic and organized way and tackle the grave issues that confront us with grim determination and discipline worthy of a great nation.” Eid-ul-Azha Message to the Nation, October 24, 1947
“You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of manhood in your own native soil. With faith, discipline and selfless devotion to duty, there is nothing worthwhile that you cannot achieve.” Address to the officers and men of the 5th Heavy Ack Ack and 6th Light Ack Ack Regiments in Malir, Karachi, February 21, 1948
“That freedom can never be attained by a nation without suffering and sacrifice has been amply borne out by the recent tragic happenings in this subcontinent. We are in the midst of unparalleled difficulties and untold sufferings; we have been through dark days of apprehension and anguish; but I can say with confidence that with courage and self-reliance and by the Grace of God we shall emerge triumphant.”
Speech at a Mammoth Rally at the University Stadium, Lahore, October 30, 1947
“We should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamicsocial justice could find free play.”
Address to Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers of Pakistan Government, Karachi
October 11, 1947
“We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind” Speech at the opening ceremony of State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi
July 1, 1948
It was Jinnah and Bose that were responsible for the British leaving South Asia–not Gandhi. http://rupeenews.com/2008/10/06/the-british-left-south-asia-becuase-of-jinnah-bose-not-gandhi/
Here a few quotes from this great freedom fighter who was a friend of Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
“…It is our duty to pay for our liberty with our own blood. The freedom that we shall win through our sacrifice and exertions, we shall be able to preserve with our own strength……” Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose to the Indian National Army in Malaya/Singapore
“Give me blood, and I shall give you freedom!” July 4, 1944, Bose
Gandhi was condemned by the 109th Congress of the United States of America for his racist bigotry. This was just a few years ago–they took into account his entire life.
Gandhi was criticize by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and refused a Nobel Peace Prize which it thought Mr. Gandhi did not deserve. It was a few weeks before his death. They scrutinized his life.
Gandhi achieved nothing–the British were going to leave South Asia anyway–just like they left Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma, and Lanka (no Gandhis there!!!).
Dalits don’t hate Gandhi because of his stick–they hate him for many many reasons–the one most important to them is that he did not outlaw the Caste system and kept them enslaved and Untouchable. That is why they never call themselves “Harijans”.
Gandhi like Akbar was wrong on many counts—on Dalits, brining religious symbols to Bharat, drumming out Muslims from INC, brining in bigots like Patel into the INC, allowing Patel to take over Hyderabad, killing 29,000 Indian National Army soldiers, assassinating Bose, asking Indian government to wage war on Pakistan, etc etc
Dr. Ambedkar, who told him: “Gandhi is the greatest enemy the untouchables have ever had in India.”
Subhash Chandra Bose’s Daughter about Gandhi: Very often Gandhi is portrayed as a saint, which he was not at all. In my opinion he was a very shrewd politician. He was a lawyer who really knew how to work the system and manipulate people in a positive sense. He certainly made my father resign as Congress president
It was not the fifty year old struggle hedonism in the Ashrams, or Gandhi’s salt antics that convinced the British to leave South Asia it was Direct Action, and the Indian National Army of Subash Chandra Bose. The countrywide opposition to British rule in which the Indian personnel of the three armies participated, crowned by the naval mutiny, was the direct cause of the decision to transfer power. ”
This is the condition of Akbar’s India.
The 1991 census figures show there were 3.45 percent dalits in the household sector, 7.11 percent in non-household industry (meaning factories), and 3.12 percent in the construction industry.http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32667
The reports by Indian Committees are usually do not depict the horrid conditions on the ground. Even the meagre gains are being opposed by the Bigoted racists who want to keep the malichs out of the mainstream
Khandwa, Dec 25 (PTI) Vishwa Hindu Parishad has said they would launch a country-wide agitation if the Centre implements the Ranganath Mishra Commission report, which has recommended reservation for minorities.
VHP will strongly oppose the implementation of Ranganath Mishra Commission, which has recommended 10 per cent reservation for Muslims and five per cent for Christians, International General Secretary of VHP, Pravin Togadia, told reporters here last evening.
Other than Chaudhry Rehmat Ali and Liaqat Ali Khan, only two and a half Pakistani politicians have understtod the geostrategic position of Pakistan
“The idea of becoming subservient to India is abhorrent and that of cooperation with India, with the object of promoting tension with China, equally repugnant.” Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto
One was Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the other is Pervez Musharraf. Pervez Musharraf has deftly steered the ship of state away from carpet bombing and away from the rocks of hegemonistic Indian domination. Like Bhutto he has paid a heavy price for trying to keep “Pakistan’s interests first“. Amazing Tubelight Nawaz Sharif also belatedly had an inkling but the corruption and power got to him and he could not implement the grandiose plans which actually had been suggested by China.
“Yet it is the India of Gandhi which remains in the American imagination and distorts at every angle our impressions of India and hence our view of Pakistan.
Modern India unambiguously regards itself as the dominant power in the region. It has waged war with China, three wars with Pakistan, occupied the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, annexed the Portuguese enclave of Goa, seized the princely Muslim state of Junagadh, annexed the Himalayan state of Sikkim, exerts political control over Nepal and Bhutan, intervened militarily in Pakistan’s civil war which established Bangladesh, intervenes in the Tamil-Sinhalese violence in Sri Lanka, continues to conflict with Pakistan over the boundary of the Siachen glacier and is adamant in its refusal to implement a series of United Nations resolutions starting in 1948 calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir. In view of these well-defined instances of hegemonic impulse there can be little wonder about Pakistan’s concern that its security technology should match India’s. In his autobiography, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, analyzed the strategy of the United States to bring India and Pakistan together as a buffer against China. He deftly characterized the Pakistani view of India, “The idea of becoming subservient to India is abhorrent and that of cooperation with India, with the object of promoting tension with China, equally repugnant.”Ralph Braibanti
ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO WAS POPULAR BECAUSE HE DID NOT PLAGIARIZE–HE BUILT A NEW PHILOSOPHY:–UNIQUE TO PAKISTAN. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was not enamored by existing political polity. He created a local structure and philosophy. He never used “Talking points” from other shining capitals. His version of “musawat e Mohammadi” was named Islamic Socialism. It was new, it was unique and it caught on.
The favourite slogan, the one that caught on during the May 1968 fête in France was “it is forbidden to forbid”. There is nothing to forbid the youth of Europe to reject both communism and capitalism. What will they build in the absence of both systems? Will their concept of building a new structure with a new philosophy mean willful self-destruction? This sounds insane but the youth of Europe is not insane. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto A letter from the Death Cell (2007)] p. 15 p. 20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMvHh1RfcM8
This new organization (ECO) holds greater promise than the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation of 1983 (SAARC). The latter has been crippled by the relatively overwhelming size of India and fear that India’s conduct defines a hegemonic propensity of ultimate danger to Pakistan. The relative success of the Economic Cooperation Organization and the failure of SAARC are institutional reflections of the tighter linkage of Pakistan with Central Asia than with the subcontinent. The connections with the Arabian Peninsula are also significant. Changing the name of the industrial city of Lyallpur to Faisalabad after Saudi Arabia’s late monarch, Saudi Arabia’s financing the International Islamic University in Islamabad and the King Faisal Mosque, one of the largest in the world, are but a few symbols of the Arabian connections. The training of large numbers of Mujahideen (freedom fighters for religion) in Pakistan to fight in the Afghan-Soviet war, and the participation in that war of Saudi Arabian fighters has had a curious aftermath. Many of these warriors, left without a cause, are now in Bosnia along with Iranian mercenaries. Some are said to be in an underground resistance movement against the Saudi regime. If this is so, it thrusts Pakistan ever more deeply into the maelstrom of international Muslim political activities. Ralph Braibanti
Books by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto:
Peace-Keeping by the United Nations. Pakistan Publishing House, Karachi. – 1967
Political Situation in Pakistan, Veshasher Prakashan, New Dehli. – 1968
The Myth of Independence, Oxford University Press, Karachi and Lahore. - 1969
The Great Tragedy, Pakistan People’s Party, Karachi. - 1971
Politics of the People (speeches, statements and articles),edited by Hamid Jalal and Khalid Hasan: Pakistan Publications, Rawalpindi. - 1948-1971
Speeches and Statements, Government of Pakistan, Karachi. – 1971-75
Bilateralism: New Directions. Government of Pakistan, Islamabad – 1976
The Third World: New Directions. Quartet Books, London. – 1977
My Pakistan.Biswin Sadi Publications, New Dehli. – 1979
If I am Assassinated,Vikas, New Dehli. – 1979
My Execution.Musawaat Weekly International, London – 1980
New Directions.Narmara Publishers, London. – 1980
OUR UNIQUE PAKISTANI IDENTITY: HE WORE THE COMMON MANS CLOTHES:
ZAB was the first politician who wore the common man’s clothes. Once when he was threatened with an assassination, he threw away the podium, tore open his shirt and asked his people to defend him from the assassins bullet. It gave all of a sense of identity. No one dared to sheet him on his chest. They “stabbed” him from the back in the middle of the night. Who did it? Lady Macbeth says “the Raven himself is hoarse that becons the entrance”. Macbeth answers “he is here in double trust, first as him kinsmen and then his subject…who should again the murderer shut the door, not bear the knife himself“
ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO TALKED ABOUT JUNAGARH AND MANVADAR AND KASHMIR
Your great grandfather was the Prime Minsiter of Junagarh and convinced the Raja to join Pakistan. An article of accession with Junagarh and Manvadar were signed to Pakistan, similar to the one forged on Kashmir by India. Only the one with Manvadar and Juangarh were real. Pakistani maps showed Junagarh and Manvadar as Paksitani territory. Don’t forget those states of Pakistan.
ZAB held an informal referendum in Occupied Kashmir. He asked the Kashmiris to go on strike to show support for Pakistan. They did! Nothing moved in Occupied Kashmir. It showed the world that the Kashmir issue was alive. It gave them hope!
He inspired an entire nation. His speech at the UN was not about despair. He was indignant, and angry, he repudiated the powerful and then symbolically walked out of the impotent UN because the conspiring powers supported the aggression of India.
…while Bhutto was making an impassioned speech about reversing the army out of Dhaka and not awarding aggression….he asked one of the ambassadors who was smiling…
“the ambassador is smiling…what is so great about him…his hands are covered in blood”
“so what if Dhaka falls…so what if East Pakistan falls…we will build a new Pakistan, a bigger and better Pakistan”…..
Even in defeat Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was defiant! He inspired a generation.
He talked about “picking the pieces.”
…even after 1971 he tried to get the new leader of Bangladesh Khondkar Mushtaque to form a confederation with Pakistan and for the briefest moment Mr. Mushtaqueannounced a confederation with Pakistan. Unfortunately Khondkar was overthrown and Bangladesh remained Bangladesh. Of course the powers did not want such a powerful nation.
INTERNAL RECONCILIATION. HOW ABOUT REACHING OUT TO THE OTHER ESTRANGED BHUTTOS.
Charity begins at home! Reach out to Fatima Bhutto and Zulfiqar Ali Nhutto Jr. Include them into the legacy of your grandfather. Fatima is a brilliant activist like Sanam. Hold a judicial inquiry into the death of her father and your uncle and publish the Hamood ur Rehman Commission Report.
DO NOT PLAY GOD OR “Le ETAT, CEST MOI” and DO NOT USE THE WORD “disintegration” or Simla, or December 16th.
The Pakistani nation is not looking for a “God” or figure to save them. No one person can do that. Do not bring bad memories to mind. Do not celebrate anything on December 16th. Using the word “disintegration” catches up with the psyche of the nation. Pakistanis hate he word Simla. Don’t mention it. Pakistanis freeze up and get disgusted when Simla is mentioned. Then they get angry. Pledge “Never Again” with them and sing “Jeeway Pakistan.”
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL UNITY IS THE NEED OF THE DAY: On building a consensus in Pakistan. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was able to bring together diverse groups like the NAP, JI, JUI, PML and others and got consensus for the 1973 Constitution. This is a learned skill and you can do it. Reach out to the MQM and the PML:
“We badly need to gather our thoughts and clear our minds. We need a political ceasefire without conceding ideological territory. We need a ceasefire to bury dead thoughts and to overcome fatigue. The modus vivendi has to be honourable and above board. Both sides have lost or, should I say, neither side can win. During the ceasefire a combination of existing forces might create a new order or a new equation between existing forces”
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto A letter from the Death Cell (2007)] p. 15 p. 28
Read world history and our own history to figure things out. Zulfiqar read Nehru’s Glimpses of World History. I did too. It is a good book for 13 year olds. This is what ZAB says.
“in Western estimation it is preferable to be a communist leader of a communist state, than to be a non-communist leader of a non-communist state having friendly relations with communist states. The anomaly does not cease here. It is even more dangerous to be pro-West. One disagreement in defence of a national cause, and out goes that civilian leader by a coup d’etat. He gets replaced by a tin-pot military dictator who would not dare to disagree about anything, including the vital national interests of his country” Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto A letter from the Death Cell (2007)p. 69
A military junta is the herald of communism. The failure to realize this axiomatic fact is the cause of the confusion in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Military rule turns the people totally and irrevocably against the bemedalled generals and their patrons. Where else can the people turn? If freedom, democracy and the rights of man are to be put on the counter to see whether copper and coffee is to cost ten cents more or ten cents less and bargained away with so little consideration, then freedom is a very cheap commodity and the rights of man are not worth a nickel. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto A letter from the Death Cell (2007)p. 68
Speaking to the West in Christian terms. Grandfather Bhutto does this eloquently.
“For Christians, the teaching and directives of Christ are more Sacred than those of a Messenger of God. According to the Christians, those teaching and directives are of God Himself. Most of the problems of the Third World would be solved if the Christian West implemented in letter and spirit only one directive of Jesus Christ.
The directive to “Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and to God that which belongs to God”.
The Third World only want what belongs to it and nothing more. For over two hundred years, the Christian civilization of the West has been mercilessly violating this directive of Jesus Christ. The West has been taking everything belonging to Ceasar and everything belonging to God. The West is not dividing the share equitably. It is not rendering to us what belongs to us. This division relates to the economic, social, racial and political rights of the Third World.” Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto A letter from the Death Cell (2007) p. 72
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto wanted to read Hitler to fight evil and learn from history. This is imperative.
“how Hitler was able to control his generals and I was not.“
Bhutto detained at the Sihala Rest House by the army in 1977, asked for some of his books on Hitler to be brought to him so that he could figure out how to control his Generals.
LEARN ABOUT THE GREAT GAME:-ONE WHO CAN DISCERN CURZON CAN KUMTUX OUR GEO-POLITICAL IMPORTANCE:Here is a lot of advice from Zuilfiqar Ali Bhutto in his book “Myth of Independence:
“Pakistan was once called the most allied ally of the United States. We are now the most non-allied.“Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (As quoted in The New York Times(6 July 1973)
Learn from the mistakes of the PPP. Benazir Bhutto forgot this:
“If the people wanted my head I would bow without demur. If I had lost the confidence or respect of the people I would not want to live. The tragedy of the drama is that the very opposite is true.” (Letter to his attorney, Yahya Bakhtiar, after his death sentence, as quoted in My Dearest Daughter : A letter from the Death Cell (2007)]
YOU ARE NOT A SINDHI, PUNJABI, BALUCH, KASHMIRI, PATHAN or MUHAJIR: YOU ARE A BHUTTO and A NATIONAL PAKISTANI LEADER: Always remember that. Don’t demean yourself as a provincial leader. You are a national and international leader. Only you can stop yourself. Talk to your fathers friends in foreign lands. Some are still alive. On bringing the diverse society of Pakistan together as well as melting the tin ear of the American war machine. We need to have an anti-clash of civilization and Bilawal is the right person to do this.
OVERHWLEM THEM WITH SUPERIOR STRATEGY: DON’T BRING CHECKER PLAYERS TO A CHESS GAME: Ali Bhutto was well read and know more about the West than Americans and Britishers. He also knew the history of Pakistan and the Subcontinent. His declassified discussion with Kissinger are food for thought. He could characterize Pakistan’s issues in American terms. Unfortunately time did not allow him to write “Glimpses of Pakistani history” that he wanted to.
I could have written a small book entitled “Glimpses of Pakistan’s history”. Time does not permit it. The nation is gripped in her worst crisis, standing in the middle of the road between survival and disintegration. Since the birth of Pakistan, crisis has followed crisis in rapid escalation. Millions of lives were sacrificed to create this country. Pakistan is said to be the dream of Mohammad Iqbal and the creation of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Quaid-e-Azam. Was anything wrong with the dream or with the one who made the dream come true? Opinions have differed and continue to differ. The next few years will most probably decide the issue, perhaps once and for all, and not without bloodshed. This process is not inevitable but the present policies of the ruling junta are driving this country towards a sad ….Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto A letter from the Death Cell (2007)] p. 15 p. 37
BUILD PAKISTAN ON THE DYNAMIC CHINESE MODEL NOT THE PENURY STRICKEN, CASTE INFESTED, INDIAN MODEL: ZAB knew this. Mao Ze Dung and Chou En Lai (old spellings) were the heroes of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and of most Pakistanis. Today’s China is fast becoming a super power. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto played a role in that transformation, as acknowledged by Chinese leaders of this generation. He was the one that recognized China. At the time, the only other country that recognized China was Albania. Pakistan opened up China to the US and the world which has led to unprecedented growth in China. Pakistan should use that as a model and not the inefficient stricken Indian model which is a basket case.
Tin-pot dictators have ravaged Asia, Latin America and Africa. In the aftermath, they have done more to promote communism than the works of Marx and Engels, Lenin and Mao. They are the worst tyrants of the post-colonial period. They have destroyed time-honoured institutions and treated their people like animals. They have caused internal divisions and external confusion. The dictator is the one animal who needs to be caged. He betrays his profession and his constitution. He betrays the people and destroys human values. He destroys culture. He binds the youth. He makes the structure collapse. He rules by fluke and freak. He is the scourge and the ogre. He is a leper. Anyone who touches him also becomes a leper. He is the upstart who is devoid of ideals and ideology. Not a single one of them has made a moment’s contribution to history. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto A letter from the Death Cell (2007)p. 63
“I am guiding you to seek truth from the facts of the historical conditions of our society and to identify the problems. The correct solutions will come with the correct identification of the problems. “
ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO ON PEACE WITH INDIA
Appeasement does not mean peace. The Treaty of Versailles did not bring peace. The surrender of Khalistan did not bring peace to Pakistan. If India wants peace, she has to make painful concessions. She has to liberate Kashmir, and return Siachin to Pakistan and stop teaching hatred and “Akhand Bharat” nonsense in her schools. The bigotry and hatred taught in Indian schools reflects back on the abuse of Muslims in India itself. Peace with India can only be achieved if the wrongs of 1947 are fixed. Beginning with Kashmir, Junagarh, Manvadar, India has to realize that that land for peace is the only way to make India more powerful. Haggling with Pakistan, exporting terror to Sri Lanka, browbeating Bangladesh, eating up Sikkim, intimidating Bhutan, and creating trouble in Nepal will never get India peace. India has to stop building dams on Pakistani rivers and stop building the Aqua bomb for the coming water wars.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto on Outright pragmatist approach
“Earlier, I have cautioned you against an outright pragmatist approach. Now I am cautioning you against an outright populist approach. Sometimes a populist decision is, in the long run, not beneficial to the masses. Neither pragmatism nor populism are fundamental political and socio-economic doctrines. Nor do I say that you should play it by ear. I have made this melancholy analysis in anguish. My jail surroundings have not influenced my objectivity. I do not want to see the whole world in a death-cell merely because I am in a death cell. I do not say that the High Court has pronounced a death sentence on the world because a law court has pronounced a perverse death sentence on me. I would be the happiest man if the gloomy winter of mankind were to give way to a shaft of sunlight and to coloured flowers. The world is very beautiful. “A thing of beauty is a joy forever”. There is the beauty of the landscape, of the tall mountain, the green plains, the humped deserts. There is the beauty of the flowers and the forests, of the azure oceans and the meandering rivers. There is the splendour of architecture, the magnificence of music, and the sparkle of the dance. Above all, there is the beauty of man and woman, the most perfect creations of God. ” (A letter from the Death Cell (2007)p. 78
Zulfiqar Ali Bhuttoon poetry and his partiality towards Shelly
I am partial to the pantheism of Shelley. There is beauty everywhere. Even in a total war of annihilation it will not be possible to wipe out all of it. Beauty is too beautiful to perish altogether. In this period of twelve months in solitary confinement I have rarely recalled an unpleasant or ugly glimpse of the past. A letter from the Death Cell (2007) p. 78 – 79
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and Quaid e Awam said: His most passionate love affair was with the people
Life is a love affair. There is a romance with every beauty of nature. I have no hesitation in saving that my most passionate love affair, my most thrilling romance has been with the people. There is an indissoluble marriage between politics and the people. That is why “Man is a political animal” and the state a political theatre. I have been on this stage of the masters for over twenty tumultuous years. I believe I still have a role to play. I believe the people still want me on this stage, but if I have to bow out, I give you the gift of my feelings. You will fight the fight better than me. Your speeches will be more eloquent than my speeches. Your commitment equally total. There will be more youth and vitality in your struggle. Your deeds ill be more daring. I transmit to you the blessing to the most blessed mission. This is the only present I can give you on your birthdays. A letter from the Death Cell (2007) p. 79
It would be bad politics to try and summarize a situation which is dynamic. Have faith in mankind and its mission. God the Creator is the God of all mankind. God is omnipotent yet. The Creator of this World and the World after this one has imposed on Himself the obligation to be kind and forgiving. No tin-pot dictator of a palm-tree society is capable of imposing any such obligations on himself. On the contrary, he vainly boasts that he is answerable and accountable to nobody. A letter from the Death Cell (2007) pp 79 – 80
Zulfiqar Ali Bhuttoon the world
Africa will rid herself of the maniacs. Africa will live to show that “Black is beautiful”. Africa is ancient but Asia is ageless. Her nimble and graceful beauty has adorned civilization from the birth of mankind. Latin America has become the castanet of an international culture that links Andalusia to Arabia and the Caribbean. What beauty there is in the tap of her flamenco! Europe is glamorous and adorable, so seductive that she is still beautiful after a number of face lifts. America has been watergated. In that flow of stagnant waters you can behold beauty in its reflection. A letter from the Death Cell (2007) p. 80
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto diffrentiates ideology from religion
Religion is a link between God and man and man and man. Political ideology is a link between man and man. For this reason the great religions of the world like Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the last of all religions, have outlived and outlasted political ideologies. If an unlearned adventurer in his quest for political power and perpetuation brings religion down from its celestial plane to a mundane level by converting it into a narrow political ideology, the adventurer endangers the link between God and man and man and man. A letter from the Death Cell (2007)
Zulfiqar Ali Bhuttoin pain in his jail cell
What I write is full of infirmities. I have been in solitary confinement for twelve months and in a death cell for three months, deprived of all facilities. I have written much of this by resting the paper on my thigh in unbearable heat. I have no reference material or library, I have rarely seen the blue sky. The quotations are from the few books I was permitted to read and from the journals and newspapers you and your mother bring once a week during your visits to my suffocating cell. I am not making excuses for my deficiencies but it is very difficult to rely on a fading memory in such physical and mental conditions. A letter from the Death Cell (2007) p. 80
I am fifty years old and you are exactly half my age. By the time you reach my age, you must accomplish twice as much as I have achieved for the people.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhuttomessage of the morrow to you
“Your grand-father taught me the politics of pride, your grandmother taught me the politics of poverty. I am beholden to both for the fine synthesis. To you, my darling daughter, I give only one message. It is the message of the morrow, the message of history. Believe only in the people, work only for their emancipation and equality. The paradise of God lies under the feet of your mother. The paradise of politics lies under the feet of the people. “My Dearest Daughter : A letter from the Death Cell(2007)] Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto A letter from the Death Cell (2007) p. 14 “
Step one: Current day Pakistan
“The idea of becoming subservient to India is abhorrent and that of cooperation with India, with the object of promoting tension with China, equally repugnant.” Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto
باطل سے دبنے والے اسماں نھیں سو بار کت چکا ھي امتھاں ھمارا
Iran Pakistan Pipeline
Rehmat Ali's "Dinya"--The vision of Pakistan burns bright in the eyes of the the patriots
The Swastika bearing Safron Hindu Extremists replaced Buddhism with Hinduism in Budddhist lands.
<img
src="http://pakhistorian.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/iqbal-poetry.jpg"
