The ANP Challenge

Zeemax,
I don't think Pavo can substantiate his claims. Knowing NWFP like the back of your palm or his palm just does not mean much in political terms. Since I know some people in ANP and the old NAP, I too can say that there was no NAP involvement in Hayat Sherpao’s murder.

I simply can’t take Pavo’s word on the face value because I know what I know and if there are some investigations pavo will be proven wrong.

Yasser,
There is no doubt that the current ANP is NOT what Khudai Khadamatgars were. It is certainly an opportunistic political party like the rest of them in Pakistan. As I had mentioned at some place ANP is not better than the PPP of Sindh.

Their support of Congress before the partition and still having soft corner for India does not automatically make them unpatriotic. Your definition of Patriotism is too narrow, undemocratic and appears too dependent on conventional wisdom. Heck, if ANP is unpatriotic, then we might have to call pretty much all Baloch and Sindh leadership unpatriotic too.

Salman is clearly is an unintelligent ANP supporter and has no idea what he is talking about. Walpert (sp?) is not the last word on these issues.

oh man! what a cesspool. Manto my friend, I am disappointed in you, of all the people on this website, YOU should be the last person to quote anything from Zeemax as credible! his views about jihad, Ahmadis (which he always pronounces as Qadianis), and above all his boasting skills are well known to everyone. His claim that his father was a "powerful functionary" is neither here nor there, its classic zeemax, I wonder why he is not mentioning his article "The Millennium Manifesto" in all of this. He must have predicted the ousting of the Chief Justice or something (Zeemax ustaaz, kaila daraghla)

As for the murder of ZAB, I do consider it a murder, what Zia did was completely wrong, and I am also in favor of an apology from the Government for this heinous crime. But let me ask you and Zeemax, will you guys be in favor of an apology for the Barbara Massacre? in which many more innocent people lost their lives. Do answer this as a yes or a no.

Manto bhai you and Salman are going in circles, and I remember, you and me going through the same circles some time back. And I would request both of you to read the post #591 by Zakk.

You also say that Ghaffar Khan was a small regional leader! yaar the guy was offered the presidency of All India National Congress!(which he refused to accept) which was not a small position, I mean if you dont agree with his views fine, but when it comes to political stature he is a very prominent figure in the history of the subcontinent, no harm in admitting that, trust me it doesnt make Jinnah any less of a leader.

So point scoring such as that serves no purpose, thats like those fights that we used to have in kindergarten... "my daddy is stronger than your daddy."

You see Manto, the present Pushtoon regions in Pakistan are different from the rest of Pakistan not only because of ethnicity but also because this region is predominantly Deobandi/Wahabi. This makes the pushtoon mind a battle ground for Jihadism Vs Pushtoon Nationalism. This battle ground was exploited extensively by our military establishment during the 80s. Pukhtoon Nationalism was supplanted with Islamic fundamentalism, up to this day, secular political parties are BANNED from having political activities in the tribal regions, where as religious parties have complete freedom. The Mullah and the Pukhtoon Nationalist are natural rivals, because they are fighting to win the same heart and minds for two completely different set of ideals.

So when you imply that the two are interchangeable, that comes across as extremely naive(I wanted to use ignorant but I wont). ANPs alliances that you mention in your post, were for political motives. I mean its like saying that Sherry Rehman, PM Gillani, BB, and Aitzaz Ehsan are all Jihadis and have similar views to the fundos BECAUSE, they all belong to the party that committed the shameful act of ex-commmunicating the Ahmadis from Islam. (Something for which I also propose an apology from the parliament, I hope Zeemax also feels the same), and also because Fazlurehman served as a minister in BBs cabinet, also because Azim Tariq (Sipah a Sahaba) was on one of Benazirs cabinets, also because ZAB was one of the main people behind the OIC and apparently a firm believer in the UMMAH, etc etc. These were political moves, and should be seen as that, If PPP is not fundo than the ANP definetly is not one.

The ANP is a secular party, i wont say the "most" secular (in NWFP) because there is no way of quantifying conservativeness or its absence. But given the political options in NWFP, ANP in terms of its liberal appeal is closer to the PPP then to JUI or any other party.

So Manto mian I told you once before that I hope that your interpretation of Jinnah's Pakistan becomes true. A secular Pakistan would be in the best interest of everyone, and for that to happen, Pushtoon Nationalism has a critical role to play in the near future. Restating the smear campaign that was a product of the Martial Law machinery of Zia would serve no purpose. It is as baseless as the "Qadiani Conspiracy" crap churned out during the same period. (I still remember an add in an urdu story book (ishfaq series) that urged kids to boycott Shezan juices because it was owned by Ahmadis).

We have come a long way from those days, this is a new begining.. so lets stop sulking about the past!

Mr Hamdani Please give us plain and short answer. in your post you can write whatever you make up later.

do you mean that Jinnah didn't ask Muslim League to do it OR that Muslim League wasn't involved in violence.
please explain to us?

Btw, in addition to the fine work "Shameful Flight" I strongly recommend "Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity-Jinnah's Politics" by Ian Bryant Wells publised by Permanent Black Publishers New Delhi 2005 for people to understand Jinnah's contribution to the Indian freedom movement.

You think repeating the same post will make it change? Please also see Zeemax's posts.


Here is my response again:

Salman mian,

Instead of going in circles lets stick to the facts. Even if we accept your quotes as they are, they don't show that Jinnah was inciting violence. Jinnah leaving constitutional means and ways doesn't mean he was calling on people to kill Hindus. No honest person will accuse him of it. Name one opponent of Jinnah... Gandhi, Nehru, Patel or Azad .. who opposed Jinnah of violence. Not a single one. Not even your Bacha Khan. Nor have you been able to produce a single statement from Jinnah calling for violence.

But forget that (you are obviously not very objective)... how is abusing Jinnah going to absolve your Bacha Khan of his misdeeds?

1. Bacha Khan and his family have a history of flip flops on the issue of whether they are part of Pakistan or whether they are separatists.

2. The "Secular" Bacha Khan Family has been closely allied to Maulana Mufti Mahmood and the anti-Pakistan Deobandi Fanatics (the forerunner of the taliban).


3. The banned NAP's leaders were part of the Nizam-e-Mustafa movement in 1977 which brought down the Bhutto government in the name of Islam. This included Bacha Khan's daughter in law: Begum Nasim Wali Khan.

4. Wali Khan and his family were released by General Zia. Ghani Khan proudly received Sitara-e-Imtiaz from General Zia. So much for being principled and anti-dictatorship.

5. The ANP collaborated with ISI-engineered IJI of Nawaz Sharif in 1990 and then was part of the army-backed extreme right-wing anti-PPP foces of the 1990s.

6. Bacha Khan was in touch with Fakir of Ipi and his insurgency against Pakistan. Bacha Khan himself said on several occasions that Pakistan would not be based on Sharia and pathans should rise up against Pakistan. He promised that Pathanistan would be based on Pukhtun traditions and Sharia.

7. Hayat Sherpao or not - ANP has been involved in high profile assassinations and feuds.

8. Dr. Khan Saheb was a leader in his own right. He is listed as a great leader by the ANP... and his cause was taken up by Wali Khan in his book LIES ARE SACRED. So why do you get upset when I point out his establishment contacts and his role in the Republican Party? If one talks of Saifullahs one points out that two brothers are in PML-Q and one in the PPP. Does it mean we should not mention one side of the family altogether?

On another note:

Also I don't understand why people like you try and equate Bacha Khan, a small regional leader with a national leader like Jinnah who in effect introduced your Bacha Khan as a leader. I already quoted the facts on that. So instead of abusing the one man (Jinnah) who did something for Pushtuns, try and defend Bacha Khan on his own merits.

And please... don't resort to inane arguments that you've used so far "you are not objective because you are Punjabi" ... "you are not neutral because you are an Ahamdi" ... "you are not neutral because you are from the PPP". That has nothing to do with it.

Just stick with the programme.

As for "Shameful Flight" I think this line sums up the entire message of the book:

(on Mountbatten)

"Nor did he have the humility or good sense to listen to India's two wisest political leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah, both of whom tried their frail best to warn him to stop the runaway juggernaut to Partition"

Page 10 Shameful Flight


In other words... had Mountbatten listened to Jinnah and Gandhi, lives would have been saved. Since you are basing everything on one adjective ... surely this black and white statement of who the "wisest" leaders of the Subcontinent should tell you where Jinnah stands.


(On the issue of direct action day, I already demolished this accusation in several other posts and you can go and see them.)

there wer soem mistake sin my post here is it again

Hi
I have not read all the posts here yet I just saw one it was from Hamdani. he accused me of adding words to Wolperts text. so if you guys really want to know who is lying. Just check the book

SHAMEFUL FLIGHT: The Last Years of the British Empire in India
STANLEY WOLPERT
From page 118 to 148

you can find this book in libraries and I hope it is available onlime too. read the text and find how Hamdani is lying. he keeps sending me mails in which he is abusing Badhash Khan. I would consider it when someone start to lose he starts to swear at everyone.

especially check these parts

He said "Goodbye to Constitutionalism and passive cooperation," and welcomed violent "Action" instead.

PAGE 118
Jinnah, who had devoted his life to the law and never before lost faith in British justice, had now suddenly turned his League into a lethal weapon of direct actionâ
page 119

I AM NOT SURE WHAT HIS POINT IS. does he mean that Jinnah didn't ask Muslim League to do it OR he thinks Muslim League didn't do it. Hamdani can you please explain to us.

ONE MORE THING
he asked me to learn english first then talk to him. I don't know how to learn english in this short time. but I assure Hamdani that I will try to take english classes.
thanks

Also instead of taking out your frustration on the Quaid-e-Azam, try reading what Zeemax wrote in 640.

Salman mian,

Instead of going in circles lets stick to the facts. Even if we accept your quotes as they are, they don't show that Jinnah was inciting violence. Jinnah leaving constitutional means and ways doesn't mean he was calling on people to kill Hindus. No honest person will accuse him of it. Name one opponent of Jinnah... Gandhi, Nehru, Patel or Azad .. who opposed Jinnah of violence. Not a single one. Not even your Bacha Khan. Nor have you been able to produce a single statement from Jinnah calling for violence.

But forget that (you are obviously not very objective)... how is abusing Jinnah going to absolve your Bacha Khan of his misdeeds?

1. Bacha Khan and his family have a history of flip flops on the issue of whether they are part of Pakistan or whether they are separatists.

2. The "Secular" Bacha Khan Family has been closely allied to Maulana Mufti Mahmood and the anti-Pakistan Deobandi Fanatics (the forerunner of the taliban).


3. The banned NAP's leaders were part of the Nizam-e-Mustafa movement in 1977 which brought down the Bhutto government in the name of Islam. This included Bacha Khan's daughter in law: Begum Nasim Wali Khan.

4. Wali Khan and his family were released by General Zia. Ghani Khan proudly received Sitara-e-Imtiaz from General Zia. So much for being principled and anti-dictatorship.

5. The ANP collaborated with ISI-engineered IJI of Nawaz Sharif in 1990 and then was part of the army-backed extreme right-wing anti-PPP foces of the 1990s.

6. Bacha Khan was in touch with Fakir of Ipi and his insurgency against Pakistan. Bacha Khan himself said on several occasions that Pakistan would not be based on Sharia and pathans should rise up against Pakistan. He promised that Pathanistan would be based on Pukhtun traditions and Sharia.

7. Hayat Sherpao or not - ANP has been involved in high profile assassinations and feuds.

8. Dr. Khan Saheb was a leader in his own right. He is listed as a great leader by the ANP... and his cause was taken up by Wali Khan in his book LIES ARE SACRED. So why do you get upset when I point out his establishment contacts and his role in the Republican Party? If one talks of Saifullahs one points out that two brothers are in PML-Q and one in the PPP. Does it mean we should not mention one side of the family altogether?

On another note:

Also I don't understand why people like you try and equate Bacha Khan, a small regional leader with a national leader like Jinnah who in effect introduced your Bacha Khan as a leader. I already quoted the facts on that. So instead of abusing the one man (Jinnah) who did something for Pushtuns, try and defend Bacha Khan on his own merits.

And please... don't resort to inane arguments that you've used so far "you are not objective because you are Punjabi" ... "you are not neutral because you are an Ahamdi" ... "you are not neutral because you are from the PPP". That has nothing to do with it.

Just stick with the programme.

As for "Shameful Flight" I think this line sums up the entire message of the book:

(on Mountbatten)

"Nor did he have the humility or good sense to listen to India's two wisest political leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah, both of whom tried their frail best to warn him to stop the runaway juggernaut to Partition"

Page 10 Shameful Flight


In other words... had Mountbatten listened to Jinnah and Gandhi, lives would have been saved. Since you are basing everything on one adjective ... surely this black and white statement of who the "wisest" leaders of the Subcontinent should tell you where Jinnah stands.

Hi
I have not read all the posts here yet I just saw one it was from Hamdani. he accused me of adding words to Wolperts text. so if you guys really want to know who is lying. Just check the book

SHAMEFUL FLIGHT: The Last Years of the British Empire in India
STANLEY WOLPERT
From page 118 to 148

you can find this book in libraries and I hope it is available onlime too. read the text and find how Hamdani is lying. he keeps sending me mails in which he is abusing Badhash Khan. I would consider it when someone start to lose he starts to swear at everyone.

especially check these parts

He said "Goodbye to Constitutionalism and passive cooperation," and welcomed violent "Action" instead.

PAGE 118
Jinnah, who had devoted his life to the law and never before lost faith in British justice, had now suddenly turned his League into a lethal weapon of direct actionâ
page 119
I AM NOT SURE WHAT HIS POINT IS. does he mean that Jinnah didn't ask Muslim League to do it he thinks Muslim League didn't do it. Hamdani can you please explain to us.

ONE MORE THINGS
he asked me to learn english first then talk to him. I don't know how to learn english in this short time. but I assure Hamdani that I will try to take english classes.
thanks

Re: # 661

Zeemax,

I have had the fortune of speaking to you couple of times. You can very well go through all of my interacts. Manto is just posing before a fellow Pakistani ;), don't take his words. See if necessary, he will assume an Indian nick and vouch for my warmthness.

#654 Posted by vengatramanan,

No, don't insult our intellect by saying that we underestimate Pakistanis...Perhaps, it could be the other way...

I haven't read your other posts on this board which may point to the contradictory as Manto alleges, but by this post alone, I'm willing to accept your assertion.

#653 Posted by vengatramanan,

Why should anyone ascribe genuineness to your claims?

Fair question. The easy way is to find my friend Muazzam Shah, but he's not on any chat sites. He's in the Federal Bureaucracy.

The other way is to trust me because I don't lie - as a principle. I was a student leader on the edge of Waziristan and my opponents were the NAP people - there were guns drawn on each side when I refused to compromise. There were night visits by both enemies and supporters, and I know a lot what NAP was up to from the people who were actually doing it.

Zee sahib,

(These are now loyal to India.)

Why wud anyone be loyal to a decrepit country like India? Particularly since there is no ethnic, tribal or religious bonding between the two groups.

(Read what Mullah Faquir of Bajaur said about them while praising Pakistan and it's army)

Well my pal says that it is the Taliboon who are the true inheritors of the Hindoo Gandhian philosophy in Pakistan.

Regards

Re: # 656

"We certainly don't underestimate the deviousness and dishonesty you've displayed in the previous post. "

LOL

#651 Posted by MantoLives,

As Pavo said- and I quote- they are opportunists first class and third rate buggers.

Pavo knows NWFP even better than I do ... I have no hesitation in admitting that - despite my claim earlier that I know NWFP like the back of my hand.

I however do take credit for my long held assertion on these boards, of introducing the term of 'Verkotey Vilayat', and that ANP (NAP) is nothing but a product of it. These are all illegitimate sons of the 'angrez', and now loyal to India.

Surprised at my last assertion? Read what Mullah Faquir of Bajaur said about them while praising Pakistan and it's army (despite their killing them at the same time). If you don't trust he's telling the truth because he's a militant, you will need to consult Pavo as to what he meant.

Re: # 654

We certainly don't underestimate the deviousness and dishonesty you've displayed in the previous post.