Pakistan Historian

October 23, 2009

History of Pakistan

Filed under: History of Pakistan, Independence movement — Moin Ansari @ 5:11 pm
Tags:

WHY WE CREATED PAKISTAN?

The Indus Valley Civilization now known as Paksitan

Pakistan existed 5000 years ago as the IVC

Pakistan exsited 5000 Years ago as the IVCOn 16th of October, the Turkish Prime Minster went to the Turkish nation and asked them “when we needed them, the Pakistani Muslims were there for the Ottoman “khilafat”, today your brothers and sisters need you in their hour or need”. From across the great nation of Turkey, school girls, and old men, student and professionals gave and gave and gave. Turkey became the largest donor for the Earthquake relief.The 5000 year old ancient trade routes between Pakistan and China are being revived with modern freeways that were ocnstructed 20 years ago. 5000 years ago the Harrappan Pakistanis were trading with the Chinese
The Pakistan Ideology

“Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago. It was not called “Pakistan”. China 5000 years ago was also called something else. Egypt 5000 years ago was called something else.Pakistan//www.moinansari.wordpress.com

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

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 LEDGERپاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape Bookmark and Share Add to Technorati RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | October 13th, 2008 | Moin Ansari |  معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ  |

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

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
‘India is no more a country than the Equator’.Winston Churchill

British Empire The British Indian Empire included Iraq, Aden, Somalia, Burma, and more than 500 states of the Subcontinent

British Indian EmpireThe British Empire spanning continentsSubcontinent in 1857Pre Sepeartion map of the Subcontinent

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. Separation should have been based on this map

 

Patel and others cheated us out of a real separation.

The more than 500 states in the SubcontinentThe more then 500 independent princely states of the Subcontinent

Princely statesHydrabad state wanted to stay independentThe State of Hyderabad wanted to stay independent after 1948 but was run over by Patel

Baroda stateThe Princely state of Bombay Presidency

Bombay PresidencyThe Princely state of Baroda

chaudhy-rehmat-alis-pakistan-plan-1940.jpgBefore separation

Map of India and Pakistan 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 ..

 

 

AIML session 1936The 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.

Pakistani flagTHE 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:

Lahore Resolution Minar e Pakistan or Yaadgar e Qarardad e pakistan“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.”

Continent of Dinia and dependencies

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.

Chaudhry rehmat Ali asked for the Muslim majority areas to be seperated from the rest of states.Chaudhry rehmat Ali Now or NeverThis is what we asked for.

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.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.

Pakistan before separationTHE 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.”

“Remember that ….we shall fight ,and we shall fight for 1,000 years as we have fought for 1,000 years in the past….we can continue ! ” (ZAB at the United Nations )

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”

..”Jhapatna palatna, palat kar jhapatna;

Lahu garm rakhne ka hai ik bahana”…..Alama Iqbal

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcmQHaoLrW0&feature=related)

Pakistan has a great future.

DIL ZINDA-O-BEDAAR AGAR HO TO BA-TADREEJ

BANDE KO ATA KARTA HAI CHASHME-NIGRAA(N) AUR

ALFAZ-O-MAANI MEIN TAFAWAT NAHI LEKIN

MULLAH KI AZAA(N) AUR, MUJAHID KI AZAA(N) AUR

PARWAAZ HAI DONO KI ISI EK FIZAA MEIN

KARGAZ KA JAHA(N) AUR HAI, SHAHEEN KA JAHA AUR

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

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.Step one: Current day Pakistan

Not a caliphate or a religious theocracy; Not a means to wage war or expansion; Not through conquest or caputuring captials; not to threaten anyone, but just so that we can all live together in peace.Step two: Take control of Pashtun areas

Not a caliphate or a religious theocracy; Not a means to wage war or expansion; Not through conquest or caputuring captials; not to threaten anyone, but just so that we can all live together in peace.Step 3: Confederation of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Nishan e Manzilnishan-e-manzil-2.jpgThis is Central Asia

Step 4: Work with the Muslim world

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.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.

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 LEDGERپاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape Bookmark and Share Add to Technorati RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | October 13th, 2008 | Moin Ansari |  معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ  |

Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammed Ali Jinnah said that:

” the differences in India, between the two major nations, the Hindus and the Muslims are a thousand times greater when compared with the continent of Europe.

India is not a national state, India is not a country, but a sub-continent composed of nationalities, the two nations being Hindus and Muslims whose culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, name and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, laws and jurisprudence, social and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions, outlook on life and of life are fundamentally different nay in many respects antagonistic. Mohammad Ali Jinnah

August 18, 2009

Jinnah’s Muslim rights vs Federalist Majoritarianism

Indian historiography has come full circle. The past six decades have been spent in demonizing the Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, Mr. Jinnah. By using Mr. Jinnah as an escape goat, the Indian National Congress (INC) has tried to hide the inadequacies and blunders of its leaders. By avoiding to identify the mistakes of the INC the Bharati historians have done a great disservice to world history and to the fabric of South Asia. By using Mr. Jinnah as as escape goat the Bharati intellectuals have been unable to identify the error of their ways. This paradigm continues to haunt the Delhi politicians and has led to the huge tensions and wars.

The latest book by Mr. Jaswath Singh about Mohammad Ali Jinnah titled “”Jinnah – India, Partition, Independence” bring about a rethinking about the Quaid e Azam. What is amazing is the fact that this “rethinking” is coming from the most extreme right wing section of Bharati society. The Bharati media and the English speaking elite may consider this a unique opinion, but it is neither isolated nor unitary. Mr. Singh discusses Federalism versus state rights. The discussion of Pakistani was exactly that, a discussion of majoritarianism and Muslim rights. It is very true that Mr. Jinnah’s primary concern was to secure the rights of the Muslims and the minorities of the Subcontinent.

The best evidence of this was the Cabinet Mission Plan. The Cabinet Mission Plan was the best hope for a multiethnic and multireligious  South Asian confederation which would have prevented the majoritariansim in Bharat, or in Pakistan for that matter. Today the same majoratarianism is an issue for Lanka, Bangladesh and even the Maldives. The British parliamentary system of government does not allow security for the minorities–as evidenced by the unicameral legislature of the United Kingdom. The impotent and selected House of Lords cannot be really considered as a house representing the people–it represents the aristocracy and the wealthy. The bi cameral system of government in Bharat would have railroaded the rights of the minorities—as evidenced in the past 60 years. Mr. Jinnah’s Cabinet Mission Plan (CBM) showed a way to the Hindus to avoid the alienation of the Muslims. Mr. Gandhi approved the Cabinet Mission Plan. Nehru accepted it briefly, but then he couldn’t go through with it. In this sense the Cabinet Mission Plan was the last hope of preventing Pakistan. Mr. Nehru by torpedoing the CBM in fact destroyed any chance of the Muslim Hindu reconciliation.

  • History of Pakistan on “Pakistan Historian” website 
  • Was Pakistan inevitable? 
  • What if there was no Pakistan? 
  • Why we created Pakistan? 
  • There was no “Partition” 
  • Mr. Singh didn’t come up with a strange and weird theory. This is precisely the opinion among a huge majority of the Muslims who became Pakistanis and among a large section of the Muslims who remained in Bharat. The same opinion is also more or less shared by the 450 million Dalits.

    • “I admire certain aspects of his personality.” “I think we have misunderstood him because we needed to create a demon… we needed a demon because in the 20th century, the most telling event in the sub-continent was the partition of the country.” Jaswant Singh said India had not only misunderstood Jinnah but demonized him.
    • Nehru believed in a high centralised policy. That’s what he wanted India to be. Jinnah wanted a federal polity. That even Gandhi accepted. Nehru didn’t. Consistently he stood in the way of a federal India until 1947 when it became a partitioned India,”
    • In his new book “Jinnah – India, Partition, Independence”, which will hit the stands on August 17, he recalls the events leading to Partition as well as the “epic journey of Jinnah from being the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, the liberal constitutionalist and Indian nationalist to the Quaid-e-Azam of Pakistan”. Times of India
    • “It is ironical that among the great constitutionalists of those times, Jinnah and Nehru became the principal promoters of ’special status for Muslims’; Jinnah directly and Nehru indirectly.
    • “…The irony of it is galling when sadly, we observe that both of them, these two great5 Indians of their times were either actually or in effect competing to become the ’spokesman of Muslims’ in India.”
    • Oh yes, because he created something out of nothing and single-handedly he stood against the might of the Congress party and against the British who didn’t really like him… Gandhi himself called Jinnah a great Indian. Why don’t we recognise that? Why don’t we see (and try to understand) why he called him that

    1920: Subcontinental Federalism vs. Provincial State rights give way to separatism: Cripps & CMP fails. HISTORICAL BASIS FOR THE INDPENDENCE AND SOVEREIGNTY OF MUSLIM PROVINCES. Most countries have struggled with Federal rights vs. State rights. American history is full of these discussions. Today Iraq struggles with these aspects of poltical science. Pakistan also faces some of these questions that dogged the politicians in the Subcontinent before independence.

    Throughout history, the struggle for the independence of the Subcontinent has been struggle against centralism and the struggle has been waged to create for provincial autonomy. The Government of India Act of 1919 set out in clear terms the subjects which were to belong to the provincial sphere and those to the Central sphere. But both the Congress and the Muslim League boycotted the elections to the provincial and Central Legislatures held in November 1920 under the Act, because they felt that the Central vernment had still retained too much of power over the provinces.

    When the Congress Party appointed a Committee to prepare a blueprint of the future Constitution for India under the chairmanship of Motilal Nehru, the then Congress President M.A. Ansari spelt out the fundamental principles on which the future Constitution was to be founded. Speaking at the annual session of the Congress on 28 December 1927 at Madras, Ansari had said:

    “Whatever be the final form of the Constitution, one thing may be said with some degree of certainty that it will have to be on federal lines providing for a United States of India with existing Indian States as autonomous units of the Federation taking their proper share in the defence of the country, in the regulation of the nation’s foreign affairs and other joint and common interests.”

    The Muslims cooperated with the Congress as long as they felt that the sovereignity of the Muslim majority provinces would be kept. When the Muslims felt that their sovereignty would not be honored, they deserted the ranks of the Congress and joined the Muslim League

    DELHI: After BJP president L K Advani, it’s the turn of another senior BJP leader, Jaswant Singh, to court controversy with his reappraisal of the founder of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah.

    In an interview on the eve of the launch of his book on Jinnah, Singh took a divergent stand from the Sangh as well as popular Indian historiography by blaming the creation of Pakistan on the Congress party and Jawaharlal Nehru rather than Jinnah’s determination to carve a Muslim state out of India. Times of India

    We have analyzed South Asian history from various dimensions. Many artilces on the re-birth of Pakistan as a Muslim state are posted on Pakistan Historian. One of our recent articles tackles the question raised by Mr. Singh. Was Pakistan inevitable? The INC made major mistakes before and after 1947.  Among the many visions for the Subcontinent, the vision of the Quaid e Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah won out. There are two major tectonic political events that shattered the trust between the Muslims and the Hindus of the Subcontinent. This that led to the re-creation of Pakistan:

    1) The rejection of the 14 points of Jinnah by the Nehru report

    2) The rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946 by the INC. The CMP would have created a Group “A” (Hindustan), Group “B” (Kashmir, Punjab, Sarhad, Sindh, Balauchistan), Group “C” (Bengal, Orissa, Asaam). Each would have 11 members in the center in a kind of a Senate.

    Why we created Pakistan? The Pakistan Ideology. ONT vs TNT. Could the Indus people have joined the Gangetic people in 1947? Possibly! But the events before 1940s since 1947 teach us that the Gangetic people are fundamentally different from the Indus people, and could not have lived together. Mr. Singh has written a new book and BJP leader is all praise for Jinnah. His new book has been Published: August 17, 2009

    NEW DELHI (Online) – Walking in the footsteps of party senior LK Advani, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Jaswant Singh has called Pakistan’s founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah ‘a great Indian’, saying he was ‘demonised’.

    In an interview with CNN-IBN, the former external affairs minister blamed India’s first PM Jawaharlal Nehru for the partition. “Nehru believed in a highly centralised polity. That’s what he wanted India to be. Jinnah wanted a federal polity. That even Gandhi accepted. Nehru didn’t. Consistently, he stood in the way of a federal India until 1947 when it became a partitioned India,” Jaswant told Karan Thapar in Devil’s Advocate.

    Jaswant strongly contested the popular Indian view that Jinnah was the villain of the 1947 partition or the man principally responsible for it. Asked if he thought this view was wrong, Jaswant said: “It is. It is not borne out of the facts… we need to correct it. I think we have misunderstood him because we needed to create a demon… We needed a demon because in the 20th century the most-telling event in the Subcontinent was the partition of the country,” Singh said.

    Jaswant, whose biography on Jinnah would be released today (Monday), said he did not subscribe to the popular demonisation of Jinnah and said he was attracted by the personality of the Pakistani leader. “Of course I don’t. To that I don’t subscribe. I was attracted by the personality which has resulted in a book. If I was not drawn to the personality I wouldn’t have written the book. It’s an intricate, complex personality, of great character, determination,” Singh said

    Proponents of the TNT were originally the Hindus and then the Muslims.Proponents of the ONT were the Muslims and then the Hindus. What happened and why did loyal Indian Muslims like Iqbal ask for Pakistan. Why did nationalist leaders like Jinnah leave the Indian National Congress and join the Mulims League. The reasons are discussed in many of my articles on this site. Here are some major milestones preceding independence in 1947.

    In the 1937 Indian elections, Tharoor points out, Muslim voters failed to support the Muslim League – which later led Muslims to independence under Muhammad Ali Jinnah. But the popular, and integrated, Congress Party made the mistake of resigning from office to protest the British government’s lack of consultation over its 1939 war declaration.

    It was a huge political blunder because it left the field open for the British … to kick the Congress people out of office and put unelected Muslim Leaguers in power in a number of key provinces,” says Tharoor.Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India Movement, opposing British rule at the height of World War II, was also a mistake, he adds. The Congress protesters were jailed, later to re-emerge “completely out of touch.”

    The Muslim League, later won a majority of the Muslim provinces.“Until that happened, partition was not inevitable.”Part of the problem, says Pakistani-born historian Ayesha Jalal, was the failure of Congress leaders Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to cut a power-sharing deal with the Muslim League.And, she says, Jinnah was astonished by the violence that overtook India in the final months of the British Raj:

    The complete absence of adequate security measures to tackle an unexpected breakdown of law and order has to be blamed for the sheer magnitude of the killings.

    Leeway can be given to Mr. Singh for using every opportunity he can get to demonize Mr. Nehru. However it is unfair to use Mr. Jinnah as a vehicle to use it. Mr. Jinnah was not great becuase Mr. Nehru was bad. Mr. Jinnah was great in his own right. 

    Singh contested the popular Indian view that Jinnah was the villain of Partition or the man principally responsible for it. Maintaining that this view was wrong, he said, “It is. It is not borne out of the facts…we need to correct it.”

    He feels Jinnah’s call for Pakistan was “a negotiating tactic” to obtain “space” for Muslims “in a reassuring system” where they would not be dominated by the Hindu majority.

    He said if the final decisions had been taken by Mahatma Gandhi, Rajaji or Maulana Azad — rather than Nehru — a united India would have been attained, he said, “Yes, I believe so. We could have (attained an united India).”

    Singh said the widespread opinion that Jinnah was against Hindus is mistaken.

    When told that his views on Jinnah may not be to the liking of his party, he replied, “I did not write this book as a BJP parliamentarian. I wrote this book as an Indian…this is not a party document. My party knows I have been working on this.”

    Singh also spoke about Indian Muslims who, he said, “have paid the price of Partition”. In a particularly outspoken answer, he said India treats them as “aliens”.

    “Look into the eyes of the Muslims who live in India and if you truly see the pain with which they live, to which land do they belong? We treat them as aliens…without doubt Muslims have paid the price of Partition. They could have been significantly stronger in a united India…of course Pakistan and Bangladesh won’t like what I am saying.”DN India

    CMP: The Cabinet Mission Plan proposed by  Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and initially approved by Nehru was the last hope for the Subcontinent to stay as one country. After the Indian National Congress  rejected the CMP both major parties the INC and the All India Muslim League had lost all trust in each other and went their different wasy. The INC was busy consolidating their power while the ML was busy consolidating its power in the Muslim majority areas.

    In the 1937 Indian elections, Tharoor points out, Muslim voters failed to support the Muslim League – which later led Muslims to independence under Muhammad Ali Jinnah. But the popular, and integrated, Congress Party made the mistake of resigning from office to protest the British government’s lack of consultation over its 1939 war declaration.“It was a huge political blunder because it left the field open for the British … to kick the Congress people out of office and put unelected Muslim Leaguers in power in a number of key provinces,” says Tharoor.Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India Movement, opposing British rule at the height of World War II, was also a mistake, he adds. The Congress protesters were jailed, later to re-emerge “completely out of touch.”

    The Muslim League, later won a majority of the Muslim provinces. “Until that happened, partition was not inevitable.”Part of the problem, says Pakistani-born historian Ayesha Jalal, was the failure of Congress leaders Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to cut a power-sharing deal with the Muslim League.And, she says, Jinnah was astonished by the violence that overtook India in the final months of the British Raj: “The complete absence of adequate security measures to tackle an unexpected breakdown of law and order has to be blamed for the sheer magnitude of the killings.”

    The Cabinet Mission Plan proposed by Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and initially approved by Nehru was the last hope for the Subcontinent to stay as one country. After the Indian National Congress rejected the CMP both major parties the INC and the All India Muslim League had lost all trust in each other and went their different wasy. The INC was busy consolidating their power while the ML was busy consolidating its power in the Muslim majority areas.

    Here is the Jaswant Singh interview:

    Mr Jaswant Singh, let’s start by establishing how you as the author view Mohammed Ali Jinnah. You don’t subscribe to the popular demonisation of the man?

    Of course, I don’t. If I wasn’t drawn to the personality, I wouldn’t have written the book. It’s an intricate, complex personality of great character, determination…

    And it’s a personality that you found quite attractive?

    Naturally, otherwise, I wouldn’t have ventured down the book. I found the personality sufficiently attractive to go and research it for five years.

    Jinnah joined the Congress party long before he joined the Muslim League and in fact when he joined the Muslim League, he issued a statement to say that this in no way implies “even the shadow of disloyalty to the national cause”. Would you say that in the 20s and 30s and may be even the early years of the 40s, Jinnah was a nationalist?

    The acme of his nationalistic achievement was the 1916 Lucknow Pact of Hindu-Muslim unity and that’s why Gopal Krishna Gokhale called him the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.

    Many people believe Jinnah hated Hindus?

    Totally wrong. His principal disagreement was with the Congress party. He says this even in his last statements to the press and to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. He had no problems whatsoever with the Hindus.

    As you look back on Jinnah’s life, would you say that he was a great man?

    Yes, because he created something out of nothing and single-handedly, he stood up against the might of the Congress party and against the British, who didn’t really like him. He was a self-made man. He carved out in Bombay a position in that cosmopolitan city being what he was, poor. He was so poor, he had to walk to work.

    How seriously has India misunderstood Jinnah?

    I think we misunderstood because we needed to create a demon.

    We needed a demon because in the 20th century, the most telling event in the entire subcontinent was the partition of the country.

    Your book reveals how people like Gandhi, Rajagopalachari and Azad could understand the Jinnah or the Muslim fear of Congress majoritarianism but Nehru simply couldn’t understand. Was Nehru insensitive to this?

    No, he wasn’t. Jawaharlal Nehru was a deeply sensitive man.

    But why couldn’t he understand?

    He was deeply influenced by Western and European socialist thought of those days. Nehru believed in a highly centralised polity. That’s what he wanted India to be. Jinnah wanted a federal polity.

    Because that would give Muslims the space?

    That even Gandhi understood.

    You conclude that if Congress could have accepted a decentralised federal India, then a united India, as you put it, “was clearly ours to attain”. Do you see Nehru at least as responsible for partition as Jinnah?

    He says it himself. He recognised it and his correspondence, for example with the late Nawab Sahab of Bhopal, his official biographer and others. His letters to the late Nawab Sahab of Bhopal are very moving.

    When Indians say Jinnah was the villain of Partition, your answer is there were many people responsible and to single out Jinnah, as the only person or the principal person, is both factually wrong and unfair?

    It is. It is not borne out of events. Go to the last All India Congress Committee meeting in Delhi in June of 1947 to discuss and accept the (partition) resolution, Nehru-Patel’s resolution. Ram Manohar Lohia had moved the amendment. It was a very moving intervention by Ram Manohar Lohia and then Gandhi finally said, we must accept this partition.

    Partition is a very painful event. It is very easy to assign blame but very difficult thereafter. Because all events that we are judging are ex post facto.

    So, Pakistan was in fact a way of finding, as you call it, ’space’ for Muslims?

    He (Jinnah) wanted space in the Central legislature and in the provinces, and protection of the minorities, so that the Muslims could have a say in their own political, economic and social destiny.

    And that was his primary concern, not dividing India or breaking up the country?

    No. He in fact went to the extent of saying, let there be a Pakistan within India.

    In other words, Pakistan was often ‘code’ for space for Muslims?

    That’s right. I find that it was a negotiating tactic, because he wanted certain provinces to be with the Muslim League. He wanted a certain percentage (of seats) in the Central legislature. If he had that, there would not have been a partition.

    Your book shows how repeatedly people like Rajagopalachari, Gandhi and Azad were understanding of the Jinnah need or the Muslim need for space. Nehru wasn’t. Nehru had a European-inherited centralised vision of how India should be run. And a highly centralised India denied the space Jinnah wanted?

    A highly centralised India meant that the dominant party was the Congress party. He (Nehru) in fact said there are only two powers in India — the Congress party and the British.

    So, this majoritarianism of Nehru actually left no room for Jinnah?

    It became a contest between excessive majoritarianism, exaggerated minoritism and giving the referee’s whistle to the British.

    Your book raises disturbing questions about the partition of India. You say it was done in a way “that multiplied our problems without solving any communal issue”. Then you ask “if the communal, the principal issue, remains in an even more exacerbated form than before, then why did we divide at all?”

    Yes, indeed, why? Look into the eyes of the Muslims who live in India and if you truly see through the pain they live — to which land do they belong? We treat them as aliens, somewhere inside, because we continue to ask, even after Partition you still want something? These are citizens of India — it was Jinnah’s failure because he never advised Muslims who stayed back.

    One of the most moving passages of your biography is when you write of Indian Muslims who stayed on in India and didn’t go to Pakistan. You say they are “abandoned”, you say they are “bereft of a sense of kinship”, not “one with the entirety” and then you add that “this robs them of the essence of psychological security”.

    That is right, it does.

    Your book also suggests you believe India could face more Partitions. You write: “In India, having once accepted this principle of reservation, then of Partition, how can we now deny it to others, even such Muslims as have had to or chosen to live in India?”

    The problem started with the 1906 reservation. What does the Sachar committee report say? Reserve for the Muslim. What are we doing now? Reserve. I think this reservation for Muslims is a disastrous path. I have myself, personally, in Parliament heard a member subscribing to Islam saying we could have a third Partition ,too. These are the pains that trouble me. What have we solved?

    You are being honest enough to point out that this intellectual contradiction lies today at the very heart of our predicament as a nation.

    It is. Unless we find an answer, we won’t find an answer to India-Pakistan-Bangladesh relations.

    Are you worried that a biography of Jinnah, that turns on its head the received demonisation of the man; where you concede that for a large part he was a nationalist with admirable qualities, could bring down on your head a storm of protest?

    I have written what I have researched and believed in. I have not written to please – it’s a journey that I have undertaken, as I explained myself, along with Mohd Ali Jinnah – from his being an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity to the Qaid-e-Azam of Pakistan

    In 2005, when L K Advani called Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech secular, he was forced to resign the Presidentship of the party.

    This is not a party document, and my party knows I have been working on this. They might disagree, that’s a different matter. Why should there be anger about disagreement? Let a self-sufficient majority, 60 years down the line of Independence, be able to stand up to what actually happened pre-47 and in 1947.

    Let me raise two issues that could be a problem for you. First, your sympathetic understanding of Muslims left behind in India. You say they are abandoned, they are bereft, they suffer from psychological insecurity. That’s not normally a position leaders of the BJP take.

    The BJP is misunderstood also in its attitude towards the minorities. Every Muslim that lives in India is a loyal Indian and we must treat them as so.

    But you are the first person from the BJP I have ever heard say, “Look into the eyes of Indian Muslims and see the pain.” No one has ever spoken in such sensitive terms about them before.

    I am born in a district, that is my home – we adjoin Sind, it was not part of British India. We have lived with Muslims and Islam for centuries. They are part…. In fact in Jaisalmer, Muslims don’t eat cow and the Rajputs don’t eat pig.

    The second issue that your book raises, which could cause problems for you, is that at least theoretically, you accept that their could be, although you hope there won’t be, further partitions.

    I am cautioning India, Indian leadership. I have said that I am not going to be a politician all my life, or even a member of Parliament. But I do say this – we should learn from what we did wrong, or didn’t do right, so that we don’t repeat the mistakes. Business Standard

    July 27, 2009

    Secular vs Non-Sucular: Jinnah’s Pakistan

    Filed under: History of Pakistan — Moin Ansari @ 3:57 pm
    Tags: ,

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

    Quaid e Azam praying

    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 | The Dawn | Military Strategy | Strategic Thinking and Policy Institute | Failed States | Pakistan Historian | Gandhi Unmasked | PAKISTAN LEDGER |  پاکستاني کھاتا RUPEE NEWS  | May 19th, 2009 | Moin Ansari | اخبار روپیہ | Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

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

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

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

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

    fatima-jinnah-book-my-brother-1_1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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 | The Dawn | Military Strategy | Strategic Thinking and Policy Institute | Failed States | Pakistan Historian | Gandhi Unmasked | PAKISTAN LEDGER |  پاکستاني کھاتا RUPEE NEWS  | May 19th, 2009 | Moin Ansari | اخبار روپیہ | Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Shabbir Ahmed Usmani reminded the Assembly of Jinnah’s letter of March 10, 1945, to the Pir of Manki Sharif, where he promised that the Constituent Assembly would enact laws for Muslimsnot inconsistent with the ShariatlawsandMuslims will no longer be obliged to abide by the un-Islamic laws.”

    There were other instances.

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

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

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

    Pakistani flagTHE 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Continent of Dinia and dependencies

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ANALYSIS OF THE TWO NATION THEORY:
    The two nation theory enunciates that the subcontinent is 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | RUPEE NEWS | March 24th, 2009 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

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

    The Muslims of South Asia are  a  nation  in  the modern senseof the  word; The basis of their nationhood  is  neither  territorial, nor racial, nor linguistic nor ethnic; They are a nation 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.

    June 17, 2009

    Pakistan historical links to Tajikistan & Uzbekistan

    Filed under: History of Pakistan — Moin Ansari @ 11:50 pm
    Tags: , ,

    In the province of Fergana, in the year 1494, when I was twelve year old, I became king. Zahiruddin Babur’s Bāburnāma (Tuz e Babri) begins with these plain words.

    Thus began of the greatest adventures of our time which transformedd South Asia and the world forever.

    Zahir-ud-din Mohammad was known as Babur, the Turkish word for “Tiger”. He was a descendant of the famed Turkish warrior Timurlane and the Mongolian Genghis Khan. Babur’s father, Omar Sheikh , was the king of Ferghana, a district of modern Uzbekistan. Omar died in 1495. Babur, though only twelve years of age, succeeded to the throne. Babar’s short reign of his ancestral homeland was ended and even after several tries he gave up on his dream to build an empire in Central Asia. Babar came down Khyber pass after he couldn’t conquer Samarqand and Bokhara.

    Babur 12000-man army, complete with limited artillery, and marched into the Subcontinetn and defeated Sultan Ibrahim 100000 soldiers and elephants in the First battle of Panipat on April 21, 1526. Sultan Ibrahim Lodi was slain and his army routed and Babur at once took possession of Agra and this was the beginning of the mighty Mughal Empire which lasted about 300 more years till the arrival of the British.

    Vascoda Gama had discovered a route to South Asia just a few years ago, and Columbus had sailed to the Americas and discovered “India” when he landed in the Caribbean. These were tough times in Europe. It saw the end of the Muslim caliphate in Andulusia and the beginning of the most vicious and ruthless campaign of the Spanish Incision which was directed against the Muslims and the Jews of Spain.

    Historically Pakistan is intractably linked to the valleys and the rivers of Central Asia. Just like America consideres itself a torch bearer of the Greeks and the Romans, Pakistan is a direct result of Babur and a successor state to the Mughal and Ottoman Empires. Uzbekistan lies north of the Oxus which is now called the Amu Darya. When the Ottoman empire broke up the czars took over the provinces which had now become independent. Eastern Turkistan was taken over by China and renamed Xinjiang. Afghanistan was the buffer state after Lord Curzon’s “On to the Oxus” policy failed and he decided that the British Empire would stay this side of the Indus.

    From the October revolution of 1917 to the 1990, the USSR tried to eliminate Islam and Muslims in the six Central Asia states. In the waning years of the USSR, the former provinces of the Ottoman empire became independent again. Islam survives and the number of mosques grew from zero to thousands within a few years. The IMU. The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan wages a war of attrition against the dictators who rule Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Krygyzstan.

    Tehran eager to end American interference in Tehran abolished the RCD as soon as the Mullahs came to power. In Iran the ECo was seen as repainted RCD. The RCD had too much of an American badge on it. The ECO was hurriedly put together to prevent Tehran from moving to far away from the RCD. started in the beginning of the Islamic revolution in Iran when Tehran wanted to go out and conquer the world. Iran wanted to overthrow all Arab regimes and install a Shia client state in Baghdad. The former Soviet republic didn’t know what to do. They were confused and besought by insurgencies which would today be called Taliban. The IMU was wreaking havoc and Gul Hamid saw an opportunity to extend Pakistani borders beyond Uzbekistan. Pakistan was seen as a US lackey. Pakistan on the other hand was flush with victory in Afghanistan and the US had departed the scene. At the time Nuclear bomb and a strong economy in Pakistan did not allow it to reach to Iran. Today, there is more opportunity to build the ECO.
    After the islamic revolution Pakistan tried to work with Iran to build a Muslim Common Market called the ECO. Due to conflicting Pakistani and Iranian interest and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the ECO remains a vision and a dream. Pakistan helped them with the basics, typewriters, computers, mosques, Qurans and gave scholarships to hundreds of students.

    All that ended in 2001 after the invasion of America by the USA. Pakistanis could no longer go to Central Asia. For the first time in history there is a barrier between the countries.

    Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, one of the greatest visionaries of our time named Pakistan after the Central Asia states. He wanted Pakistan to be part of the other “tans”. This was Iqbal’s vision too “Aik houn Mulim haram kee paasbani keh liyeh, Neel keh sahil say ta khak e kashgar”. The Nile is in Egypt and Kashgar is in Ughuyristan (China). The ECO was the first part of that dream of a Muslim Union. The European Union remained a dream for centuries. The Muslim Union is inevitable after the occupation forces leave Afghanistan. In fact many believe that the foreign forces are here to prevent the inevitable. Graveyard of Empires: AfPak-TurkTaj-UzbKaz-AzKyr -istan

    “Pakistan attaches great importance to joining the SCO. We would like to fully participate in the programmes and events of SCO and play an appropriate role in achieving the goals of the organisation.
    “That’s why Pakistan expects its admission into this organisation as a full-fledged member,” Mr. Zardari told local business daily ‘Kommersant’.
    In 2001 Pakistan had formally applied for SCO’s membership, but due to differences between Moscow and Beijing over the issue, the Shanghai Six had frozen the entry of new members. The Hindu
    Mr. Zardari may or may not be cognizant of the the dream of Chaudhry Rehmat Ali. He surely does know Iqbal’s dream. There are enough number of patriots alive to make sure that despite the temporary troubles, the dream is kept alive.

    Central Asia map: Kyrgyzstan moving closer to Pakistan
    ISLAMABAD: President Asif Ali Zardari’s recent proposal at the platform of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to develop special mechanism for Pakistan in areas of energy, security and economic cooperation will pave way for the country to link up with energy-rich Central Asia.

    Political analysts believe that Pakistan took full benefit of its participation at the SCO summit in Russian city Yekaterinburg as an observer for the first time, by asserting its involvement in key SCO sectors aimed at strengthening its economy.

    Mr. Zardari’s speech at the SCO was classic and legendary. He made it clear that Pakistan was a major player of the region and wanted full membership of the SCO. He did not mince his words. He reached out directly to Russia and informed them that Pakistan wanted a bilateral relationship with Moscow. From all accounts the Kremilin reciprocated the sentiments. The SCO today represents half of humanity. It is but natural that Islamabad wants to be tied into the future superpowers. Ural Sunrise: Russian wants full-fledged bilateral relationship with Pakistan

    A small strip of land separates Pakistan from Tajikistan
    Pakistan almost has a border with Tajikistan. It has links of language, culture, religion and food with Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. A narrow trip of land a few miles wide separates Tajikistan from Pakistan. That strip of Afghan land was deliberately placed their to separate the British Empire from the Tsars of Russia. Pakistan has to negotiate with Afghanistan on that narrow strip of land near Shariarv or the Iskashim Nature reserve in Uzbekistan. Pakistan could build an Afghanistan specific berth in Gwader or Port Qasim or Karachi and declare it Afghan territory but Pakistan has to get direct access to Tajikistan. This would link up Pakistan directly to Tajiksitan. An alternate arrangement would allow Pakistan to build a bridge or a tunnel under Afghan territory to link up to Tajikistan. Afghanistan is totally landlocked and needs Pakistan. Some Pakistani territory can be exchanged with Afghanistan to link up to Tajikistan. It has no access to the outside world. The modern’s relations with the Central Asia states have seen their ups and downs. After 1990, the Central Asia came down in droves to Pakistan selling their wares.

    A Foreign Office statement said that Pakistan enjoys an important status of possessing unique strategic depth geographically, which offers transit-route between Central Asian and South Asian countries. “The interaction and cooperation with the SCO members would prove to be proven determinant to develop momentum of trade between Pakistan and members of SCO,” the statement said.

    Independent political experts are of the view that interactive and cooperative outlook of SCO is a major symbolic drift from unipolar world order to a multipolar system. For Pakistan, the summit also provided an ample opportunity to develop cordial chemistry with other states as President Zardari held separate meetings with several heads of states and governments gathered at the SCO forum.

    The much-awaited rendezvous between President Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of SCO summit, left a positive note that the foreign secretaries of both countries would meet soon for the revival of comprehensive dialogue. The tri-lateral meeting between President Zardari, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Afghan President Hamid Karzai on the sidelines of summit, helped the three leaders find ways to resolve issues of terrorism.

    The joint communiqu’ issued after the SCO moot resolved to establish the sound and rational system of inter-governmental relations and set up the priorities for future interaction among the SCO members.

    Shanghai Cooperation Organization was founded in the backdrop of countering western influence in the energy-rich region, and comprises Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Pakistan, India, Iran and Mongolia joined in as observer nations while Afghanistan attended as a special guest. Zardari’s proposal to help link Pakistan with Central Asia. ‘Pakistan Times’ Diplomatic Correspondent

    Graveyard of Empires: AfPak-TurkTaj-UzbKaz-AzKyr -istan

    US bluff: Other arduous US Supply Chain routes to Afghanistan not feasible

    Pakistan to US: No pay-No play: Tough lessons in geography!

    After controlling most of Afghanistan, the insurgents target supplies from Uzbekistan and the Central Asia Republics Uzbekistan pressured the IMU is scared of Taliban reprisals on supplies to Kabul Anti-Occupation forces choke US Afghan war Reality check on War in Afghanistan The implications of the IMU activity in Pakistan The Grand Bargain? Pakistan key to Afghan Great Game Tough lessons in geography

    AfPak countercurrents beyond the Oxus to AfPakAzUzbKazTurkKyr-istan

    May 29, 2009

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

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

    Quaid e Azam praying

    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 | The Dawn | Military Strategy | Strategic Thinking and Policy Institute | Failed States | Pakistan Historian | Gandhi Unmasked | PAKISTAN LEDGER |  پاکستاني کھاتا RUPEE NEWS  | May 19th, 2009 | Moin Ansari | اخبار روپیہ | Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

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

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

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

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

    fatima-jinnah-book-my-brother-1_1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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 | The Dawn | Military Strategy | Strategic Thinking and Policy Institute | Failed States | Pakistan Historian | Gandhi Unmasked | PAKISTAN LEDGER |  پاکستاني کھاتا RUPEE NEWS  | May 19th, 2009 | Moin Ansari | اخبار روپیہ | Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Shabbir Ahmed Usmani reminded the Assembly of Jinnah’s letter of March 10, 1945, to the Pir of Manki Sharif, where he promised that the Constituent Assembly would enact laws for Muslimsnot inconsistent with the Shariatlawsand Muslims will no longer be obliged to abide by the un-Islamic laws.”

    There were other instances.

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

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

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

    Pakistani flagTHE 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Continent of Dinia and dependencies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | RUPEE NEWS | March 24th, 2009 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

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

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

    Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites

    May 24, 2009

    The Idea of Pakistan

    Filed under: Independence movement — Moin Ansari @ 3:29 pm
    Tags: ,

    Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    3 New shipyards support Pakistani ship building & Frigates

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

    PAF: Nuclear armed deterrent to hegemony

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

    IAF vs PAF: Defined by IAF

    Tanks: Bharati Arjun vs. Pakistani Al Khalid

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

    China achieves techonological independence in arms production

    Russian Arms–Made in China

    With $30 Billion China building Jxx 5th Generation Fighter

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

    Indian missile failures

    Why doesn’t Russia transfer plane technology to India?

    When will Delhi ground the New Flying Coffins?

    Indo Russian bickering disputes delay FGFA to stretch target in 2017

    How Abdul Kalam stole US NASA secrets for India

    Indian Airforce crying wolf? or facing shortage of jets?

    Indian Airforce crying wolf? or facing shortage of jets?

    South Asia Air Forces: PAF counters IAF strategy

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

    Pakistan’s as Nuclear power: 250 bombs

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

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

    Pakistan indigenous Satellite launch Vehicle & PakSat launch in 2011

    February 16, 2009

    Why and When did Balauchistan join Pakistan

    Filed under: History of Pakistan — Moin Ansari @ 6:09 pm
    Tags: ,

    Balauchistan decided to remain part of Pakistan in a referendum held under the auspices of the Independence of India Act of 1947.

    Baluchistan was part and parcel of the Indus Valley Civilization

    The 5000 year old ancient trade routes between Pakistan and China are being revived with modern freeways that were ocnstructed 20 years ago. 5000 years ago the
    The Geographic Two Nation Theory. Pakistan existed 5000 years ago as the “Indus Valley Civilization”

    Pakistan exsited 5000 Years ago as the IVCThe Pakistan that existed 5000 years ago. The Balauch have lived with the Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans, and Kashmiris for thousands of years. This alliance did not begin in recent history.

    The Nationalist parties are boycotting the elections. As expected the MMA will lose votes, and the PPP or the PML(N) may pick up seats. There is a distinct possibility that the PML(Q) may also get some seats.We wish to start the story of Baluchistan many thousands of years ago–even before the Indus Valley.We wish to start the story of Baluchistan many thousands of years ago–even before the Indus Valley.

    We wish to start the story of Baluchistan many thousands of years ago–even before the Indus ValleyMehergarh 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.

    Thus, the chronology of civilization in Pakistan, established through the study of Moenjodaro and Harappa, has been pushed back by over 4000 years. The habitation of the site has been divided into seven periods, the first being the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period that dates to circa 7000 B.C. or even earlier. The site was abandoned between 2000 and 2500 B.C. during a period of contact with the Indus Civilization and then reused as a burial ground for some time after 2000 B.C.

    Perhaps the most important feature of Mehrgarh is the fact that one can witness its gradual development from an early village society to a regional center that covered an area of 200 hectares at its height. In the course of this development, a huge platform that may reflect some form of authority was constructed at the site. Mehrgarh was also a center of manufacture for various figurines and pottery that were distributed to surrounding regions

    Research shows that people here lived in houses and were involved in hunting, domesticating of animals and farming cereals like barley and wheat. This hunting-farming society developed gradually and their pursuits were creative. During the early period these people used stone and bone tools i.e. polished stone-axes, flint blades and bone-pointers. By 6000 B.C. the hand-made pottery appeared and in the 5th millenium B.C. Metallurgy and potter-wheel were introduced and they produced some fine terra-cotta figurine and pottery with exotic geometric designs.

    Subsequently they produced and wore ornaments of beads, seashells and semi-precious stones like Lapis Lazuli. A museum has been set up at sibi where a wide range of rare finds from the site of mehergarh are on display.

    Accessibility: Mehargarh is well connected by road, air and by train with the rest of the country by Quetta

    The 5000 year old ancient trade routes between Pakistan and China are being revived with modern freeways that were ocnstructed 20 years ago. 5000 years ago the Harrappan Pakistanis were trading with the ChineseThe 5000 yeard old Pakistan as it interacted with the other 3 superpwoers

    The ancient trade routes between Pakistan and China are being revived with modern freewaysThe 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.

    Timurs’ EmpireBaluchistan part of Pakistan part of Amir taimur’s empire

    The British Empire does not even show half of PakistanThe British empire with hundreds of states in the Subcontinent

    Presidencies 1893The British empire of 1857 in the Subcontinent without Baluchistan

    Indian Empiure includes Ceylon, Burma, AfghanistanThe British Empire with Baluchistan and Afghanistan

    This is a map of the state of Kalat. Some part of Baluchistan belonged to the British Government

    This is a map of the state of Kalat. Some part of Baluchistan belonged to the British Government

    Kalat

    India’s recalcitrance to join and China’s eager interest in the Iran Pakistan pipeline bodes well for the visionaries who wish to convert the Pakistan energy corridor into a reality. The introduction of China into the pipeline project is huge morale boost for Pakistan and places a hamper on the hard bargaining on transportation costs. China has the largest investment banks in the world, and with Chinese trade surpluses, the financing issues would evaporate in a nano-secondThe coast of Baluchistan

    Afghanistan has been a problem for the world for the last 30 years. It is time to end this monstrosity. The solution to the turmoil in Afghanistan is to abolish the Durand Line, unite the Pashtuns, and initially absorb the Pashtun provinces into Pakistan. As a next step the Pakistani boundary should extend to the Amu Darya (Oxus). This will eliminate the need of NATO troops in Afghanistan, and save European and American lives.The maps of Pakistan

    Brining peace to the areaAfghan boundryMany Pakhtuns today want to join Pakistan. They call this inevitable

    PAKISTAN LEDGERپاکستاني کھاتا | November 30th, 2007  | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |  Page copy protected against web site content infringement by CopyscapeRUPEE NEWS| Moin Ansari | November 30th, 2007  | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

    The state of Kalat

    In 1947-1948 there were only two choices before the Raja of Kashmir the leaders of FATA, NWFP, the Khan of Kalat and the Baluch leaders.

    “Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago. It was not called “Pakistan”. China 5000 years ago was also called something else. Egypt 5000 years ago was called something else.Contrary to some of the revisionists who are rewriting history, Balauchistan’s 6 million people were not forcibly incorporated into Pakistan. The Baluchis have been living with the Indus Valley people for thousands of years.

    Balauchistan decided to join Pakistan in a referendum held under the auspices of the Independence of India Act of 1947. 1. During the period of the British Raj, there were four Princely States in Balochistan: Makran, Kharan, Las Bela and Kalat, the largest and most powerful.

    Constables 1893 British map showing Pakistan, Afghanistan, Burma, Ceylon, Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim as part of “Indian Empire”The British “On to the Oxus policy” was short lived. In 1876 Sir Robert Sandeman concluded a treaty with the Khan of Kalat and brought his territories–including Kharan, Makran, and Las Bela–under British suzerainty.3. After the Second Afghan War of 1878-80, the Treaty of Gandamak concluded in May 1879, the Afghan Mmir ceded his districts of Pishin, Sibi, Harnai, and Thal Chotiali to the British.

    Throughout history, the struggle for the independence of the Subcontinent has been struggle against centralism and the struggle has been waged to create for provincial autonomy. The Government of India Act of 1919 set out in clear terms the subjects which were to belong to the provincial sphere and those to the Central sphere. But both the Congress and the Muslim League boycotted the elections to the provincial and Central Legislatures held in November 1920 under the Act, because they felt that the Central vernment had still retained too much of power over the provinces.

    1) It is ironic that jounalists that were are citizen of  colonial powers that still occupy countries in the Middle East, Caribbean and West Asia are discussing colonialism in one of its former colonies. Many of these are spreading lies and disinformation about Baulauchistan and Pakistan.

    2) Some think that the history of the Subcontinent began when Lord Clive invaded Bengal. Actually the history of Baluchistan and the history of Pakistan begins 150,000 years ago in the Suan vallay where the first Pakistanis walked and swam in the Suan river.

    3) Mehergarh is the oldest agricultural site in the Subcontinent. It is 7000 years old. The poeple of Mehergarh traded with the Kashmiris, Punjabis, Sindhis, and Pathans for thousands of years. Contrary to some of the revisionists who are rewriting history, Balauchistan’s 6 million people were not forcibly incorporated into Pakistan. The Baluchis have been living with the Indus Valley people for thousands of years.

    4) The Indus Valley Civilization existed on the banks of the Indus in more or less Pakistan of today. This was 3500 BC or thereabouts.

    5) Balauchistan and Pakistan were part of many empires in a seesaw between Kushan, Abdali, Greeks, Persians, Timur, Mughals, and the British.

    6) The British “On to the Oxus policy” was short lived. In 1876 Sir Robert Sandeman concluded a treaty with the Khan of Kalat and brought his territories-including Kharan, Makran, and Las Bela-under British suzerainty.3. After the Second Afghan War of 1878-80, the Treaty of Gandamak concluded in May 1879, the Afghan Mmir ceded his districts of Pishin, Sibi, Harnai, and Thal Chotiali to the British.

    7) Balauchistan and Pakistan were part of the British Empire. There are British military cantonments in Quetta, Zhob, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Peshawar, Karachi, Sialkot and other places. During the period of the British Raj, there were four Princely states in Balochistan: Makran, Kharan, Las Bela and Kalat. In 1876 Sir Robert Sandeman concluded a treaty with the Khan of Kalat and brought his territories – including Kharan, Makran, and Las Bela – under British suzerainty. After the Second Afghan War of 1878-80, the Treaty of Gandamak concluded in May 1879, the Afghan Emir ceded the districts of Quetta Pishin,Sibi, Harnai, and Thal Chotiali to the British. In 1883 the British leased the Bolan Pass, southeast of Quetta, from the Khan of Kalat on a permanent basis. In 1887 some areas of Balochistan were declared British territory. In 1893, Sir Mortimer Durand negotiated an agreement with Amir Abdur Rahman Khan of Afghanistan to fix the Durand Line running from Chitral to Balochistan to as the boundary between the Afghans and the British.

    8) Balauchistan decided to join Pakistan in a referendum held under the auspices of the Independence of India Act of 1947. 1. During the period of the British Raj, there were four Princely States in Balochistan: Makran, Kharan, Las Bela and Kalat, the largest and most powerful.

    11) In 1883 the British leased the Bolan Pass, southeast of Quetta, from the Khan of Kalat on a permanent basis,.5. In 1887 some areas of Balochistan were declared British territory.6. In 1893, Sir Mortimer Durand negotiated an agreement with Amir Abdur Rahman Khan of Afghanistan to fix thethe Durand Line running from Chitral to Balochistan to as the boundary between the Afghans and the British. 1920 British Raj

    12) The Government of India Act, 1935, treated Kalat as an independent State and provides representation for it in the Federal Legislature. Kalat was not all of Baluchistan, it is part of Balauchistan.

    13) In 1947, Kalat was ruled by Mir Ahmed Yar Khan. Indeed, the British had given many Princely States the choice of either India, or Pakistan during the immediate pre-partition period (though they were worried of having too many independent nations). The states in Balauchistan were: Makran, Kharan, Las Bela and Kalat

    14) The Indian Independence Act, 1947 allowed the independent states to join either India or Pakistan. According to Indian Independence Act 1947 – Section II
    Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of this section the territories of Pakistan shall be (a) the territories which on the appointed day, are included in the Provinces of East Bengal and West Punjab as constituted under the two following sections; (b) the territories which, at the date of the passing of this Act, are included in the Province of Sind and the Chief Commissioner’s Province of British Baluchistan; and (c) if, whether before or after the passing of this Act but before the appointed day, the Governor General declares that the majority of the valid votes cast in the referendum which, at the date of the passing of this Act, is being or has recently been held in that behalf under his authority in the North-West Frontier Province are in favour of representatives of that Province taking part in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, the territories which, at the date of the passing of this Act, are included in that Province.

    15) The people of Balauchistan, overwhelmingly voted to join Pakistan in a referendum that was held on June 30, 1947, to ascertain their wishes on this issue.

    16) ABOUT THE BLA– a terror organization which is a creation of Indian RAW
    BLA: A threat to International Peace. The BLA is a creation of Indian Intelligence agencies which are trying to create instability in the areas bordering Paksitan, Iran and Afghanistan

    17) Balauchistan joined Pakistan as a result of the free will of the Muslims.

    18) The Khan of Kalat acceded to Pakistan on March 27, 1948. Like Kalat, Hydrabad and Kashmir, hundreds of other states also had the choice of either joining India or Pakistan.

    The present campaign to create issues in Pakistan is the same conspiracy that was tried by the USSR to impede the defeat of the USSR forces in Afghanistan.

    Pakistan gained independence from the British legally and the boundaries were recognized by Brittan, and all the other members of the United Nations.

    BaluchistanGwadar Port on the Baluch coast

    Pakistani Gwador to China links threaten Indian Chahbahar links to Kabul via Iran

    Gwadar to China:- Trade lessons from the 5000 yr old Pakistani Indus Valley Civilization: The Harrappan Trade Corridor within the IVC (Dilmin, Mekan) and beyond is now being resurrected again

    1947 impact today: Radcliffs award of Ferozepur and Gurdaspur foretold the hidden scheme for Kashmir

    Filed under: British Raj, Independence movement — Moin Ansari @ 5:49 pm
    Tags: , , ,

    Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | RUPEE NEWS | February 16th, 2009 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

    1947 impact today: Radcliffs award of Ferozepur and Gurdaspur foretold the hidden scheme for Kashmir

    This topic has tremendous implications on the birth of Pakistan and the loss of Kashmir to India. We would have liked to see similar research on Gurdaspur and Ferozepur with special emphasis on the unfairness of the Radcliff commission.

    There is a charge that Lord Radcliff was given a bribe of 6 corore rupees by the Indian National Congress supporters to unfairly and “illegally” award  Ferozepur and Gurdaspur to India. Ferozepur was the only arsenal that was supposed to be given to Pakistan. Gurdaspur was a Muslim majority area and was awarded to India. The boundary line was along the river and Radcliff unnaturally digressed it away from the river to give away Gurdaspur (the only link of India to Kashmir) to India.

    The implication of the loss of Ferozepur to India was not only traumatic in human terms, but it was devastating to Pakistan in military terms. The reality behind the conspiracy to award  Gurdaspur became evident a year later when Indian troops arrived in Srinagar and then Mahara Sing signed over the article of accession to India. The article of accession was never presented to the UN, and according to Alister Lamb has serious discrepancies about dates. The original article of accession has since been lost, if it ever existed. 

    “Alastair Lamb, Incomplete Partition (OUP, 1998) comes to the conclusion that the instrument of accession was not signed on the date claimed by the Indian government to legitimise its sending of troops into Kashmir. American scholar Stanley Wolpert relates the accession story in his 1996 book, Nehru: A tryst with Destiny, basing it on the lack of concordance between versions of the accession. Wolpert writes that Menon returned from Srinagar on 26 October ‘with no Instrument of Accession’ to report on the perilous condition in Kashmir to the Defence Committee. Only after Mountbatten had allowed the airlift of Indian troops on 27 October, did Menon and Mahajan set out for Jammu ‘to get the Instrument of Accession’. The Maharaja signed the Instrument after the Indian troops had assumed control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir’s summer capital, Srinagar. If Wolpert’s version is accepted then the ‘conspiracy’ of legalising the airlift becomes acceptable. Lamb thinks that it is possible that ‘certainly Menon, perhaps Mountbatten, perhaps Nehru and perhaps Patel’ were involved in this conspiracy. Lamb also claims that the document of accession does not exist.”  

    Similar articles on Kashmir are also posted in this site including a detailed history of Kashmir and the Subcontinent

    October 15, 2008

    The demise of the British Empire in South Asia: Bose’s War of Liberation

    Filed under: British Raj, History of Pakistan — Moin Ansari @ 12:28 am
    Tags: , , ,

    Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape Bookmark and Share Add to Technorati RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | October 15th, 2008 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

    Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian National Army, and the War of India’s Liberation – Ranjan Borra, Journal of Historical Review, no. 3, 4 (Winter 1982)

    “The arrival of

    in Germany in 1941 (during the turbulent period of World War II) and his anti-British activities in that country in co-operation with the German government, culminated in the formation of an Indian legion.

    This marks perhaps the most significant event in the annals of India’s fight for independence. This event not only can be regarded as a historical link-up with what Bose himself chose to describe as “The Great Revolution of 1857,” and which (in his words) “has been incorrectly called by English historians ‘the Sepoy Mutiny,’ but which is regarded by the Indian people as the First War of Independence.”[1]

    It also represents the historical fact that, by that time persuasive methods conducted through a non-violent struggle under the leadership of Gandhi, had failed. An armed assault on the citadel of the British Empire in India was the only alternative left to deliver the country from bondage.

    While other leaders of the Indian National Congress fell short of realizing this fact and thus betrayed a lack of pragmatic approach to the turn of world events that provided India with a golden opportunity to strike at the British by a force of arms, Bose rose to the needs of the hour and was quick to seize that opportunity.

    While Bose’s compatriots in India remained totally wedded to an ideological creed (non-violence), which at that time could only serve the British and postpone the advent of independence, and while their ideological interpretations of the new revolutionary regimes in Europe-again largely influenced by British propaganda-prevented them from even harboring any thought of seeking their alliance and co-operation in the struggle against a common enemy, Subhas Chandra Bose alone had the courage to take the great plunge, thus risking his own life and reputation, solely in the interest and cause of his country. In January 1941, while under both house arrest, and strict British surveillance, he escaped.

    After an arduous trek through the rugged terrains of several countries, with an Italian passport under the assumed name of Orlando Mazzota – (in which he was aided by underground revolutionaries and foreign diplomatic agents) — Bose appeared in Berlin, via Moscow, on 28 March 1941.

    Bose was welcome in Germany, although the news of his arrival there was kept a secret for some time for political reasons. The German Foreign Office, which was assigned the primary responsibility of dealing with Bose and taking care of him, had been well informed of the background and political status of the Indian leader through its pre-war Consulate-General at Calcutta and also by its representative in Kabul.

    Bose himself, naturally some what impatient for getting into action soon after his arrival in Berlin, submitted a memorandum to the German government on 9 April 1941 which outlined a plan for co-operation between the Axis powers and India.

    Among other things, it called for the setting up of a “Free India Government” in Europe, preferably in Berlin; establishment of a Free India broadcasting station calling upon the Indian people to assert their independence and rise up in revolt against the British authorities; underground work in Afghanistan (Kabul) involving independent tribal territories lying between Afghanistan and India and within India itself for fostering and aiding the revolution; provision of finances by Germany in the form of a loan to the Free India government-in-exile; and deployment of German military contingents to smash the British army in India.

    In a supplementary memorandum bearing the same date, Bose requested that an early pronouncement be made regarding the freedom of India and the Arab countries.[2]

    It is significant to note that the memorandum did not mention the need for formation of an Indian legion. Evidently the idea of recruiting the Indian prisoners of war for the purpose of establishing a nucleus of an Indian national army did not occur to him during his early days in Berlin.

    At that time the German government was in the process of formulating its own plan for dealing with Subhas Chandra Bose in the best possible manner.

    The Foreign Office felt itself inadequate to discharge this awesome responsibility without referring the whole matter to Hitler. While this issue was being considered at the highest level of the government, Bose’s own requests as set forth in the submitted memorandum, made it far too complicated and involved to be resolved at an early date.

    There was a long wait for Bose, during which period he often tended to become frustrated. Nevertheless, through several sympathetic officers of the Foreign Office, he continued to press his requests and put forth new ideas.

    Finally, after months of waiting and many moments of disappointment often bordering on despair for Bose, Germany agreed to give him unconditional and all-out help.

    The two immediate results of this decision were the establishment of a Free India Center and inauguration of a Free India Radio, both beginning their operations in November 1941.

    These two organizations played vital and significant roles in projecting Bose’s increasing activities in Germany, but a detailed account of their operation lies outside the purview of this paper. It should suffice to say that the German government put at Bose’s disposal adequate funds to run these two organizations, and he was allowed complete freedom to run them the way he liked at his own discretion.

    In its first official meeting on 2 November 1941, the Free India Center adopted four historical resolutions that would serve as guidelines for the entire movement in subsequent months and years in Europe and Asia.

    First, Jai Hind or Victory to India, would be the official form of salutation; secondly, Nobel laureate poet Rabindranath Tagore’s famous patriotic song Jana Gana Mona was to be the national anthem for the free India Bose was fighting for; thirdly, in a multi-lingual state like India, the most widely-spoken language, Hindustani, was to be the national language; and fourthly, Subhas Chandra Bose would hereafter be known and addressed as Netaji, the Indian equivalent of the “leader” or the “Führer.”

    In November 1941, Azad Hind Radio (or the Free India Radio) opened its program with an announcing speech by Netaji himself, which, in fact, was a disclosure of his identity that had been kept officially secret for so long. The radio programs were broadcast in several Indian languages on a regular basis.

    During this long period of “hibernation,” the period between Netaji’s arrival in Berlin and the beginning of operations of the two organizations, it can be reasonably assumed that the idea of forming an Indian legion that could be developed into an Indian Army of Liberation in the West, crossed Bose’s mind.

    He might even have discussed this matter with his colleagues-the Indian compatriots in Germany who had joined him-as to how best to implement the idea. However, as mentioned earlier, his first memorandum submitted to the German Government did not include any such plan. According to N.G. Ganpuley, who was his associate in Berlin,

    Netaji himself, when he left India, could not have, by any stretch of imagination, thought of forming a national army unit outside the country, and therefore he had no definite plans chalked out for its realization. Even while in Berlin, he could not think of it during the first few months of his stay there.[3]

    When and how, therefore, did he come to conceive such a plan? Mr. Ganpuley relates an interesting episode in this regard. To quote again from his book:

    It was all due to a brain wave of Netaji which started working by a simple incident. He read one day about some half a dozen Indian prisoners-of-war who were brought to Berlin by the Radio Department to listen to the BBC and other stations which sent out their programmes in Hindustani. He saw them there going about, not as free Indians, but as prisoners-of-war. They were brought to the Radio Office every day to listen to and translate the Hindustani programmes, and were sent back to their quarters escorted by a sentry … After he had a talk with them about war, about their captivity and their present life, his active mind started working… He pondered over it for some time and decided to form a small national military unit … No sooner was this decision taken by him … he started negotiating with that section of the German Foreign Office with which he was in constant touch. He put before them his plans for training Indian youths from the prisoners’ camps for a national militia.[4]

    Although somewhat skeptical and hesitant at the beginning, the German response to the plans was encouraging. It was a time psychologically well-chosen by Netaji.

    The allied forces had been defeated on the Continent, and the Wehrmacht was marching ahead successfully in the Soviet Union. It was also a historical coincidence that a large number of British Indian prisoners-ofwar, captured during Rommel’s blitzkrieg in North Africa, lay in German hands.

    Netaji’s first idea was to form small parachute parties to spread propaganda in, and transmit intelligence from, the North-West Frontier in India. The reaction of some selected prisoners who were brought to Berlin from the camp of Lamsdorf in Germany and Cyrenaica was so encouraging that he asked for all Indian prisoners held in North Africa to be brought over to Germany at once.

    The Germans complied with this request, and the prisoners began to be concentrated at Annaburg camp near Dresden. The recruitment efforts, however, at the onset met with some opposition from the prisoners, who evidently had misgivings about Netaji’s intentions and motivations. In this regard Hugh Toye writes:

    When Bose himself visited the camp in December there was still marked hostility. His speech was interrupted, and much of what he had to say went unheard. But private interviews were more encouraging; the men’s questions showed interest-what rank would they receive? What credit would be given for Indian Army seniority? How would the Legionary stand in relation to the German soldier? Bose refused to bargain, and some who might have been influential recruits were turned away. On the other hand, many of the men paid him homage as a distinguished Indian, several professed themselves ready to join the Legion unconditionally.[5]

    Netaji sought and got agreement from the Germans that the Wehrmacht would train the Indians in the strictest military discipline, and they were to be trained in all branches of infantry in using weapons and motorized units the same way a German formation is trained; the Indian legionaries were not to be mixed up with any of the German formations; that they were not to be sent to any front other than in India for fighting against the British, but would be allowed to fight in self defense at any other place if surprised by any enemy formation; that in all other respects the Legion members would enjoy the same facilities and amenities regarding pay, clothing, food, leave, etc., as a German unit.

    By December 1941 all arrangements were complete and the next important task was to persuade men to come forward and form the nucleus. It appeared that the POWs needed to be convinced that there were civilian Indian youth as well, studying, well placed in life and responsible to their families at home, who were ready to give up everything to join the Legion.

    Ten of the forty young Indians then residing in Berlin, came forward. They were quickly joined by five POWs who were already in Berlin in connection with the German radio propaganda, and the first group of fifteen people was thus formed.

    On 25 December 1941 a meeting of Indian residents in Berlin was called in the office of the Free India Center, to give a send-off to the first fifteen who were to leave the following day for Frankenburg, the first training camp and headquarters for the Legion. The brief ceremony was simple and solemn. Netaji blessed the Legion, the first of its kind in the history of the struggle for Indian independence. He christened it Azad Hind Fauj (Indian National Army). The Indian Army of Liberation in the West thus had a humble and modest birth.

    The strength of the Legion grew steadily, as the task of recruitment continued unabated. Once trained to a certain level and discipline, the members of the first batch were assigned the additional responsibility of visiting the Annaberg camp and aiding in the recruitment process. While the Legion was sent to Frankenburg in Saxony, another group was taken to Meseritz in Brandenburg to be trained in tactical warfare. Abid Hasan and N.G. Swamy, the two original recruiters whom Netaji had sent to the Annaberg camp in 1941, had become de-facto foundermembers of the Legion at Frankenburg and the irregular Company at Meseritz respectively.

    At Meseritz, the Indians were placed under the command of Hauptmarm Harbig, whose first object was to make them forget that they had been prisoners. There were Tajiks, Uzbeks and Persians as well under training for operational roles similar to that envisaged for the Indians.

    In due course the trainees went on to tactical operational training, such as wireless operating, demolitions and riding, and also undertook special mountain and parachute courses. According to Toye, “Morale, discipline and Indo-German relations were excellent, the German officers first-rate.”[6]

    Netaji visited the camps from time to time and watched progress of the trainees. Since he himself was inclined toward military training and discipline, he followed the German training methods with great interest. It is understood that while in Germany Netaji himself underwent the rigors of such training, although authoritative documents on this subject are yet to be located by this writer.

    While in India, he was a member of the University Training Corps at school and commanded the volunteers at an annual session of the Indian National Congress, but he never had a formal military education prior to his arrival in Germany in 1941. As Joyce Lebra writes: “Though Bose was without any previous military experience, he got his training and discipline German-style, along with the soldiers of the Indian Legion.” 7

    To him, formation of a legion was more positive, more nationalistic and more gratifying than mere radio propaganda. Unlike his ex-compatriots in the Indian National Congress, including Gandhi, Nehru and Patel, he would rather seek confrontation with the British-with an army-than to work out a compromise with them on a conference table, on the issue of India’s freedom.

    A firm believer in discipline and organization, nothing perhaps could be more satisfying to him than to see his men being trained by the German Command, with officers of the highest calibre. In four months, the number of trainees rose to three hundred. In another six months a further three hundred were added. By December 1942, exactly a year after the recruitment of the Legion was inaugurated, it attained the strength of four battalions. At the beginning of 1943 the Legion would be 2000 strong, well on its way up to the culminating point of 3500 men. But let us step back to early 1942, almost a year after Netaji’s arrival in Berlin.

    After the inauguration of the Free India Center, Free India Radio, and the sending of the first fifteen legionaries to the Frankenburg training camp, Netaji’s activities in Germany began in full swing. His presence in Germany was not yet officially admitted-he was still being referred to as Signor Orlando Mazzota or His Excellency Mazzota-but he began to be known to more and more people in Berlin. Josef Goebbels wrote in his diary on 1 March:

    We have succeeded in prevailing upon the Indian nationalist leader, Bose, to issue an imposing declaration of war against England. It will be published most prominently in the German press and commented upon. In that way we shall now begin our official fight on behalf of India, even though we don’t as yet admit it openly.[8]

    On 14 March, he remarked of Bose, “He is an excellent worker.”[9] The fall of Singapore was a signal for Netaji to broadcast his first official speech over the Free India Radio, repeating his vow to fight British imperialism until the end. This he followed with a declaration of war against England, although at that stage such a pronouncement could only be symbolic. Netaji had not yet obtained an Axis declaration in support of the freedom of India that he pressed for in the supplement of his first memorandum to the German government. That government was of the opinion that the time was not ripe yet for such a declaration and unless a pronouncement of this nature could be supported by military action, it would not be of much value.

    Meanwhile, Japan proposed a tripartite declaration on India. Encouraged by this, Bose met Mussolini in Rome on 5 May, and persuaded him to obtain such a declaration in favor of Indian independence. Mussolini telegraphed the Germans, proposing proceeding at once with the declaration. To back his new proposal Mussolini told the Germans that he had urged Bose to set up a “counter-government” and to appear more conspicuously. The German reaction, which still remained guarded, is recorded by Dr. Goebbels in his diary on 11 May:

    We don’t like this idea very much, since we do not think the time has yet come for such a political manoeuvre. It does appear though that the Japanese are very eager for some such step. However, emigre governments must not live too long in a vacuum. Unless they have some actuality to support them, they only exist in the realm of theory.[10]

    Netaji apparently was of the opinion that a tripartite declaration on Indian independence, followed up by a government-in-exile, would give some credibility to his declaration of war on England, push over the brink the imminent revolution in India, and legitimize the Indian legion. However, Hitler held a different view. During an interview at the Führer’s field headquarters on 29 May, he told Netaii that a well-equipped army of a few thousand could control millions of unarmed revolutionaries, and there could be no political change in India until an external power knocked at her door. Germany could not yet do this.

    To convince Netaji, he took him to a wall map, pointed to the German positions in Russia and to India. The immense distances were yet to be bridged before such a declaration could be made. The world would consider it premature, even coming from him, at this stage. Hitler was perhaps being realistic, but nevertheless it must have come as some sort of disappointment for Netaji.

    In July 1942, the Germans suggested that a contingent of the Irregular Company be sent for front-line propaganda against Indian troops at El Alamein; but Rommel, who did not like battlefields turned into proving grounds for Foreign Office ideas, opposed the move. However, at the Lehrregiment manoeuvers in September, and on field exercises in October, the Indian performance won high praise.

    By January 1943, it was realized that maintenance of the irregulars as a separate entity was not of much practical use, and the ninety Indian men, (excepting four under N.G. Swamy who were being trained for work within Indiaj were absorbed into the Legion. Since the supply of recruits from the Annaburg camp was fast being depleted, it was decided to hasten the shipment of prisoners of war from Italy.

    According to an agreement between Italy and Germany, all Indian POWs were to be sent directly to Germany without being held in Italian camps. But, in the meanwhile, an unforseen impediment stood in the way. A long-time Indian resident in Rome, Iqbal Shedai, formed an Indian unit under the Italians, and began broadcasting from Rome with the aid of a few Indian prisoners.

    It is understood that he had conferred with Netaji a few times, but obviously had no intention of co-operating with him. From radio broadcasting, he advanced into forming an Indian military unit, although it was in clear violation of the Italo-German agreement. The unit was named the Centro Militare India, but existed only from April to November 1942.

    During its brief period of existence, however, Shedai succeeded in diverting several hundred volunteers to Italian camps, who would normally have gone to Germany. In November the unit was three hundred and fifty strong, having been trained by Italian officers. On 9 November, after the Allied landing in North Africa, it was learnt that the men were being sent to fight in Libya, contrary to Shedai’s promises. When they refused to go and mutinied, Shedai refused to intervene. Consequently, the Centro Militare India was disbanded. It was never revived, and thus a barrier that stood in Netaji’s way toward recruitment was removed.

    In August 1942, the Legion was moved to Koenigsbrueck, a large military training center in Saxony. This had been a regular training ground for the German infantry and motorized units for decades. Here the first contingents paraded before Netaji’s eyes in October, and the growth was rapid. However, the rapid expansion of the Legion also posed the problem of finances.

    Hitherto, payment to soldiers was being made from the monthly grants to the Free India Center and its office. As the number of Legionaries grew, that source became insufficient. For this problem there could be but one solution: direct payment to the Legion b~ the Germans.

    This would mean hereafter that the Legionaries would receive promotions and precedence as soldiers of national socialist Germany, and would become, in fact, a regiment of the German army, while retaining its separate name and distinction. This was agreed upon between Netaji and the German government, necessitating the taking of a formal oath of loyalty to Adolph Hitler on the part of the Legionaries. Describing the ceremony, Hugh Toye writes:

    Five hundred Legionaries were assembled. Their German commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Krappe, addressed them, and the oath was administered by German officers to six men at a time. All was done with solemnity, the soldiers touching their officer’s sword as they spoke the German words: ‘I swear by God this holy oath, that I will obey the leader of the German State and people, Adolph Hitler, as commander of the German Armed Forces, in the fight for freedom of India, in which fight the leader is Subhas Chandra Bose, and that as a brave soldier, I am willing to lay down my life for this oath.’ Bose presented to the Legion its standard, a tricolor in the green, white and saffron of the Indian National Congress, superimposed with the figure of a springing tiger in place of the Congress spinning wheel. “Our names,” he said, “will be written in gold letters in the history of free India; every martyr in this holy war will have a monument there.” It was a brave, colorful show, and for Bose, a moment of pride and emotion. “I shall lead the army,” he said, “when we march to India together.” The Legionaries looked well in their new uniforms, the silken banner gleaming in their midst; their drill did them credit.[11]

    What was Netaji’s plan for leading this army to India? When the Germans launched out beyond Stalingrad into Central Asia, the Indian irregulars, trained at Messeritz, would accompany their Tajik and Uzbek counterparts along with the German Troops.

    After Uzbekistan and Afghanistan were reached the Indian Company would leap ahead of the German advance to disrupt the British-Indian defenses in northwestern India. Netaji spoke of dropping parachute brigades, calling on the Indian peasantry to assist them. Through radio he issued warnings to British Indian soldiers and police to the effect that unless they assisted the liberation forces they would one day have to answer to the free Indian government for their criminal support of the British.

    The effect of the Indian army of liberation marching into India along with the German forces would be such that the entire British Indian Army morale would collapse, coinciding with a revolutionary uprising against the British. The Legion would then be the nucleus of an expanding army of free India.

    Netaji’s plan, largely dependent on German Military successes in the Soviet Union, undoubtedly had a setback when the Wehrmacht was halted at Stalingrad. After the German retreat from that city, the plan for marching into India from the West had to be abandoned. The tide of war was turning swiftly, calling for devising new strategies on the part of Netaji.

    While the German army’s second thrust into Russia encountered an unexpected counter-offensive at Stalingrad and thus was forced to turn back, in another part of the world the forces of another Axis partner were forging ahead, nearer and nearer to India.

    Japan was achieving spectacular successes in the Far East and was ready to welcome Netaji as the leader of millions of Indians who lived in the countries of East and Southeast Asia. To Netaji, the Japanese attitude was extremely encouraging. Tolo, the Prime Minister, had issued statements in the Diet about Indian freedom early in 1942, and by March there was a Japanese proposal for a tripartite declaration on India.

    A small band of Indian National Army legionaires had already been in existence in the Southeast under Japanese patronage, although a few of its leaders, including Mohan Singh, had fallen out with the Japanese. Netaji would have no difficulty in reorganizing and expanding this organization.

    He would get the active support of millions of overseas Indians, and the many thousands of British Indian prisoners-of-war would provide him a greater opportunity for recruitment, and for thus organizing a formidable army of liberation that could immediately be deployed in forward positions as the Imperial Japanese Army kept on advancing through the steaming jungles of the Malayan peninsula and Burma. During his meeting with Hitler on 29 May, the Führer had also suggested that in view of the prevalent world situation, Netaji should shift the center of his activities from Germany to the Far East.

    Netaji could look back at his two years work in Germany with a sense of pride and accomplishment. Broadcasting, publications and propaganda were all extended. Azad Hind Radio had extended programs in several languages, and reports indicated that they were being listened to with interest in target areas; Azad Hind, a bilingual journal, was being published regularly.

    There were other papers for the Legion besides; the Free India Center had attained an acknowledged status in Germany. It was treated as a foreign mission, entitling its members to a higher scale of rations, and exemption from some of the Aliens’ regulations. Netaji himself was given a good villa, a car and special rations for entertainment purposes. His personal allowance amounted to about eight hundred pounds a month.

    The monthly grant for the Free India Center rose from 1,200 pounds in 1941 to 3,200 pounds in 1944. All these Netaji stipulated as a loan from the German government, to be returned after India gained independence with the Axis assistance. However, the turn of events now demanded his presence in a different theater-of-war.

    What would happen to the Legion in Netaji’s absence? It was now 3,500 strong, well trained and equipped, ready for action. Netaii consulted with his aides in Berlin. A.C.N. Nambiar, an Indian journalist who had been in Europe for some eighteen years prior to Netaji’s arrival in Germany, was his right-hand man. While preparing for his journey to the Asian theater-of-war, Netaji passed on to Nambiar his policy and instructions. As Hugh Toye writes:

    There were plans for new branches of the Free India Center, for broadcasting, for Indians to study German police methods, and for the training of Indian seamen and airmen. As for the legion, it must be used actively as soon as possible, the German officers and NCOs must be quickly replaced by Indians, there must be no communalism. Legionaries were to be trained on all the most modern German equipment, including heavy artillery and tanks; Bose would send further instructions as opportunity offered.[12]

    A few words must be added regarding the Indo-German cooperation and comradeship during the critical days of World War II when the Legion was formed. None could describe it better than Adalbert Seifriz, who was a German Officer in the training camp of the Legionaries. He writes,

    Agreeing to the proposal of Bose was a magnificient concession and consideration shown to the great personality of Bose by the German Government in those critical times when all German efforts were concentrated on the war … The mutual understanding and respect between Indians and Germans and the increasing contact between them in the interest of the common task made it possible for the Indian Legion to sustain and keep up discipline right up to the German capitulation in 1945. During the period of training and even afterwards the comradeship between Indians and Germans could not be destroyed … A meeting with Subhas Bose was a special event for the German training staff.-We spent many evenings with him, discussing the future of India. He lives in the minds of the training staff members as an idealistic and fighting personality, never sparing himself in the service of his people and his country … The most rewarding fact was the real comradeship which grew between Indians and Germans, which proved true in dangerous hours, and exists still today in numerous cases. The Indian Legion was a precious instrument in strengthening and consolidating Indo-German friendship.[13]

    A report of Hitler’s visit to the Indian Legion headquarters in Dresden was given by Shantaram Vishnu Samanta (one of the Legionaries) during a press interview in India, after his release from an internment camp. According to his statement, Hitler addressed the soldiers of the Legion after Netaji had left for East Asia. He spoke in German and his speech was translated into Hindustani by an interpreter. He said:

    You are fortunate having been born in a country of glorious cultural traditions and a colossal manpower. I am impressed by the burning passion with which you and your Netaji seek to liberate your country from foreign domination. Your Netaji’s status is even greater than mine. While I am the leader of eighty million Germans, he is the leader of 400 million Indians. In all respects he is a greater leader and a greater general than myself. I salute him, and Germany salutes him. It is the duty of all Indians to accept him as their führer and obey him implicitly. I have no doubt that if you do this, his guidance will lead India very soon to freedom.

    A statement by another soldier of the Indian Legion, who remains anonymous, has a somewhat different version. It stated that both Netaji and Hitler took a joint salute of the Indian Legion and a German infantry. In addition to comments cited earlier, Hitler was reported to have made these remarks as well:

    German civilians, soldiers and free Indians! I take this opportunity to welcome your acting Führer, Herr Subhas Chandra Bose. He has come here to guide all those free Indians who love their country and are determined to free it from foreign yoke. It is too much for me to dare to give you any instructions or advice because you are sons of a free country, and you would naturally like to obey implicitly the accredited leader of your own land. [14]

    However, reports of Hitler’s visit and address to the Indian Legionaries are not confirmed from any other source.

    Netaji would be leaving Germany on 8 February 1943. On 26 January, “Independence Day for India,” there was a great party in Berlin where hundreds of guests drank his health. On 28 January, which was set aside for observance as the “Legion Day” in honor of the Indian Legion, he addressed the Legion for the last time. It is believed that his departure was kept secret from his army.

    So, there were no visible emotions among the men; no gesture of a farewell. The impression Netaji was leaving at the Free India Center, was that he was going on a prolonged tour. So there were no signs of any anxiety. Except for a few top-ranking German officers and his closest aides, hardly anybody was aware that within a week-and-a-half he would be embarking on the most perilous journey ever undertaken by man; a submarine voyage through mine-infested waters to the other side of the world. In his absence, Nambiar settled down in his job as his successor and soon gained respect of the Legionaries.

    Two months after Netaii’s departure, as a result of discussion between the German Army Command and the Free India Center, it was decided to transfer the Legion from Koenigsbrueck to a coastal region in Holland, to involve it in a practical coastal defense training. It was also in accordance with Netaji’s Wishes. He had often expressed a desire to give his troops, whenever possible, some training in coastal defense.

    After the first battalion was given a hearty send-off, an untoward incident happened within the legion; two companies of the second battalion refused to move. It was soon found out that there were three main reasons for staging this minor rebellion.

    Some Legionaries were unhappy that they were not promoted, but their names had to be put on the waiting list; some simply did not want to leave Koenigsbrueck; some were influenced by a rumor that Netaji had abandoned them and had gone off leaving them entirely in German hands, who were now going to use them in the Western Front, instead of sending them to the East to fight for India’s liberation.

    However, the rebellion was soon quelled after a team of NCOs visited the officials of the Free India Center in Berlin and obtained clarification regarding the rebel Legionaries’ grievances.

    The team went back to the camp and assured the men that they were not being sent to fight a war but were there purely for practical training purposes according to Netaji’s wishes; that the promotions were not being passed up, they would follow in due course; and that Netaji had not abandoned them, and they would be informed about his whereabouts and plans as soon as possible. In pursuance of military discipline, the ringleaders of this act of insubordination were sent to prison camps for a specified period.

    The Legion was stationed in the coastal areas of Holland for five months. Afterwards, there was a decision to move it to the coastal area of Bordeaux in France from the mouth of the Girond, opposite the fortification of Foyan to the Bay of Arcachon.

    The Legion was taking charge here. The stay in France was utilized to give the Legionaries a thorough training in the weaponry required for the defense of the Atlantic Wall. In the spring of 1944, the first batch of twelve Indians were promoted to officers. Field Marshal Rommel, who took charge of the Atlantic Wall, once visited the area where the Indian contingent was located. Ganpulay writes:

    … after having seen the work carried out by the Indians,, he exclaimed: “I am pleasantly surprised to find that in spite of very little training in coastal defense, the work done here is fairly satisfactory.” While departing, he said to the Indian soldiers: “I am glad to see you have done good work; I wish you and your leader all the good luck!”[15]

    In the spring of 1944, one company of the Legion was sent to North Italy at the request of some officers who were seeking an opportunity to confront the British forces. After the Normandy invasion by the Allied forces in June 1944, the military situation in Europe began to deteriorate. It eventually became so critical that the German High Command decided to order the Indian Legion to return to Germany.

    So after about ten months of stay in the coastal region of Lacanau in France, the Indian Legion started its road back. It is to be understood at this point that with the landing of the Allied troops in France and their gradual advance through the French countryside, the French Maquis (underground) guerrillas had become very active, and along with the German troops they made the Legionaries as well the target of their attacks.

    After travelling a certain distance, the first battalion of the Legion was temporarily located in the area of Mansle near Poitiers, while the second and the third battalion were stationed in Angouleme and Poitiers respectively. After a rest for ten days in this region, during which period they had to ward off sporadic attacks by the French underground, the Legionaries took to the road once again. In this long march back to Germany, the Legion demonstrated exemplary courage and fortitude, and underwent rigors and hardships of battlefield with equanimity.

    At this time, British propaganda was directed to these men which was full of empty promises; some material was dropped from the air, while agents infiltrated into the ranks to persuade the men to desert. The propaganda promised the would-be deserters reinstatement in the British Indian army with full retroactive pay and pension, but the British hypocrisy was once again manifest in the fact that a few of the soldiers who had fallen victim to this bait were shot later by the French publicly in a market place in Poitiers without any trial, along with some German prisoners-of-war.

    In following the saga of the Indian Army of Liberation in the West, one has to remember that its fate was indissolubly linked with that of the Axis powers in Europe, especially Germany. The overpowering of the new revolutionary regimes of Europe by forces representing an alliance of capitalism and Marxism was an international tragedy which engulfed the Indian Legion in Europe as well.

    During its retreat into Germany, it encountered the enemy forces on several occasions and fought rearguard action with British and French forces, displaying exemplary bravery. The German military training had converted the regiment not only into a highly disciplined body, but a hard-core fighting unit as well.

    It is indeed a historical irony that this superb force could not be utilized for the purpose and way its creator and leader, Subhas Chandra Bose, had dreamt of. Nevertheless, the 950th Indian Regiment, as the Legion was officially designated, left its footprints in the battlefields of France and Germany, as their many other gallant comrades of the German Army.

    In the fall of 1944 until Christmas, the Indian Legion spent its time in the quiet villages of southern Germany. Between Christmas and the New Year 1945, the unit was ordered to move into the military camp at the garrison town of Heuberg. In the spring of 1945 the Allied forces crossed the Rhine. The Russians entered the East German provinces murdering and plundering cities, townships and villages. Heavy bomber formations began destroying German cities.

    Transport systems became completely disorganized and paralyzed. The end was near, and there was no point in remaining in the barracks. The Legion, therefore, left its winter quarters at Heuberg in March 1945, and headed for the Alpine passes. By that time all communications with the Free India Center in Berlin had been cut off. The Legion commanders took decisions independently.

    The Legion had already reached the Alpine regions east of Bodensee. However, with the surrender of the German forces on 7 May, all hopes also ended for the Free India Army. While attempting to cross over to Switzerland, the legionaries were overwhelmed by American and French units and were made prisoners. Those who fell into the hands of the French had to suffer very cruel treatment. Several were shot, while others died in prison camps in miserable conditions. The rest were eventually handed over to the British.

    Although thus swept into the maelstrom of the Axis disintegration in Europe, Netaji’s army of liberation in the west had carved for itself a niche in history; for, indeed, it was a nucleus which would eventually precipitate a much larger fighting force elsewhere.

    Inspired by its leader, that force would march into India to set in motion a process that would eventually deliver the country from an alien bondage. One, therefore, must not regard the saga of the Indian National Army in Europe as an isolated event that ended tragically.

    While its dream of crossing the Caucasus along with its allies, the German Armed Forces, and entering India from the Northwest, did not materialize in reality, its extension and successor, India’s army of liberation in the east, did enter the country from the opposite direction, thus fulfilling the cherished dream of Netaji and his soldiers. Not only that, as we shall see subsequently, but that army made the mightiest contribution toward finally ending an imperialist rule in India.

    During his interview with Netaji, Hitler had suggested to him that since it would take at least another one or two years before Germany could gain direct influence in India, and while Japan’s influence, in view of its spectacular successes in Southeast Asia, could come in a few months, Bose should negotiate with the Japanese.

    The Führer warned Bose against an air journey which could compel him to a forced landing in British territory. He thought Bose was too important a personality to let his life be endangered by such an experiment. Hitler suggested that he could place a German submarine at his disposal which would take him to Bangkok on a journey around the Cape of Good Hope.[16]

    However, despite Hitler’s suggestions, it is believed that the German Foreign Office showed some reluctance in the matter of Netaji’s leaving Germany and going to Japan. Col. Yamamoto Bin, Japanese military attache in Berlin (and a good personal friend of Netaji) along with the Japanese ambassador Lieutenant-General Oshima Hiroshi, had met Netaji as early as October 1941 when the latter expressed hopes for enlisting Japanese aid in his plan for wresting Indian independence. This was the beginning of a series of such meetings.

    After the entry of Japan in World War II in December, Netaji was more eager to go as soon as possible to East Asia and fight beside Japan for India’s liberation. He reportedly urged Oshima to use his good offices to secure his passage to Asia. It was about at this point that both Oshima and Yamamoto encountered a feeling of reluctance in the matter on the part of the German Foreign Office.

    They had the feeling that Germany was not to willing to let Japan lead India to independence. Bose was already a useful ally as an Indian patriot, and his propaganda broadcasts were effective in both India and Britain. The Indian Legion was already having a psychological impact in India and worrying the Allies. For these reasons, “they were guarding Bose like a tiger cub.”[17]

    In the meantime, Ambassador Oshima had also met with Hitler and explained Bose’s plan to him. According to Japanese records,

    The Führer readily agreed with Oshima that it was better for Bose to shift his activities to Southeast Asia now that his country’s (Japan’s) armies had overrun the area. The second problem was whether Bose would get enough support in Tokyo for his activities. On this, Oshima had contacted Tokyo many times but had not received any firm answer. Finally, Tokyo replied to Oshima that in principle it had no objection to Bose’s visit to Japan. The third problem was to provide Bose with a safe means of transport to Japan. Communication between Germany and Japan was impossible during those days. Passage by boat was ruled out; and it was decided to use a plane belonging to the Lufthansa Company to airlift Bose from Germany to Japan via the Soviet Union. Tojo (Japanese Prime Minister) objected to this on the grounds that this would amount to a breach of trust with the Soviet Union. An attempt was made by both Yamamoto and Bose to get an Italian plane, but this also did not work. Finally the choice fell on a submarine. Germany agreed to carry Bose up to a certain unknown point in the east and asked that a Japanese submarine be pressed into service thence forward. After a series of exchanges with his government, Oshima finally obtained Tokyo’s approval of the plan and communicated it to Bose.[18]

    Alexander Werth writes:

    An interesting anecdote related to this historic journey may perhaps be mentioned here. Shortly before Bose’s departure the Japanese Naval Command raised objections because of an internal Japanese regulation not permitting civilians to travel on a warship in wartime. When Adam von Trott (of the German Foreign Office) received this message by cable from the German Ambassador in Tokyo, he sent the following reply: “Subhas Chandra Bose is by no means a private person, but Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Liberation Army.” Thus the bureaucratic interference was overcome.[19]

    On 8 February 1943, accompanied by Keppler, Nambiar and Werth, Netaji arrived at the port of Kiel where a German submarine under the command of Werner Musenberg was waiting for him. His would-be sole companion on this perilous voyage, Abid Hasan had travelled separately to Kiel in a special compartment without knowing his destination. Only after commencement of the journey was he to be informed of the itinerary. Netaji was leaving behind his chosen 3,500 soldiers of the Indian Legion, the 950th regiment of the German Army, specially trained and equipped for the task of liberating an India held in bondage by the British. We have already followed the history and fate of the Legion. Now let us turn to the East.

    Indian National Army of Liberation in the East

    On 15 February 1942, Singapore fell to the Japanese army advancing southward from the Malayan peninsula. Two days later, in an impressive ceremony held at Farrar Park in the heart of the town, Indian troops were handed over to the Japanese as prisoners-of-war by their commanding officer, Colonel Hunt.

    Major Fujiwara took them over on behalf of the victorious Japanese, and then announced that he was handing them over to Captain Mohan Singh of the Indian contingents, who should be obeyed by them as their Supreme Commander. Mohan Singh then spoke to the Indian POWs, expressing his intention of raising an Indian national army out of them to fight for India’s freedom.

    He held a preliminary discussion with some prominent Indians in Malay and Burma in a meeting in Singapore on 9 and 10 March, which was attended by Rashbehari Bose, a veteran Indian revolutionary exile living in Japan for the last quarter of a century. Bose then called a conference in Tokyo, which was held 28-30 March.

    The delegates representing several East and Southeast Asian countries present at the conference, decided to form the Indian Independence League to organize an Indian independence movement in East Asia. Bose was recognized as head of the organization.

    The conference further resolved that “militay action against the British in India will be taken only by the INA and under Indian command, together with such military, naval and air cooperation and assistance as may be requested from the Japanese by the Council of Action” and further, “after the liberation of India, the framing of the future constitution of India will be left entirely to the representatives of the people of India.”[20]

    On 15 June 1942, a conference opened in Bangkok with over a hundred delegates of the IIL attending from all over Asia. By the close of the nine-day conference a resolution was unanimously adopted setting forth the policies of the independence movement in East Asia. The III, was proclaimed the organization to work for India’s freedom; the Indian National Army was declared the military arm of the movement with Mohan Singh as the Commander-in-chief and Rashbehari Bose was elected president of the Council of Action.

    It was further decided that Singapore would be the headquarters of the IIL. Netaji had stated in a message to the conference that his personal experience had convinced him that Japan, Italy and Germany were sworn enemies of British imperialism; yet, independence could come only through the efforts of Indians themselves. India’s freedom would mean the rout of British imperialism. The Indian National Army was officially inaugurated in September 1942.

    Unfortunately, at this point a distrust began to grow within the Indian group against Rashbehari Bose’s leadership. Some thought that having been long associated with Japan, he gave precedence to the Japanese interests over Indian interests. According to Japanese records:

    Some even thought that he was just the protege of the Japanese, and that the latter was exploiting Indians for their own ends. Such resentment finally resulted in a revolt of a group of leaders headed by Captain Mohan Singh within the INA in November 1942. As a consequence, Mohan Singh and his associate, Colonel Gill were both arrested by the Japanese and the Indian Army was disbanded. However, in 1943 a new Indian Army was organized, put under the command of Lt. Col. Bhonsle, who held this post until the final dissolution of the army. [21]

    Describing the revived INA. Joyce Lebra writes:

    On 15 February 1943, the INA was reorganized and former ranks and badges revived. The Director of the Military Bureau, Lieutenant-Colonel Bhonsle, was clearly placed under the authority of the III. to avoid any repetition of IIIANA rivalry. Under Bhonsle was Lt. Col. Shah Nawaz Khan as Chief of General Staff-, Major P.K. Sahgal as Military Secretary; Major Habibur Rahman as commandant of the Officers’ Training School; and Lt. Col. A.C. Chatterji, and later Major A.D. Jahangir, as head of enlightenment and culture. Apart from this policy-forming body was the Army itself, under the command of Lt. Col. M.Z. Kiani. This was the organization which held the INA together until the arrival of Subhas Chandra Bose from Berlin, six months later.[22]

    In February, the Japanese military officer Iwakuro had called a meeting of about three hundred officers of the INA at Bidadri camp in Singapore and spoke to them about the advisability of joining the army, but with no effect. According to Ghosh, “Later on, in a ‘Heart to heart talk’ with some officers, it emerged that a large number of officers and men would be willing to continue in the INA on the express condition that Netaji would be coming to Singapore.”[23]

    The story of Netaji’s exploits in Germany and the history of the Indian Legion was known to Indian revolutionaries of the IIL in East Asia for some time now, and they awaited his arrival eagerly. As the first INA wavered, faltered and was finally disbanded, and as its successor merely continued to exist, the need for Netaji’s leadership began to be felt more keenly. Mohan Singh had mentioned his name to General Fujiwara as early as 1941. In all conferences the need of his guidance had been emphasized by the delegates.

    While Netaji and Abid Hasan continued to push toward the East making a wide sweep out into the Atlantic, by pre-arrangement, a Japanese submarine left Penang Island on 20 April for the tip of Africa, under strict orders not to attack or risk detection. The two submarines had a rendevous four hundred miles south-southwest of Madagascar on 26 April. After sighting each other and confirming their identity, the submarines waited for a day for the sea to become calm.

    Then on 28 April, in what was known to be the only known submarine-to-submarine transfer of passengers (in the annals of World War II) in an area dominated by the enemy’s air and naval strength, Netaji and Abid Hasan were transhipped into the Japanese submarine via a rubber raft. Travelling across the ocean, the Japanese 1-29 reached Sabang on 6 May, 1943. It was an isolated offshore islet north of Sumatra.

    There, Netaji was welcomed by Colonel Yamamoto, who was the head of the Hikari Kikan, the Japanese-Indian liaison group. From Sabang, Netaji and Yamamoto left for Tokyo by plane, stopping en route at Penang, Manila, Saigon and Taiwan.

    The plane landed in Tokyo on 16 May. All throughout his submarine voyage from Germany and for about a month after his arrival in Tokyo, Netaji’s identity and presence was kept a secret. He was supposed to be a Japanese VIP named Matsuda.

    Although he remained incognito during the first few weeks in Japan, Netaji did not waste any time by just waiting. From 17 May onwards, he met Japanese Army and Navy Chiefs-of-Staff, Navy Minister and Foreign Minister in rapid succession. However, he had to wait for nearly three weeks before Japanese PrimeMinister Tojo granted him an interview.

    But Tojo was so impressed with Netaji’s personality that he offered to meet him again after four days. Two days later, on 16 June, Netaji was invited to visit the Diet (the Japanese Parliament) where Tojo surprised him with his historic declaration on India:

    We are indignant about the fact that India is still under the ruthless suppression of Britain and are in full sympathy with her desperate struggle for independence. We are determined to extend every possible assistance to the cause of India’s independence. It is our belief that the day is not far off when India will enjoy freedom and prosperity after winning independence.[24]

    It was not until 18 June that Tokyo Radio announced Netaji’s arrival. The news was reported in the Tokyo press the following day. At this announcement, the atmosphere was electrified overnight. The Axis press and radio stressed the significance of the event.

    The INA and the Indian independence movement suddenly assumed far greater importance in the eyes of all. On 19 June, Netaji held a press conference. This was followed by two broadcasts to publicize further his presence in East Asia, and during the course of these he unfolded his plan of action.

    As Ghosh describes, Bose’s plan stood for the co-ordination of the nationalist forces within India and abroad to make it a gigantic movement powerful enough to overthrow the British rulers of India. The assumption on which Bose seemed to have based his grand scheme was that the internal conditions in India were ripe for a revolt. The no-cooperation movement must turn into an active revolt.[25]

    And to quote Netaji’s own words during the press conference: “Civil disobedience must develop into armed struggle. And only when the Indian people have received the baptism of fire on a large scale would they be qualified to achieve freedom.”[26] Netaji then embarked upon a series of meetings, press conferences. radio broadcasts and lectures in order to explain his immediate task to the people concerned, and the world.

    Accompanied by Rashbehari Bose, Netaji arrived at Singapore from Tokyo on 27 June. He was given a tumultuous welcome by the resident Indians and was profusely ‘garlanded’ wherever he went. His speeches kept the listeners spellbound. By now, a legend had grown around him, and its magic infected his audiences. Addressing representatives of the Indian communities in East Asia on 4 July he said:

    Not content with a civil disobedience campaign, Indian people are now morally prepared to employ other means for achieving their liberation. The time has therefore come to pass on to the next stage of our campaign. All organizations whether inside India or outside, must now transform themselves into a disciplined fighting organization under one leadership. The aim and purpose of this organization should be to take up arms against British imperialism when the time is ripe and signal is given.[27]

    At a public meeting where Netaji spoke these words, Rashbehari Bose formally handed over to Subhas Chandra Bose the leadership of the III, and command of the INA. The hall was packed to capacity. In his last speech as leader of the movement Rashbehari Bose said:

    Friends! This is one of the happiest moments in my life. I have brought you one of the most outstanding personalities of our great Motherland to participate in our campaign. In your presence today, I resign my office as president of the Indian Independence League in East Asia. From now on, Subhas Chandra Bose is your president, your leader in the fight for India’s independence, and I am confident that under his leadership, you will march on to battle and to victory.[28]

    In that meeting Netaji announced his plan to organize a Provisional Government of Free India.

    It will be the task of this provisional government to lead the Indian Revolution to its successful conclusion … The Provisional Government will have to prepare the Indian people, inside and outside India, for an armed struggle which will be the culmination of all our national efforts since 1883. We have a grim fight ahead of us. In this final march to freedom, you will have to face danger, thirst, privation, forced marches-and death. Only when you pass this test will freedom be yours.[29]

    The next day, on 5 July, Netaji took over the command of the Indian National Army, now christened Azad Hind Fauj (Free India Army). Tojo arrived from Manila in time to review the parade of troops standing alongside with Bose. Addressing the soldiers, Netaji said:

    Throughout my pubic career, I have always felt that, though India is otherwise ripe for independence in every way, she has lacked one thing, namely, an army of liberation. George Washington of America could fight and win freedom, because he had his army. Garibaldi could liberate Italy because he had his armed volunteers behind him. It is your privilege and honor to be the first to come forward and organize India’s national army.

    By doing so you have removed the last obstacle in our path to freedom… When France declared war on Germany in 1939 and the campaign began, there was but one cry which rose from the lips of German soldiers- “To Paris! To Paris!” When the brave soldiers of Nippon set out on their march in December 1941, there was but one cry which rose from their lips-”To Singapore! To Singapore!” Comrades! My soldiers! Let your battle-cry be-”To Delhi! To Delhil”

    How many of us will individually survive this war of freedom, I do not know. But I do know this, that we shall ultimately win and our task will not end until our surviving heroes hold the victory parade on another graveyard of the British Empire-Lal Kila or the Red Fortress of ancient Delhi.[30]

    On 27 July, Netaji left Singapore for a 17-day,tour of the East Asian and Southeast Asian countries. The prime objective of this tour was to enlist moral and monetary support for his movement from other countries, as well as the resident Indian communities. He was given a rousing reception in Rangoon, where he attended the Burmese independence on 1 August; from Rangoon Netaji went to Bangkok and met Thai Prime Minister Pilbulsongram.

    He won the moral support of Thailand and tumultuous ovation from the Indian community. He then flew to Saigon and addressed Indians there. Returning to Singapore for a brief rest, he flew to Penang to address a rally of 15,000 Indians. Everywhere, he held his audience spellbound for hours with his superb oratory, and at the conclusion of his speech the people raced to reach the platform and pile up all they had before him-a total of two million dollars.

    This scene was repeated over and over in towns and cities all over Southeast Asia, when Netaji stood before thousands of people like a prophet, addressing them for the cause of India’s freedom. Merchants, traders, businessmen and women came forward everywhere and donated their wealth and ornaments in abundance, to enable their leader to fulfill his mission. In his plan for total mobilization, Netaji had outlined a grandiose scheme for an army of three million men. However, the immediate target was set at 50,000. The Major part of this number would be from the Indian POWs and the rest from civilian volunteers.

    According to Bose’s plan there would be three divisions from thirty thousand regulars and another unit of twenty thousand mainly from civilian volunteers. The Japanese authorities informea Netaji at that time that it could provide arms for thirty thousand men only. However, by 1945, it was authoritatively known that the actual strength of the INA rose to not less than 45,000 men.

    After completing the task of reorganizing the Indian Independence League and launching preparations for revolutionizing the army, and after conducting a successful campaign to mobilize the support of the Indian communities throughout Southeast Asia-a phase which lasted from July to OctoberNetaji turned toward formation of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind (Free India).

    This had to be done before the army could be sent for action in the battlefield. This government was officially proclaimed in Singapore at a mass rally on 21 October 1943 where Netaji was unanimously elected as the Head of the State and The Supreme Commander of the Indian National Army. While taking the oath he said:

    In the name of God, I take this sacred oath that to liberate India and the three hundred eighty million of my countrymen, L Subhas Chandra Bose, will continue the sacred war of freedom till the last breath of my life. I shall remain always a servant of India, and to look after the welfare of three hundred eighty million of Indian brothers and sisters shall be for me my highest duty. Even after winning freedom, I will always be prepared to shed even the last drop of my blood for the preservation of India’s freedom.[31]

    The Provisional Government of Free India had five Ministers with Netaji as the Head of the State, Prime Minister and Minister for War and advisers representing the Indian communities in East Asia.

    The first momentous decision which the new government took was its declaration of war on Britain and the United States, which was decided on the night of 22-23 October. Toye writes: “The Cabinet had not been unanimous about the inclusion of the U.S.A. Bose had shown impatience and displeasure- there was never any question then or later of his absolute authority: the Cabinet had no responsibility and could only tender advice.,,32

    Recognition of the Provisional Government came quickly from nine countries-the Axis powers and their allies. They were: Japan, Burma, Croatia, Germany, the Philippines, Nanking China, Manchuto, Italy and Siam (Thailand), but for some unknown reasons, Vichy France withheld its recognition. The Japanese Army promised all-out support for the provisional government.

    Toward the end of October, Netaji flew to Tokyo again to meet Tojo and to attend the greater East Asia Conference. Since India technically did not fall within this sphere, he attended as an observer. He made an impressive speech at the conference, stressing the creation of a new Asia where all vestiges of colonialism and imperialism would be eliminated.

    The Japanese navy had captured the Andaman and Nicober islands in the Bay of Bengal during the early months of war. As a result of Netaji’s requests, Prime Minister Tojo announced at the conference that Japan had decided to place the two islands under the jurisdiction of the Provisional Government of Free India, thereby giving it its first sovereignty over a territory.

    The ceremonial transfer took place in December, and Netaji named Lieutenant-Colonel Loganathan, an officer in the Medical Services, as the chief commissioner in charge of the civil administration of the islands. Soon thereafter, preparations began for sending the army to the front and moving the provisional government headquarters to Rangoon, in Burma. In the meantime, Netaji announced the formation of a women’s brigade within the INA, and named it “Rani of Jhansi Regiment,” after the celebrated queen of Jhansi, Laxmibai, who had led her soldiers against the British in an uprising during the First War of Independence in 1857.

    Coincidentially, another Laxmi, Lieutenant-Col. Laxmi, was placed in charge of this regiment by Netaji. In November it was agreed between Netaji and the Japanese militay headquarters, that the INA first division and the civil and military headquarters would move to Burma in January 1944.

    The Imphal Campaign

    The Imphal Campaign, including the battle of Kohima — the first major town to be captured by the INA inside India — will perhaps go down as one of the most daring and disastrous campaigns in the annals of world military history. General Mutaguchi, commander of the Japanese forces in North Burma since 1943, had been convinced that Imphal should be attacked.

    The objects of such an offensive were to forestall any invasion of Burma in 1944 and to establish the Japanese defenses on the frontier mountains. The idea would be first to overwhelm the British in Arakan, involving all their reserves in battle for Chittagong and the gateway to eastern Bengal.

    Then, by April, Kohima and Imphal could be conquered at leisure, without danger of their being reinforced. The monsoon, beginning in May, would postpone operations, and after the rains were over, in the absence of a new British defense posture east of the river Brahmaputra, the entire Assam and East Bengal would lie open to the Indian National Army and the Japanese.

    Imphal, the capital of the state of Manipur, lay on a flat, nearly treeless plateau just inside the Indian border. Its elevation was about 3,000 feet, surrounded on all sides by impassable mountains.

    The mountain range in the east with 2,000-4,000 foot peaks above the plateau stretches some five hundred miles. To the West and South are the Chin hills of the Arakan range, a formidable stretch of inhospitable terrain.

    The jungle surrounding this basin is hostile to human habitation. The northern access to the plain from India and Assam lay through Dimapur and the steep Kohima Road. From Dimapur, a single track railway swept through Assam and Bengal and was an important military objective to both armies.

    For the INA the importance of the Imphal campaign was that it was the only major battle in which it would participate with the object of achieving freedom for India. As Salto and Hayashida writes:

    The Imphal Operation was the final offensive of the East Asia War, mounted by three Burma-based Japanese divisions, and one INA division. The campaign lasted from 15 March to 9 July 1944. The operation has often been compared to the operation Wacht am Rhein or the Battle of the Bulge, which was the final all-out drive launched by Germany towards Ardennes on the Western Front, from December 1944 to January 1945. Both operations al most succeeded and both are termed “gambles” by historians today. If the German push towards Ardennes was Wacht am Rhein, the Japanese-Indian thrust against Imphal might be called “Wacht am Chindwin” although the official Japanese code-name for the action was most prosaic: Operation “U”.[33]

    River Chindwin lay across the Indo-Burmese border, and its crossing from the east by an army would signal an invasion of India.

    Execution orders for Operation U became operative on 7 January 1944, coinciding with completion of the shifting of the Provisional Government headquarters in Rangoon. In the evening of the same day, Lt. General Masakazy Kawabe, commanding the overall Burma headquarters, held a welcome party in honor of Netaji and his staff officers.

    Netaji spoke, and concluded his speech with these words. “My only prayer to the Almighty at this moment is that we may be given the earliest opportunity to pay for our freedom with our own blood.’,34 One INA Division, named after Netaji as Subhas Regiment, was readied for action at the front with the Japanese. Toye writes.

    … He spent the whole days… with the Subhas Regiment, reviewing, watching it at exercises and on parade, talking to its officers, exerting his magic on it in a way that he had not attempted before. These were his comrades, the men by whose means he would uphold the rights and honour of India. Everything depended on their achievement in battle; they must absorb all his feelings of confidence, feel the whole of his personal force. On 3 February he bade them farewell: “Blood is calling for blood. Arise! We have no time to lose. Take up your arms. There in front of you is the road. our pioneers have built. We shall march along that road. We shall carve our way through enemy’s ranks, or, if God wills, we shall die a martyr’s death. And in our last sleep we shall kiss the road which will bring our Army to Delhi. The road to Delhi is the road to Freedom. On to Delhi!”[35]

    Mutaguchi set 15 March as the D-day for the beginning of the Imphal campaign. The deployment of well over 120,000 troops along the Chindwin river, a front of some 200 kilometers, went on smoothly and undetected by British spies planted in the area. In the meantime, Netaji received some good news. The Arakan offensive, launched on 4 February, had cut off the 7th Indian Division of the British Army in Mayu valley.

    Contributing to this success was the reconnaissance and subversion of an Indian outpost position by Major Misra, the INA Commander in Arakan. At the same time, he received messages from the underground network working inside India under his direction, whose selected trained spies had been sent by submarine.

    On D-day, Mutaguchi assembled the war correspondents at his headquarters in central Burma and declared: “I am firmly convinced that my three divisions will reduce Imphal in one month. In order that they can march fast, they carry the lightest possible equipment and food enough for three weeks. Ali, they will get everything from the British supplies and dumps. Boys! See you again in Imphal at the celebration of the Emperor’s birthday on 29 April.”[36]

    The Japanese-Indian offensive took the British by complete surprise. The Japanese and INA troops literally galloped through mountains and jungles routing the enemy on the way. Prior to the Imphal offensive, an INA detachment under Colonel Saligal had created a breach through the British lines in the Arakan sector. Now the INA’s deployment was extended to the Imphal sector.

    As the INA under Netaji’s command set foot on the Indian soil, the main Japanese force also defeated the obstinate resistance of the enemy on 22 March, broke through the India-Burma border, and advanced from the north and west to encircle Imphal. The initial success of the INA at the Arakan front generated much enthusiasm. In a Special Order of the Day, Netaji referred to the “Glorious and brilliant actions of the brave forces of the Azad Hind Fauj.”[37]

    On 8 April, Japanese Imperial Headquarters issued a communique which said: “Japanese troops, fighting side by side with the Indian National Army, captured Kohima early on 6 April.[38] A jubilant Netaji at this time started talking with the Japanese about the administration of the liberated and soon-to-be-liberated territories in India.

    In response to a call by Netaji, Prime Minister Tojo made an announcement clarifying that all areas of India occupied as a result of Japanese advance would be placed under the jurisdiction of the Provisional Government. This was followed by Netaji’s announcement that he was appointing the Finance Minister of his cabinet, Major-General A.C. Chatterjee, as the governor of the newly liberated areas. Netaji described the march of the INA into India as the event of the century.

    He had also just declared the Legion in Europe to be part of the INA and had appointed Nambiar to be a Minister in the Provisional Government; his Chief Commissioner had been installed in the Andamans, his first heroes from the Arakan front had been decorated, and the, INA troops had raised the national standard of free India in Kohima; and now, the fall of Imphal seemed very near.

    Did the Imphal Campaign come almost two years too late? What would have happened if Netaji had arrived in East Asia a year earlier? by the end of 1942, the Axis had scored successes everywhere.

    Rommel was in Egypt, the German invasion of Russia had gone smoothly, Nationalist China was on her knees, and India and Australia were expecting a Japanese invasion. Prospects for the Allies were dark in the Pacific and the Rising Sun was at its zenith from Japan to the Bay of Bengal … Britain was unable to dispute with the Japanese Navy, and there were not enough British and Indian troops in India to assure its defense. Even air protection was inadequte … Japanese forces had not pursued retreating British troops beyond the Chindwin river in Burma in May 1942, allegedly because “an invasion was likely to arouse ill-feelings amongst the Indian masses.” … So the Japanese remained east of the Chindwin river, leaving British Indian forces to build up their strength in the Imphal plain.[39]

    But above all, in that moment of a golden opportunity, the towering leadership of Netaji, a provisional government, and an Indian national army worthy of its name — all these were non-existent in East Asia. Japan by itself simply lacked the motivation for extending war into India, let alone think of its independence. The fact remains, however, that the Imphal campaign was indeed first conceived in 1942, right after the conquest of Burma. According to the official history of the British Armed Forces in the Second World War,

    Soon after the completion of the Japanese conquest of Burma in June 1942, a certain Lt. Col. Hayashi had advocated an attack on Imphal. He considered that the Japanese should strike against India without giving time to the defenders to recuperate from their disastrous retreat, and Imphal’s capture would rob them of the best base for launching a counter-offensive against Burma … 18th division argued that the jungles of Burma were impassable for large bodies of operational troops and that any attack on Indian territory would provoke anti-Japanese feelings in India. About December 1942, therefore, the plan was abandoned.[40]

    Lieutenant-General Kuroda Shigetoku, Southern Army Chief of Staff, stated later that if the operation had been carried out in 1942 when first conceived, rather than in 1944, it would have succeeded. According to Lebra, “General Tojo stated in the spring of 1945 that he regretted Japan had missed the opportunity in 1942.”[41]

    As the INA and the Japanese forces continued to lay siege on Imphal, the Allied air superiority gained strength and the enemy was preparing for counterattack. Shah Nawaz, commanding two battalions of the Subhas Regiment in the Chin Hills, told of the hardships his men were suffering as a result of disease and of supply and transport difficulties. However, owing to communication problems, the news of difficulties his men were undergoing at the front did not reach Netaji in detail.

    While there was a stalemate in the front and the offensive came to a halt, there were meetings and jubilations at Rangoon where Netaji collected money and donations in other forms for the conduct of his campaign. He offered to send additional INA regiments to the Front and more troops were despatched. For about a month Operation U went according to plan. Enemy forces were successfully encircled in the Imphal area.

    Suddenly, in the middle of April, the military balance began to shift against Japan and the INA. Wingate’s airborne unit had already been attacking from air over Burma supply routes. British forces were being supplied by airlift into the besieged Imphal, and reinforcements began to flow in. British forces were being sent to Kohima to the north by both rail and air. Japan had no matching air power to strike back at enemy air operations.

    By the end of April the battle strength of Japanese and INA divisions was decreased forty percent. Time for success by surprise attack had already passed and gradually the offensive turned into a defensive battle. The monsoon that followed, brought the ultimate disaster.

    As roads became impassable, all supply routes were cut off. Muddy streams flooded roads and valleys, and rivers swelled to sweep away tanks and ammunition. In the wake of the monsoon, disease became rampant. Cholera, malaria, dysentery, beriberi and jungle sores began to take their toll.

    The INA and the Japanese started living on rations consisting of rice mixed with jungle grass. The 33rd Division had fought desperately for forty days without being able to penetrate the British lines at Imphal. And now that vast amounts of military supplies were reaching the beleaguered garrison at Imphal, there was virtually no hope for a renewed offensive. On 8 July, on the recommendation of top-ranking Generals including Kawabe and Mutaguchi, Prime Minister Tajo issued the order to halt the operation.

    The story of retreat from Imphal is one of the greatest tragedies of World War II. It is a story of misery, hunger and death. Japanese and INA troops, bottled up in the Kawab valley between the Chin Hills in the west and the Chindwin river in the west, began their long trek back through jungles and mountains, headed by division commanders and guards in jeeps and horses.

    Officers, supply, communication and medical units followed. Behind them marched thousands of stragglers: rain-soaked, emaciated with fever and malnutrition. Soon, corpses began accumulating along the trek, and they had to be left unburied. Of the 220,000 Japanese troops who began the Imphal Campaign, only 130,000 survived, and of these only 70,000 remained at the front to retreat. INA casualties were over fifty percent. It was a disaster equal in magnitude to Dunkirk and Stalingrad. Lebra writes:

    When Bose heard the order to retreat he was stunned. He drew himself up and said to Kawabe in ringing tones: “Though the Japanese Army has given up the operation, we will continue it. We will not repent even if the advance of our revolutionary army to attain independence of our homeland is completely defeated. Increase in casualties, cessation of supplies, and famine are not reasons enough to stop marching.

    Even if the whole army becomes only spirit we will not stop advancing toward our homeland. This is the spirit of our revolutionary army.” In an article in Azad Hind on 6 November 1944, after the retreat from Imphal, Bose was reported to have “reiterated his firm conviction that final victory in this war would belong to Japan and Germany … that a new phase of war was approaching in which the initiative would again lie in the hands of the Japanese.-”[42]

    Each Japanese commander gave his own analysis of the causes of the failure of Operation U, like the problem of the chain of command, lack of air power, on dispersal rather than concentration of forces. However, Netaji thought it was timing, with respect to the monsoon.

    He felt that the only chance to take Imphal was before the rains came, and most strategists agreed on this point. From the historic perspective, however, Fujiwara perhaps was the most correct. According to him, the Imphal disaster could have been avoided had the operation been undertaken a year earlier, at a time when the British power in the region was weak.

    The delay in launching the Imphal offensive was no doubt due to Netaji’s late arrival from Europe to East Asia. The Imphal campaign should have been undertaken at a time when the Axis victories had reached their zenith and the Allied forces were on retreat everywhere.

    During the last three months of 1944, Japanese forces had withdrawn to the banks of the Irrawaddy in Burma, where they intended to make a stand. Netaji enthusiastically offered the reorganized INA First Division, when the Japanese 15th division was ordered to oppose the British. Subsquently, the 2nd Division was also readied for action. In February 1945, the INA held some positions in the region of Mandalay in Burma, giving battle to the advancing enemy.

    This was the second campaign of Netaji’s army, and it held out tenaciously at Nyaungu for some time. However, allied troops later crossed the Irrawaddy at several points and the Japanese and INA units were surrounded. There were some desertions.

    Despite unique examples of heroism and Netaji’s presence in the battlefields, risking his own life in the face of enemy attacks, the second campaign of the INA (which was purely a defensive one) finally had to give way to the gradual reconquest of Burma by the British.

    The end of this campaign was followed by a chain of events that included the final Japanese defeat, an alleged plane crash in Formosa in which Netaji reportedly perished, the surrender of the INA to the allied forces and the trial of their leaders at the Red Fort in Delhi, staged by the British. However, all these fateful events, occurring during the final phase of World War II and its aftermath, should be considered parts of an altogether different episode relating to Subhas Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army.

    In the present episode we have examined the historical tasks fulfilled by Netaji and his army in Europe and Asia during World War II, and their significance. In recognition of Netaji’s historically significant role as a war leader, Guy Wint pays him a rare tribute with these words: “He played … an extraordinarily decisive part. By accident, and by seizing an exceptional opportunity, he was able to cut a figure which made him outstanding among the comparatively small number of men who influenced the course of the war by their individual qualities.”[43]

    The Myth of “Freedom through Non-violence under Gandhi’s Leadership”

    Modern historians in India are taking a second look at the way the country’s freedom was achieved, and in that process are demolishing a number of theories, assumptions and myths preached by the “court historians.”

    However, in order to grasp the magnitude of the issue, with its many ramifications, it is essential to understand first the concept of freedom as envisaged by Netaji — the ideal which motivated him to wrest it from the hands of the British by the force of arms.

    In his entire political career, Subhas Chandra Bose was guided by two cardinal principles in his quest for his country’s emancipation: that there could be no compromise with alien colonialists on the issue, and that on no account would the country be partitioned. The Indian geographical unity was to be maintained at all costs.

    As we have already seen, the unfortunate turn of events during World War II prevented Netaji’s dream of his victorious march to Delhi at the head of his Indian National Army from becoming a reality.

    In his and his army’s absence in a post-war India, politicians under the leadership of Gandhi and Nehru did exactly what Netaji never wanted: they negotiated and compromised with the British on the issue of freedom, and in their haste to get into power, agreed to a formula of partitioning India presented to them by the British.

    The transfer of power was followed by two more developments that were alien to Netaji’s philosophy and his blueprint for a free India: introduction of a parliamentary democratic system by Nehru and his decision to keep India in the British Commonwealth of Nations.

    It was a truncated freedom, achieved over the bloodbath of millions who had perished in fratricidal religious rioting during the process of partition, as the erstwhile India emerged on the world map as the two nations of India and Pakistan.

    Even so, the fragmented freedom that fell as India’s share after the British had skilfully played their age-old game of divide and rule came not as a result of Gandhi’s civil disobedience and non-violent movement as the court historians would have us believe; nor was it due to persistent negotiations by Nehru and other Indian National Congress leaders on the conference table, which the British found so easy to keep stalling. The British finally quit when they began to feel the foundations of loyalty being shaken among the British Indian soldiers-the mainstay of the colonial power-as a result of the INA exploits that became known to the world after the cessation of hostilities in East Asia.

    Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, the eminent Indian historian who passed away recently, and who by virtue of his challenges to several historical myths can rightly be called the Dean of new historians in India, observed in his book Three Phases of India’s Struggle for Freedom:

    There is, however, no basis for the claim that the Civil Disobedience Movement directly led to independence. The campaigns of Gandhi … came to an ignoble end about fourteen years before India achieved independence … During the First World War the Indian revolutionaries sought to take advantage of German help in the shape of war materials to free the country by armed revolt. But the attempt did not succeed. During the Second World War Subhas Bose followed the same method and created the INA. In spite of brilliant planning and initial success, the violent campaigns of Subhas Bose failed … The Battles for India’s freedom were also being fought against Britain, though indirectly, by Hitler in Europe and Japan in Asia. None of these scored direct success, but few would deny that it was the cumulative effect of all the three that brought freedom to India. In particular, the revelations made by the INA trial, and the reaction it produced in India, made it quite plain to the British, already exhausted by the war, that they could no longer depend upon the loyalty of the seapoys for maintaining their authority in India. This had probably the greatest influence upon their final decision to quit India.[44]

    Despite Japan’s defeat and the consequent withering away of the Indian National Army on the India-Burma front, both Subhas Chandra Bose and his INA became household names throughout the country as the returning soldiers were sought to be prosecuted by the British. By then, the Congress leadership under Gandhi and Nehru had pre-empted itself, and the year 1945 seemed relatively calm and uneventful. However, Netaji and his legend worked up a movement all over the country which even a Gandhi could never produce. Echoing this mass upsurge Michael Edwardes wrote in his Last Years of British India:

    The Government of India had hoped, by prosecuting members of the INA, to reinforce the morale of the Indian army. It succeeded only in creating unease, in making the soldiers feel slightly ashamed that they themselves had supported the British. If Bose and his men had been on the right side-and all India now confirmed that they were-then Indians in the Indian army must have been on the wrong side. It slowly dawned upon the Government of India that the backbone of the British rule, the Indian army, might now no longer be trustworthy. The ghost of Subhas Bose, like Hamlet’s father, walked the battlements of the Red Fort (where the INA soldiers were being tried), and his suddenly amplified figure overawed the conference that was to lead to independence.[45]

    Apart from revisionist historians, it was none other than Lord Clement Atlee himself, the British Prime Minster responsible for conceding independence to India, who gave a shattering blow to the myth sought to be perpetuated by court historians, that Gandhi and his movement had led the country to freedom. Chief justice P.B. Chakrabarty of Calcutta High Court, who had also served as the acting Governor of West Bengal in India, disclosed the following in a letter addressed to the publisher of Dr. R.C. Majumdar’s book A History of Bengal. The Chief Justice wrote:

    You have fulfilled a noble task by persuading Dr. Majumdar to write this history of Bengal and publishing it … In the preface of the book Dr. Majumdar has written that he could not accept the thesis that Indian independence was brought about solely, or predominantly by the non-violent civil disobedience movement of Gandhi. When I was the acting Governor, Lord Atlee, who had given us independence by withdrawing the British rule from India, spent two days in the Governor’s palace at Calcutta during his tour of India. At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India. My direct question to him was that since Gandhi’s “Quit India” movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave? In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji. Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee’s lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, “m-i-n-i-m-a-l!”[46]

    When the new version of the history of the Twentieth Century India, and especially the episode of the country’s unique struggle for independence comes to be written, it will no doubt single out but one person who made the most significant and outstanding contribution among all his compatriots toward the emancipation of his motherland from the shackles of an alien bondage. During World War II this man strode across two continents like a colossus, and the footsteps of his army of liberation reverberated through the forests and plains of Europe and the jungles and mountains of Asia. His armed assaults shook the very foundations of the British Empire. His name was Subhas Chandra Bose.


    Notes

    1. Bose, Subhas Chandra, The Indian Struggle 1920-1942, New York: Asia Publishing House, 1964, p. 318.
    2. Ibid., pp. 419-422, 431-432.
    3. Ganpuley, N.G., Netaji in Germany: A Little-known Chapter, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1959, p. 63
    4. Ibid., pp. 63-64.
    5. Toye, Hugh, The Springing Tiger, London, Cassell, 1959, p. 63.
    6. Ibid., p. 70.
    7. Lebra, Joyce C., Jungle Alliance: Japan and the Indian National Army. Singapore, Asia Pacific Library, p. 110.
    8. The Goebbles Diaries, 1942-1943, Edited, translated and with an introd. by Louis P. Lochner, Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press, 1970, p. 107.
    9. Ibid., P. 123.
    10. Ibid., p. 211.
    11. Toys, Hugh, op. cit., pp. 72-73.
    12. Ibid., p. 75.
    13. Seifriz, Adalbert, In Preface to Ganpuley’s Netaji in Germany.
    14. Sopan, pseud., Ed., Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. His Life and Work. Bombay, Azad Bhandar, 1946, pp. 281-282, 284.
    15. Ganpuley, N.G., op. cit., p. 153.
    16. Staatsmaenner und Diplomaten bei Hitler, Part Two, Edited by Andreas Hillgrueber, Frankfurt am Main, Bernard & Graefe fuer Wehrwesen, 1970.
    17. Maryama Shizuo, Nakano Gakko, Tokyo, 1948, p. 120
    18. Subhas Chandra Bose and Japan, 4th section, Asian Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Govt. of Japan, 1956.
    19. A Beacon Across Asia: A Biography of Subhas Chandra Bose. Ed.in-chief: Sisir K. Bose, New Delhi, Orient Longman, 1973, p. 143.
    20. Lebra, Joyce C., op. cit., p. 51.
    21. Subhas Chandra Bose and Japan, op. cit.
    22. [??? Not included in original, the webmaster]
    23. Ghosh, K. K., The Indian National Army: Second Front of the Indian Independence Movement, Meerut, Meenakshi Prakashan, 1969, pp. 127-128.
    24. A Beacon Across Asia, op. cit., p. 167.
    25. Ghosh, K. K., op. Cit., p. 135.
    26. Press Statement, 19 June 1943.
    27. Sopan, op. cit., p. 313.
    28. Sivaram, M., The Road to Delhi, Rutland, Vt., C.E. Tuttle Co., 1967, pp. 122-123.
    29. Ibid., pp. 123-124.
    30. A Beacon Across Asia, op. cit., p. 178.
    31. Toyle, Hugh, op. cit., p. go.
    32. Ibid., p. 91.
    33. A Beacon Across Asia, op. cit., p. 196.
    34. Ibid., p. 200.
    35. Toye, Hugh, op. cit., p. 103.
    36. A Beacon Across Asia, op. cit., p. 203.
    37. Arun, pseud., Ed., Testament of Subhas Bose, Delhi, Rajkamal Pub., 1946, p. 170.
    38. A Beacon Across Asia, op. cit., p. 205.
    39. Lebra, Joyce C., op. cit., p. 150.
    40. British Armed Forces in the Second World War, Combined Interservices Historical Section, 1958.
    41. Lebra, Joyce C., op. cit., p. 158.
    42. Ibid., pp. 190-191.
    43. Calvocoressi, Peter, and Guy Wint, The Total War: the Story of World War II, New York, Pantheon Books, 1972, pp. 801-802.
    44. Majumdar, R.C., Three Phases of India’s Struggle for Freedom, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1967, pp. 58-59.
    45. Edwardes, Michael, The Last Years of British India, Cleveland, World Pub. Co., 1964, p. 93.
    46. Majumdar, R. C., Jibanera Smritideepe, Calcutta, General Printers and Publishers, 1978, pp. 229-230, (quotation translated from original Bengali).

    Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape Bookmark and Share Add to Technorati RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | October 15th, 2008 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

    October 5, 2008

    UN resolutions on Indian Occupied Kashmir: Nehru’s Commitement to Kashmirs

    Pakistani sites, please post this artilcle, improve on it and forward to allNoticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape Bookmark and Share Add to Technorati RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | November 30th, 2007 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |  Moin Ansari | December 10th, 2008  | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ | Any life lost is a loss to all humanity. The Indian Government numbers are around 60,000. International analysts say the number is twice that number. The Hurriat which is in dialogue with the Indian Governmnet and is a legitimate Kashmiri organization claims that the numbers are around 150,000 dead. We used 100,000 as the best estimate possible.

    Occupied Jammu and Kashmiris want to sell their produce in Azad Kashmir. Northern Areas are not part of Kashmir and Azad Kashmir

    Occupied Jammu and Kashmiris want to sell their produce in Azad Kashmir. Northern Areas are not part of Kashmir and Azad Kashmir

    There has been a lot of activity on discussing Kashmir. However there has been little progress.Peace is a two way street. Historians have looked at the promises of previous Indian leaders on the subject. Nehru’s commitment to the people of Kashmir. Most Pakistanis know that Kashmir and Junagarh is Pakistani territory. There is a huge contraversy on the Article of Accession. Recently the grand daughter of Shaikh Abdullah described the AOA as “provisional. Many Pakistanis and world historians have gone further and do not accept the notion that any such document exists. Kashmir: Does the article of accession exist? India’s UN seat is held hostage to the unresolved UN resolutions. UN resolutions, and Nehru speeches on disputed nature of Kashmir.

    Pakistani sites, please post this artilcle, improve on it and forward to allHere is some additional information NOT available to intelligent people of “Indian origin”. The resolutions have not been implemented and the plebscite promised by Nehru was never held. …yeah yeah we have already heard the “Indian story which says that all forces need to be removed…but the UN resolution does not talk about “all forces”, simply REGULAR FORCES…..

    Here are the facts:
    http://www.na.gov.pk/s_kashmir_india_comitment.html

    INDIA’S COMMITMENT OF PLEBISCITE FOR THE PEOPLE OF KASHMIR

     Occupied Kashmir“Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (in telegram No. 402-Primin-2227 dated 27 October 1947 to Prime Minister of Pakistan repeating telegram addressed to Prime Minister of United Kingdom).

    Occupied KashmirIn regard to accession also, it has been made clear that this is subject to reference to people of State and their decision.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (in telegram No.413 dated 28 October 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).

    “ …….the people of Kashmir would decide the question of accession. It is open to them to accede to either Dominion then.”  JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (in telegram No.255 dated 31 October 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).

    Occupied KashmirKashmir should decide question of accession by plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of the United Nations.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Letter No. 368-Primin dated 21 November 1947 to Prime Minister of Pakistan).

    Occupied KashmirWe are anxious not to finalize anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide.

    “And let me make it clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state.”   JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Broadcast to the Nation: “All India Radio”: 2 November 1947).

    The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in Indian Constituent Assembly; 25 November 1947).

    “We have not opposed at any time an over-all plebiscite for the State as a whole…….”        JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (in telegram dated 16 August 1950 addressed to the U.N. Representative for India and Pakistan: S/1791 : Anne 1(B).

    Occupied Kashmir“The most feasible method of ascertaining the wishes of the people was by fair and impartial plebiscite.”  JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Joint press communique of the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan issued in Delhi after their meeting on 20 August 1953).

    Occupied KashmirPeople seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future.”       JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Report to the All-India Congress Committee, 6 July 1951; The Statesman, New Delhi, 9 July 1951).

    Occupied Kashmir“Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied about between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir.”  JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in the Indian Parliament, 31 March 1955).

    “We had given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, and subsequently to the United Nations; we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide.”         JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in the Indian Parliament, 12 February 1951).

    “We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.”   JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, 2 January 1952).

    “If, after a proper plebiscite, the people of Kashmir said, ‘We do not want to be with India’, we are committed to accept that. We will accept it though it might pain us. We will not send any army against them. We will accept that, however hurt we might feel about it, we will change the Constitution, if necessary.”   JAWAHARLAL NEHRU       (Statement in the Indian Parliament, 26 June 1952).

    I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir; it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but every where.

    “I started with the presumption that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their own future. We will not compel them. In that sense, the people of Kashmir are sovereign.”  JAWAHARLAL NEHRU   (Statement in Indian Parliament, 7 August 1952)

    The whole dispute about Kashmir is still before the United Nations. We cannot just decide things concerning Kashmir. We cannot pass a bill or issue an order concerning Kashmir or do whatever we want.    JAWAHARLAL NEHRU  (The Statesman, 1 May 1953)

    Leave the decision regarding the future of this State to the people of the State is not merely a promise to your Government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world.”   JAWAHARLAL NEHRU  (In telegram No. 25 dated 31 October 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).

    In regard to accession also it has been made clear that this is subject to reference to people of State and their decision.”   JAWAHARLAL NEHRU   (In telegram No.413 dated 28 October 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).

    That Government of India and Pakistan should make a joint request to U.N.O. to undertake a plebiscite in Kashmir at the earliest possible date.”   JAWAHARLAL NEHRU  (In telegram No. Primin-304 dated 8 November 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).

    We have always right from the beginning accepted the idea of the Kashmir people deciding their fate by referendum or plebiscite………..”

    Ultimately, the final decision of settlement, which must come, has first of all to be made basically by the people of Kashmir…….”   JAWAHARLAL NEHRU  Statement at Press Conference in London, 16 January 1951, The Statesman, 18 January 1951).

    But so far as the Government of India are concerned, every assurance and international commitment in regard to Kashmir stands.”   JAWAHARLAL NEHRU  (Statement in the Indian Council of States; 18 May 1954).
    http://www.na.gov.pk/s_kashmir_india_comitment.html

    Kashmir in the United Nations

    1. Resolution 38 (1948) adopted by the Security Council at its 229th Meeting held on 17 January 1948
    2. Resolution 39 (1948) adopted by the Security Council at its 230th Meeting held on 20 January 1948
    3. Draft Resolution presented by the President of the Security Council and the Rapporteur on 6 February 1948
    4. Resolution 47 (1948) adopted by the Security Council at its 286th Meeting held on 21 April 1948
    5. Resolution 51 (1948) adopted by the Security Council at its 312th Meeting held on 3 June 1948
    6. Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948
    7. Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 5 January 1949
    8. Proposal in respect of Jammu and Kashmir made by General A.G.L. McNaughton, President of the Security Council of the United Nations on 22 December 1949
    9. Resolution 80 (1950) adopted by the Security Council at its 470th Meeting held on 14 March 1950
    10. Resolution 91 (1951) adopted by the Security Council at its 539th Meeting held on 30 March 1951
    11. Resolution 96 (1951) adopted by the Security Council al its 566th Meeting held on 10 November 1951
    12. Resolution 98 (1952) adopted by the Security Council at its 611th Meeting held on 23 December 1952
    13. Resolution 122 (1957) adopted by the Security Council at its 765th Meeting held on 24 January 1957
    14. Draft Resolution presented by Australia, Cuba, U.K. and U.S.A. on 14 February 1957
    15. Resolution 123 (1957) adopted by the Security Council at its 774th Meeting held on 21 February 1957
    16. Draft Resolution presented by Australia, Columbia,Philippines on 16 November 1957
    17. Resolution 126 (1957) adopted by the Security Council at its 808th Meeting held on 2 December 1957
    18. Draft Resolution submitted by Ireland to the Security Council on June 22, 1962
    19. Statement of the President of the Security Council (French Representative) made on the 18 May 1964 at the 1117th Meeting of the Council (Document No. S/PV. 1117, dated the 18 May l964) summarizing the conclusion of the debate on Kashmir
    20. Resolution 209 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1237th Meeting held on 4 September 1965
    21. Resolution 210 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1238th Meeting held on 6 September 1965
    22. Resolution 211 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1242nd Meeting held on 20 September 1965
    23. Resolution 214 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1245th Meeting held on 27 September 1965
    24. Resolution 215 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its1251st Meeting held on 5 November 1965
    25. Resolution 303 (1971) adopted by the Security Council at its1606th Meeting held on 6 December 1971
    26. Question considered by the Security Council at its 1606th, 1607th and 1608th Meetings held on 4,5 and 6 December 1971
    27. Resolution 307 (1971) adopted by the Security Council at its 1616th Meeting held on 21 December 1971
      http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/index.htm

    We would like to refer our readers to the an article on “Toppling the US military” that is worth its weight in gold. Search for it on this site. See: “Kissinger threatened Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto”

    Enter a long URL to make tiny:

    Progressive BloggersPakistani Bloggers Button Creator for free - make 80x15 and 88x31 in seconds If you would like a RSS feed from my site. This is the RSS URL for your widget: http://www.rupeenews.com/feed   Directory of Politics/law/government Blogs  Directory of Politics/law/government BlogsThe World is Talking, Are You Listening?

    Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape Bookmark and Share Add to Technorati RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | November 30th, 2007 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

    Next Page »

    Blog at WordPress.com.