The ANP Challenge

manato saab, you did not answer my question bout your photo saab?

salam

Peon of the West

PS: I have read Hamid Khan's book... but not completely. I will read his view of Bacha Khan etc and get back to you.
You will obviously appreciate that Hamid Khan's view on what Pakistan was created for is identical to mine.

Salman,

Jamaat-e-Islami is Ghair Muqalad and not Barelvi. They infact hate Barelvis.


Zakkk,

As far as I know Jinnah put up the demand for reforms in NWFP and Balochistan on several occasions in the 1920s, including the 14 points:

Reforms should be introduced in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Baluchistan on the same footing as in the other provinces.

He raised the same demand in the Roundtable conference. But perhaps the greatest service he did was not related to reforms but ending the military occupation of the tribal belt through Operation Curzon.

I hope our leaders follow suit.

Yasser: What exactly was Jinnahs contribution to the development of NWFP? To my knowledge the Khan brothers seeking support against the draconian laws that NWFP, was under originally, were rebuffed by the Muslim League and after that approached the COngress.?

Also you are right that the ANP colloborated with the establishment post 1990 (although they backed nawaz shari rather than GIK ) No ANP members name is on the mehrangate list to my knowledge although several PPP ones are

http://dawn.com.pk/weekly/cowas/20071208.htm

Incidentally have you read Hamid Khans book on constitutional history and Pakistan? What do you think of his opinion of Bacha Khan and Wali Khan?

hamdani you wrote

3. Ofcourse Bhutto hobnobbed with the Islamists...But Bhutto did not claim to be secular or non-violent.

"4. ANP did join up with Nawaz Sharif's Islami Jamhoori Ittehad."

whats the point here? you are comparing ANP with which party in Pakistan? PPP had alliance with Mufti Mehmud's son in 1993 when they created Taliban.

Hamdani's argument proves one thing that ANP is still "the most Secular" party in Pakistani politics. (watch my words) ofcourse you won't accept MQM as real political party. (please don't start arguing about that now lol)

If you know a party which can get 5-6 National assebmly seats and is more secular than ANP. then please let us know.

I see Jamaat-e-Islami the biggest party of Brelvis. They don't believe in democracy and elections they believe in revolution. They infiltrate their people in Media, Army and civil services, in 70s they came in elections. Their idea is: a few righteous people should bring revolution and impose (their brand of) Islam. They are the biggest supporters of Jihad. Their propaganda for "Afghan jehad" and their share in Zia's Majlis-e-shoora and the $$$s which came from US to fight that War is well known. MMA as whole supports Taliban. (perhaps not the Shia faction) so dividing deobandi and brelvi into Jihadi and non jihadi is not working practically. if it said that only Pashtuns are deobandi then what about Kashmiri Militants and their support base in Punjab.
Basically Jihad is a Responsibility of a Muslim against evil. its only the interpretation and the use which can make it good or bad. Bacha Khans non-violent struggle was a Jehad. if someone was writing in newspaper against the British it was also a jehad. it can have any form of struggle against something bad considered by the society. Since occupation and colonization is considered bad or evil by the society of any country, then getting rid of it is the right of the people. To use that right is Jehad in Arabic. Hindu would give it any other name Christians would call it something else for example Crusade.
It is a more political jehad. people get money from Saudia or Kuwait or UAE to convert people to Wahabism. there are more than 10,000 Madrassas in Pakistan. I know a few grand Madrassas which are built by Wahabis in Balochistan near Quetta. the presence of Arab Militants ( or terrorists) proves that it was not our Jehad it was imposed on us by United States and the West.
So Hamdani should have problems with its use by different people but not with its basic concept.

Manato saab, why do you look so different in the photo here and the one on your home page.

you have grown old very quickly saab.

may be i am new here so made a mistake

Regards

Peon of the West

Yasserbhai,

I hate to agree with you but I do now. :)

Re: # 756

Dear VRV,

As far as Deobandis are concerned... in my view the reason why they haven't gotten militant in India is exactly what you say: lack of opportunity (Their role in politics of India otherwise has hardly been exemplary). In Pakistan, CIA + ISI backed Afghan War gave them the opportunity to implement and experiment with their Jehad doctrine.

I mean restart the whole debate all over again on another board :)

Majumdarda,

I always maintained that the leaders are not Gods. They are mortlas and lemme make it public the private msg of my friend Yasser (with due apologies to Yasser for making it public as it's a matter of extreme necessity).

He too believes that the top leadership of Freedom struggle were humans as well and therefore were fallible. It's difficult for him to admit that in public.

Yasserbhai,

///////Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and others also ascribed to the view that English jurisprudence was perfectly Islamic and according to Sharia and Jinnah being a lawyer who believed in British justice system did not believe his religion was in conflict with modern life.///////

This is comparable with a political statement. Amputation, eye4eye justice system is NOT compatible with English jurisprudence. In similar vein, eating pork and drinking whiskey is also not compatible with Islam. I dont know how Ahmed Khan and Jinnah thought that way.

As for Deobandi school of Islam, they are not gun toting fundoos, esp in India. If they did in Pakistan it's bcoz ISI gave them. Deobandis supply the syllabi of the madrasas & that doesn't include political education abt fighting Soviets/US.

They sided with Indian national leadership all thru. If they are eligible to be called as anti-Pakistani from ur pov, so be it.

Yaar, 750+ is a good record. Lets restart this on another board.

Re: # 753

Well said. If all concerned realized this, we would save each other a lot of unnecessary hurt.

Dear Salman,

Reading your last kind email to me, I have realized that our extreme public positions against Jinnah and Bacha Khan respectively is caused by the fact that we have been talking at each other instead of with each other. In deference and respect to your kind words, I will refrain from responding to any perceived provocation and I suggest you do the same. The "teeli baz sajna" below is no friend of yours I can assure you. I suppose this is what Adam Khan, ZAKKK, Ijaz-Gul, HP, Majumdar and even Harish bhai to a certain extent were trying to tell us.


Dear VRV,

In addition to my last post, I think there are only two or three points I will respond to- I hope you will read it in detail and not respond with knee jerks.:


1. The issue of promising Sharia: It is true that Jinnah assured Pir of Manki Sharif- a barelvi- that Pakistan's laws shall not be in conflict with Sharia. Let me also say that even the laws of secular India today are not in conflict with Sharia. Jinnah's argument was that the principles of Sharia are not in conflict with modern jurisprudence. Here Jinnah was using the dialectics of a great lawyer.

And this is a commonly held Muslim modernist point of view. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and others also ascribed to the view that English jurisprudence was perfectly Islamic and according to Sharia and Jinnah being a lawyer who believed in British justice system did not believe his religion was in conflict with modern life. (Ofcourse this might be because Jinnah was a Khoja Ismaili and Khoja Ismailis actually follow Hindu inheritance law). It may be so that the Muslim modernists are wrong and Jinnah was wrong and Islam is incompatible with modern statehood and secularism. Personally I do not consider myself a believer atleast anymore, so jury is out on that.


2. I have already quoted the difference between Barelvi and Deobandi Islam many times.

Barelvi Islam
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-barelvi.htm

The Barelvis follow many Sufi practices, including use of music (Qawwali) and intercession by their teacher. A key difference between Barelvi and Deobandi that Barelvi's believe in intercession between humans and Divine Grace. This consists of the intervention of an ascending, linked and unbroken chain of holy personages, pirs, reaching ultimately to Prophet Mohammad, who intercede on their behalf with Allah. It is a more superstitious - but also a more tolerant - tradition of Indian Islam. Their critics claim that Barelvis are guilty of committing innovation (Bid’at) and therefore, they are deviated from the true path - the path of Sunnah.

The Pakistan Movement got support from the Barelvis (Low Church). It had faced opposition from the National Indian Congress which was supported by the Deobandi seminaries (High Church). However, after the establishment of Pakistan as an Islamic state in 1949, Barelvi Low Church was too mixed up with mysticism to be a source of Islamic law. Ironically, Pakistan moved away from the 'spiritual pluralism' of the Barelvis, who had supported Pakistan, and relied on the more puritanical Deobandis who had opposed it.

Unlike the Deobandis, the Barelvis see the Prophet Mohammad as more than a man, a part of the divine light of Allah. This doctrine gives rise to a form of Islam that provides a space for holy men and esoteric practices and graves appear to be often more ornate than those found within Deobandi communities. The Wahhabi (Arabia), Deobandi (Pakistan and India) and Jamaat-I-Islami all are anti-sufi, and against the over devotion to Muhammad, whereas the Barelvis emphasize Muhammad's uniqueness. Indeed, nearly 85% of South Asia’s Sunni Muslims are said to follow the Barelvi school, closer to Sufism. The remaining 15% of Sunnis follow the Deobandi school, more closely related to the conservative practice of Islam. Most Shiites in the subcontinent also tend to be influenced by the Sufis. Pakistan’s Muslims, like other Muslims in the region, tend to follow a school of Islam which is less conservative, and hence the support for strongly and overtly religious parties has been minimal.

One should note that Deobandi fundamentalists have been the mainstay of Islamization in Pakistan.

3. Ofcourse Bhutto hobnobbed with the Islamists. Have you missed my debates with Masadi on Bhutto? But Bhutto did not claim to be secular or non-violent.

4. ANP did join up with Nawaz Sharif's Islami Jamhoori Ittehad. Even Salman bhai will tell you because it led to disenchantment even amongst ANP wallahs.

5. As for Jinnah recommending Bacha Khan's name from the frontier in 1929, I have already quoted the letter from Jinnah to Irwin in which Jinnah pressed the viceroy for Bacha Khan's release and Jinnah nominated him for the roundtable conference (though I don't know if he actually went). Ofcourse Bacha Khan was a famous leader in NWFP but he shot to national fame in the 1930s. Interestingly Bacha Khan resigned from the Congress workin committee after disagreeing with Gandhi and Nehru in 1942 (ironically for the same reason Jinnah had resigned from the Congress in 1920).

-YLH

Guys,

What is the point?

Are we saying that MAJ, JLN, MKG, KAGK are saints who never compromised with what was not right? Or are we saying that while people who achieved a level of greatness, they too like lesser mortals may have made compromises to achieve some personal or political goals?

If we are arguing the first I think our heroes will be shown to have feet on clay by their detractors. If we stick with the second, I think we will be on rather more solid footing.

Regards

Dear VRV,

That is August 12, 1948. 1947 was a typo and I corrected this. Atleast have the decency to investigate.

You may produce the accusation against Jinnah from Nehru, Patel or others specifically, the kind that you produced .

"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"

please don't insult the khan family by comparing them with these corrupt drug smugglers.

"Look Salman, my friend, I have already responded to your "proofs"
haha this is funny. what was his response? you have added words to mr Woplerts text. haha. anyone cn go and check the book, where have I added words. and am I stupid to add words to a well known book commonly available to prove my point? Not Really. what can we belive of him?

Since Yasser made a chargesheet against the Ghaffar Khan and his legacy, I am constrained to reply the chragesheet seriatim:

#737 Posted by MantoLives on March 26, 2008 6:30:59 am

////////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./////////

Yasser is using lawyerly tricks here. Jinnah was indeed resposnible for the violence everywhere. If Gandhi, Nehru didnt name im coz they're hoping against hope abt the partition of India and Jinnah was the key person who can stall it.

Yasser is plain moron to say that nobody accused Jinnah of DAD violence.

Patel did it. Nehru did it. Maulana Azad did it. Gandhi was busy touring the country against the tide of communal virus
spread by Jinnah the Serpent. Even Wavell sought clarification on the violence. This pro-ML GG sought explantionas from Jinnah, Suhrawardy abt the DAD violence but never from Gandhi, Nehru or Azad.

/////////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. ///////////

Jinnah did a lot of them. Jinnah was a staunch nationalist and later a staunch secessionist. That the mother of all flipflops.

//////////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).//////////

Deobandis were not fanatics. The Deobandis were not anti-Pakistani (which is a loaded point coz they knew that it's impossible to relocate every Muslim in India to an Utopia promised by Jinnah coz there're Muslims in every village of India) but staunch nationalists, lest they be seen as gaddaars.

The vital point I forgot to mention was that Deobandi school of Islam came into being after the famous book of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan on the reasons for the failure of 1857 Uprising. One of his points was that Islam lost its true essence in India and Deobandi School of Islam was supposed to reinvigorate it. So Deobandis were not religious extermists but a School of puritanical Islam.

Btw, Yasser had no answer to the question of Jinnah's promise abt Sharia in Pakistan.

///////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./////////

Bhutto himself hobobbed with fundoos and he's infact the progenitor of funddoism in Pakistan.

///////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. ////////

I dont see any wrong in receiving a civilian honour. If they had refused it, Yasser wud have branded them as anti-nationals. Cant have it both ways, khotey!


/////////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.////////

The implication is that ANP was cohoot with ISI an IJI? How does that sound khotey lawyer? ISI is a staunch Pakistani body and ANP are supposed to be anti-national. How can they join hands together (in theory)? Why opposition to PPP is called anti-national?

Political alignments take place every country in this world. U r stacking canards against ANP leaders.

///////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.////////

Bachu Yasser, Ipi was againt Jinnah. Seond point is that Jinnah himself did several flipflops in his mothered life.

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

Sherpao murder acusation is a dud. What other assisinations do u have in the hat?

///////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?///////


Salman can answer this better.


//////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.///////

This concept of small and big is in ur mind khotey lawyer. Ghafar Khan was a popular leader who's known all over Indian subcontinent. It's laughable that Jinnah introduced Ghaffar Khan.

As what?


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

Jinnah stood as accused even to this very moment. How come u exonerate that Serpent??

#737 Posted by MantoLives on March 26, 2008 6:30:59 am

//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.//

Yasser is using lawyerly tricks here. Jinnah was indeed resposnible for the violence everywhere. If Gandhi, Nehru didnt name im coz they're hoping against hope abt the partition of India and Jinnah was the key person who can stall it.

Yasser is plain moron to say that nobody accused him of DAD violence.

Patel did it. Nehru did it. Maulana Azad did it. Gandhi was busy touring the country against the tide of communal virus
spread by Jinnah the Serpent.


//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. //

Jinnah did a lot of them. Jinnah was a staunch nationalist and later a secessionist. That the mother of all flipflops.

///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).///

Deobandi were not fanatics. The Deobandis were not anti-Pakistani (which is a loaded point coz they knew that it's impossible to relocate every Muslim in India to an Utopia promised by Jinnah coz there're Muslims in every village of India) but staunch nationalists, lest they be seen as gaddaars.

Btw, Yaser had no answer to the question of Jinnah's promise abt Sharis in Pakistan.

//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.///

Bhutto himself hobobbed with fundoos and he's infact the progenitor of funddosim in Pakistan.

///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. ///

I dont see any wrong in receiving a civilian honour. If they had refused it, Yasser wud have branded them as anti-nationals. Cant have it both ways, khotey!

///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.///

The implication is that ANP was cohoot with ISI an IJI? How does that sound khotey lawyer. ISI is a staunch Pakistani boy and ANP are supposed to be anti-national.

Political alignments take place every country in this world. U r stacking canards against ANP leaders.

//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.///

Bachu Yasser, Ipi was againt Jinnah. Seond point is that Jinnah himself did several flipflops in his mothered life.

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

Sherpao murder acusation is a dud. What other assisinations u have?

///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?//

Salman can answer this better.


///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.//

This concept of small and big is in ur mind khotey lawyer. Ghafar Khan was a popular leader known all over the Indian subcontinent. It's laughable that Jinnah introduced Ghaffar Khan?? As what?


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

Jinnah stood as accused evern to this very moment. How come u exonerate that Serpent??

#725 Posted by MantoLives on March 26, 2008 5:15:07 am
Re: # 721

///As for Bhabra Sharif "massacre"... according to you it took place on August 12, 1947. Jinnah was already on his deathbed by then barely even able to move.///

Was Mantolives drunk when he wrote this?? How come Jinnah was on deathbed on 12th Aug 1947?? WHo raised the flag of Pakistan on 14th and 15th Aug then?

Look Salman, my friend, I have already responded to your "proofs". I don't agree with the spin you are putting on these so-called "proofs".

Let us agree to disagree. If you are serious in understanding why Pakistan was created ... you should read Indian jurist H M Seervai's "Partition of India: Legend and Reality" which shows that Jinnah tried to keep India united till the very end.

As for Bacha Khan - my criticisms are based in fact. I did not disrespect him till you started abuse Jinnah without any basis. So let us learn to accept that you have the right to dislike Jinnah and I have the right to dislike Bacha Khan.

You have the right to have your own point of view. but point of view doesn't mean that you insult someone. Calling them crooks opportunists corrupt.
I have proved MLs violence and I have more to show about Mr Jinnah and ML. I have showed you that they were conservative and used Islam for their goals.
ML’s opportunism is well known. It was shown in 1943 when they formed a Ministry under NWFP Governor Cunningham without having members in the assembly. His letter shows their corruption and horse-trading. So this horse-trading is not something new for them
These are things you blame Bacha Khan for.

"I accused Bacha Khan of colluding with Fakir of Ipi. That is all. So I can't give you evidence for something I did not claim."

People can have friendships with anyone, can be with opponents too. I stated before fakir was Hero he fought the British. Eve they have praised him. Called him a brave principled enemy. Its part of Pashtun culture they have high regard for enemies too. When they meet they give full respect to each other. Qayyum Khan’s problem was he was not Pashtun. So having kind of friendship is understandable. As you said Pir of Manki became Bacha Khan’s good friend later. They forgot about what happened in 1946-47. Pir was the main guy who created such a situation in NWFP which gave a reason to the British to conduct referendum in NWFP instead of asking the assembly as was part of the formula. Their regard of each other was clear that they were old “babas� they had fought the same war from different fronts. They were sincere in whatever their beliefs were. Some used violence against military some used against people and some remained non-violent.
If Bacha khan had helped fakir in anyways either financially or militarily then it would have been said that He wanted to topple the “unislamic� government of Pakistan otherwise there is no problem in it. He had friendship with Gandhi Nehru Family and Kabul government. They also didn’t have good relations with Pakistan government.

I don’t see any problem in it. If someone else feels something wrong in it he can tell us.

"If you try to compare Bacha Khan with some angels then I would have to accept that. Angels cannot go against the will of God. But human beings can."

The basic issue here that Salman seems to be suffering from is his inability to accept that I might have a differing point of view- which I have the right to entertain. Apparently I don't have the right to be alive even if I don't agree with the hagiographic one sided representation that Salman ascribes to.

I have my own reading of history and I think I have the right to that.

Mufti Mahmood was an old ally of Bacha Khan in NWFP against the Muslim League:

"When you are dipped in shit you cannot call someone dirty for having a particle of dust on his shirt."

Yes and that is essentially what your abuse against Jinnah amounts to given the history of the Khan family's flip flops.

Bacha khan was not involved with Mufti Mehmud. so stick to Bacha khan for once. we will talk abouut Wali Khan later.

...how is abusing Jinnah going to absolve your Bacha Khan of his misdeeds?

When you are dipped in shit you cannot call someone dirty for having a particle of dust on his shirt.

You cannot speak of Bacha Khan in a vacuum. He was there with all those opponents. Nobody could reach the height of his character. After all that abuse and persecutions. He still didn’t lose hope. He was still a Pakistani. When a lot less than that happened to one of your guys, he fled to India saying I will be back riding Indian tank. So if you tell me Mr Jinnah was good Bacha Khan was bad. Then I will show you Jinnah was one of the worst and the biggest flip-flop. If you try to compare Bacha Khan with some angels then I would have to accept that. Angels cannot go against the will of God. But human beings can.

Re: # 738

I accused Bacha Khan of colluding with Fakir of Ipi. That is all. So I can't give you evidence for something I did not claim.

Re: # 736

If you insist on misinterpreting what I am saying I can't help it.

You kept claiming that Qayyum was the mainstay of the Muslim League. I merely pointed out that Qayyum was till 1946 not even a member and later wasn't even on the Executive committee.

you have not given any evidence that Bacha khan or his KK was involved in "violent action" to bring down the "unislamic government" of Pakistan

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.)

regarding babarda massacre

"And the main architect was none other than Bacha Khan's old Congress comrade Qayyum"

you mean he joined ML in 1946 then Qayyum Khan was CM of NWFP and member of ML a staunch supporter of Jinnah. when he ordered that Massacre. it was the fault of Congress becasue before he was a member of that party? my question to all fiends is.
who else belives in hamdani's argument?

Salman mian,

Some secularism you stand for : You declared (on several occasions) I can't be objective because I am "Qadiani" and Jinnah was a Non-Muslim because he was Ismaili.

Ofcourse this is kind of secularism Bacha Khan was espousing when he colluded with Fakir of Ipi and vowed to bring down the unIslamic government led by the Ismaili Kafir Jinnah right?

As for the rest of your post, I have answered each and everyone of those allegations.

Mr Hamdani
we are not done yet. you bring everything in one post. so lets talk about Ghaffar Khan and Mr Jinnah once then we can go Wali Khan and others.

you have not proven that I have added words to Mr Wolperts text. those words are still there in the book. if you lie and say that the "violent" word is not there then I have challenged everyone here to check the book and prove me wrong. I can't say more than that. Jinnah welcomed violent Action. those are the words of Stanley Woplert. As I know you. it was expected from you. I was surprised that howcome you have not asked me that " learn english then talk to me" thing long before.

Cheema brother

We are all for secularism (I hope we are) the point here is Muslim League was or is a conservative party. they were aggressively using Islam to get votes. Mr Jinnah wrote letters to people promising them that Pakistan would have laws according to shariya. that’s how he was getting support from different sections of masses. the reason Pakistan constitution was not formed was the same . he was not showing his cards he kept people in illusion. Basically it was wrong thing to do because decisions should be taken according to the wishes of the members or in other words people should have seen Jinnah's ideas and joined ML or voted for it. in this case ML members were getting votes for Islam because Pakistan and Islam were synonymous.
They used violence to prove that Muslims and Hindus cannot live together. Jinnah said
Either divided India or destroyed India.
Due to these our people still don’t know what was Pakistan created for. I am sure you know all this. If you need some proofs I can make them available for you.

Dear Salman,

"Hamdani is a born liar" and "I am sure Hamdni you add and omit words from the text"

First of all if you feel I have been dishonest or have misquoted something, I challenge you to bring one quote where I have added anything of my own. Now I have already responded to your posts in detail including the issue of your quotes- which even if true don't prove what you are trying to prove. On the contrary you still have pointed out one flaw in the accusations I put up against Bacha Khan. Nor have you produced any evidence of Bacha Khan's good friend Pir of Manki Sharif wanting to kill Nehru.

Frankly this is getting boring. I don't have time to waste with someone who can't even make sense.

ok hamdani paste that here again let me see what you have stated in it. about Jinnah and his league. how much was he responsible for the activities of his fanatic league comprised of jehadi and corrupt elements and opportunists
you keep repeating HP brothers remark about me. Should I write someones remark about you.
"Hamdani is a born liar"

I am waiting your reply.
So anyone checked the book and found out that some words were aded or omitted from the Stanley Wolpert's text. Where it was said that Jinnah welcomed Violent action. I am sure Hamdni you add and omit words from the text. I just realized people can do it.

majumdar bhai,

"it wud be unfortunate"

My posts 590 and 682 explain my idea of patriotism. I hope Cheema sb also reads it.

Cheema sahib,

Please dont go away. We are all friends in spite of our differences. You are as asset here.

(I much prefer Gandhi ji myself but each their own as they say! I hope that doesn't disqualify me as a loyal and proud Pakistani in your eyes.)

It wud be very unfortunate if that was the case.

I have to give credit to my Injun colleagues here- VRV, HYD, Sadnaji, Beej. In spite of my severe criticism of JLN/MKG and staunch support of MAJ, the man who divided India, they have never questioned either my patriotism or my character.

Regards

Sallu bhai,

Re: 722

#1 Hindoo-Muslim relationships were severely strained and the subcontinent plunged into a cycle of violence.

#2 By 1948 MAJ (pbuh) was severely ill and possibly not in control over ML and Pakistan affairs.

Regards

Correction August 12, 1948.

And the main architect was none other than Bacha Khan's old Congress comrade Qayyum.

Re: # 724

"I came across one of your articles on 1974 (Pakistan RIP); very impressive. Having secular tendencies myself, I'd love to see the day when a solid secular democracy has taken root and to see it prosper in our homeland."

Thanks.

Re: # 721

How does one argue with someone like you who insists on ignoring straight answers and going in circles for a punch line he is not going to get? The answer is there in several posts, but especially in 633.

As for Bhabra Sharif "massacre"... according to you it took place on August 12, 1947. Jinnah was already on his deathbed by then barely even able to move. But lets humor you and say that Jinnah was not "fit" to be governor general, how does it prove the facts I have put up about Bacha Khan false?

I think you are not worth anyone's time ... nor should I base my assessment of ANP on you, because you are as HP says an unintelligent ANP worker who knows nothing.

Re: # 720; Yasser bhai

Many thanks for taking the time to inform me of Mr Jinnah's virtues and strength of character; I have nothing against the man but just thought a bit too much credit seemed to be going in his direction on some of these discussions. I much prefer Gandhi ji myself but each their own as they say! I hope that doesn't disqualify me as a loyal and proud Pakistani in your eyes.

The pbuh thing was a hangover from a previous discussion I had with Majumdar bhai; from a non-believer's perspective, I don't mind if Mr Jinnah gets a few extra Brownie points in the hereafter as a direct result of this practice!

I came across one of your articles on 1974 (Pakistan RIP); very impressive. Having secular tendencies myself, I'd love to see the day when a solid secular democracy has taken root and to see it prosper in our homeland.

Many thanks again. Sorry to interrupt....

I don't get Hamdani's points here.
He keeps saying Jinnah Jinnah. does it mean Jinnah and MUslim League are differnt? Muslim league's corruption is well known. I have posted Governor NWFP letter here. which tells about ML's corruption and horse trading.

Majumdar bhai

1- you said Jinnah didn't ask ML to start violence they did it on their own. it kept on going till May 1947.

2- Hamdani said Babara shrif Massacre and that ordinance were the creation of Qayyum Khan. Jinnah has nothing to do with that.

It means Jinnah was not able to control his Party and he was not capable of running a country as governor general.

Mr Hamdani why are you such a coward. just answer the simple question.
in your view
Jinnah didn't ask the Ml for violence.
or
Muslim League as party didnt start violence.

DOn''t tell us where to go simply answr the question and dont fool around

There are two statements... which I think sum it up. One by H V Hodson and the other by Dr. B R Ambedkar .. which might explain why Majumdar bhai and I use (PBUH) for Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah.

"One thing is certain, it was not for any venal motive that he changed. Not even his political enemies ever accused Jinnah of corruption or self seeking. He could be bought by no one and for no price. Nor was he in the least degree a weathercock, swinging in the wind of popularity or changing his politics to suit the chances of the time. He was a steadfast idealist, as well as a man of scrupulous honour." (Page 39- Great Divide)


and

From Pakistan or Partition of India by Dr. B R Ambedkar - the author of Indian constitution:

"Secondly, it forgets that Mr. Jinnah, who represents this ideological transformation, can never be suspected of being a tool in the hands of the British even by the worst of his enemies. ..... it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah."


Those who wish to abuse Jinnah, should go right ahead but one should not stop others from holding a point of view which is rooted in history.

harish bhai,

The Lahore Convention of 1940 had 100 000 people. The Delhi convention had 90 000. What you say was true upto 1936... when Jinnah increased membership of the League and remodelled it on Congress lines.

All India Muslim League was divided on 17th December 1947 between PML (under Khaliquzzaman) and the Indian Union Muslim League (under Muhammad Ismail). Your junior external affairs minister is part of that party.

In Pakistan, the successor Pakistan Muslim League, along with other political parties, was banned in 1958.

The feudals who had briefly joined the Muslim League at the end of the Pakistan movement were encouraged by the establishment to join the Republican Party in 1954-55. Muslim League sat in the opposition till it was banned.

Suhrawardy and Mamdot formed what was known as Jinnah Awami Muslim League. This Party ultimately transformed into Awami League.

When Ayub Khan allowed the parties to work again, two Muslim Leagues came into being... one with people like Mahmudabad and Khaliquzzaman etc who supported Fatima Jinnah.... there was Ayub's own Muslim League which had Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as the secretary General.

Ayub's Muslim League died out... the other Muslim League was divided into two anti-Ayub factions: Qayyum group Malik group. Both of them I believe were part of the PPP government in the 1970s.

Parties were again banned in 1978... A new Muslim League came into being in 1986 under Junejo. This Junejo Muslim League was divided into Junejo League and Nawaz League. Later Junejo League was divided into Chatha League and Watoo League but soon their main people joined in with Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League. When Mush came along, PML-N was divided into N and Likeminded. Likeminded later adopted the name PML-Q.

The thing is that there has always been two Muslim Leagues after 1958... one that is pro-establishment and the other than is anti-establishment. At times, the pro-establishment League also turns into the anti-establishment league ... like Nawaz Sharif's League.

It is however the great emotional attachment the people of Pakistan have to the name that makes these politicians revive the Muslim League every now and then.

Harishbhai,

(the Muslims middle-class is a tiny segment of India's Muslim population )

True and in that sense MKG/INC may have resorted to realpolitik in hobnobbing with the obscurantists. But with disastrous consequences.

Vengy,

(If it had the support of the middle class, why did not it survive atleast for two decades in Pakistan? )

The real PML died with MAJ's successor LAK. I am not an expert maybe YLH can expalin better. But lemme try. ML's base was mainly among Muslims of minority provinces. Bong Momins were mainly supporters of a left wing Muslim party led by Fazl-e-Haq while Punjab and Sindh which were dominated by feudals had traditionally been stronghold of feudals and agrarian interests like the Unionist Party. Their conversion and thus loyalty to PML was shallow. So PML soon came to be hijacked by feudals like Mamdot, Tiwana, Hyatt and the rest of the gang. They got control of the League from its erstwhile Mojo leadership after LAK's murder and were unwilling to share power with the populist Muslim forces of Bengal (who also had some Hindoo support). The Bongs were thus alienated and in West, the feudals sold their soul to USA and the Army very soon.

Regards

#715 by vengatramanan

Where is ML in Pakistan now? If it had the support of the middle class, why did not it survive atleast for two decades in Pakistan?

I have no idea Vengat bhai how long beyond Jinnah the party survived. However, my main argument has been that the ML if it indeed had the support of the moderate Muslim middle class (which in those days might have been tiny), must have been a rather small party.

I suppose the later ML morphed into the PML, of which there are two versions right now. One is the PML-N (Nawaz Sharif's party) and the PML-Q (the Musharraf-supported party). However, Yasser could probably enlighten us to its fate in the post-47 era.

Re: # 711 Majumdar Bhai,

This is not my discussion so I'll get out after this. I still think you are giving too much credit to MAJ and very little where it is due (MKG).

What MKG did was through being naive and basically sincere. What MAJ did/achieved was more opportunism than anything else; being at the right(?) place at the right(?) time, perhaps.

I think there is a difference.

I still think you should drop the pbuh, but it is upto you I guess; you obviously have a very soft spot for the man!

Sorry to butt in.

Cheers

Re: # 714

Harish,

Where is ML in Pakistan now? If it had the support of the middle class, why did not it survive atleast for two decades in Pakistan?

#711 by majumdar

Re. your reference, thanks.

But was unwilling to share power with an emerging Muslim party which had middle class representation as well.

Majumdar bhai, the Muslims middle-class is a tiny segment of India's Muslim population today. Do you seriously think it would have amounted to much in those days when Muslims were even more backward than they are now?

"But was unwilling to share power with an emerging Muslim party which had middle class representation as well."

LOL

"INC found it necessary to pander to a bunch of murdering thugs and obscurantists."

So these were the thugs who were involved in killing the Muslims of Calcutta?

What Maulana Azad said abt religion + politics is no diff from what Gandhi said. I think they were too naive to ignore what the poisonous snakes like Jinnah and Mahasabhaites were planning.

Yasser's trying to be smart by half when he says that Maulana promoted religion extremism and issued fatwa as he felt that India became Dar-ul-Harb.

Thanks that he now gave (albeit C&P) the whole context of that fatwa.

Harishbhai,

(Any references Majumdar bhai?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauri_Chaura

{{{Mahatma Gandhi asked all Indians to end the Non-cooperation movement, and went on a five-day fast to absolve himself of what he perceived as his role in inciting the attacks. }}}

(His pandering to the Mullahs also was part of a strategy )

That is the point. INC found it necessary to pander to a bunch of murdering thugs and obscurantists. But was unwilling to share power with an emerging Muslim party which had middle class representation as well.

Regards

Harishbhai,

MAJ (pbuh) wanted Pakistan but certainly did not intend to create a genocide in the process, it happened but was not inevitable nor his intent. And need I remind you of his famous 8/11 speech.

As for the original map of Pakistan there are of course two versions. One is the various "stans" of Ch. Rehmat Ali and the other is the Pakistan plus undivided Bengal, Punjab and North East. Obviously there was no way the Hindoos were going to give up that lebensraum.

Regards

#701 by majumdar

He withdrew support becuase of the Chauri Chaura act. Not becuase Khilafat was going nowhere.

Any references Majumdar bhai?

It was good that he eschewed violence at Chauri Chaura but what about the Moplah rebellion what made him keep his mouth mum. Maybe he had read some of Maulana Urstruly's fatwas that Muslim violence against idolators is right!!!

If anything, my gripe against the man is that he went out of the way to accommodate Muslim sensibilities as was evident during the Khilafat agitation and the Moplah rebellion. But again, it wasn't out of malice against Hindus or moderate Muslims; it was just because he believed in the inherent goodness of human beings. His pandering to the Mullahs also was part of a strategy to make his Muslim audience more representative as against the small educated Muslim segment (I'm sure you know Muslim literacy rates then were way lower than they are today) the party had then.

#705 by majumdar

Did MAJ (pbuh) make the Pakistan demand to harm Muslims or Hindoos for that matter.

Majumdar bhai, MAJ might have made the Pakistan demand for the benefit of Indian Muslims, but in the process if it harmed Hindus (Sikhs and some Muslims too), he didn't show any remorse for it.

#701 by majumdar

MAJ (pbuh) had no intention of imposing his "Nizam" all over India, he wanted a Pakistan only (incl whole of Bengal and Punjab).

Again Majumdar bhai, you do know what the original Pakistan map comprised of, don't you? If not, please take a look at what the original plan envisaged. Yasser should be able to help you out with it. Not for nothing did Jinnah resent the moth-eaten Pakistan he eventually got.

Re: # 705

Majumdar,

Nobody claims that Jinnah wanted to harm people but he was ready to if his ambitions were not met. He was of the view that Muslims will be greatly harmed if he left them in the Hindu India. He was ready for the sacrifices, which he anticipated.

Majumdar,

I told you pliant and non-pliant Muslims... apparently the fundooness or lack thereof doesn't depend on anything else but the willingness of the Mualana submit himself to Gandhi's commands.


The allegiance of the Muslim intelligentsia of India at that to the Khilafah is unquestionable. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad summed up their view when he wrote in his newspaper al-Hilal on 6th November 1912 that the Ottoman Sultans possessed the only sword which Muslims had for their protection. Insofar as the “caliphate was essentially a religious integration of the shari’a�, it became “necessary by revelation, is of God’s institution and that obedience to its authority is farz, or positively commanded�.


The Khilafat Movement


In September 1919, Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali, together with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani, started a new organization, the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Their avowed aim was to use whatever leverage they had to protect the Khilafah. They organized Khilafat Conferences in several northern Indian cities. It is noticeable that the scholars and activists that were part of the Khilafat movement came from different schools of thought and backgrounds, for example Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was known to be a ‘ghayr taqleedi’ (non-taqleedi – who believed Taqleed to Mazahib is prohibited) and Maulana Mahmood Hasan was Deobandi who are followers of the Hanafi Mazhab yet they were united in the objective of working for the maintenance of the Khilafah.


In 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee agreed on two important organisational goals: “first, to urge the retention of the temporal powers of the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph, and second to ensure his continued suzerainty over the Islamic holy places.�

Delivering the presidential address at the Calcutta meeting of the Bengal Provincial Khilafat Conference in 1920, Maulana Azad discussed the importance of Khilafah he declared, “the purpose of this institution was to organise and lead the Muslim community in the right path, to establish justice, to bring about peace, and to spread God’s word in the world. For all this it was absolutely necessary for the caliph to possess temporal power�. Maulana Azad had no doubt that “without an Imam, their lives were un-Islamic and that they would be damned after death�.


Maulana Azad published a book in 1920 called Masla-e-Khilafat (The Issue of Khilafah), he stated: “Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this�.

In the same book page 176 Maulana Azad said, “There are two types of ahkam shariah, the first is related to the individual like the commands and prohibitions, the fara’id (obligations) and wajibat in order to perfect oneself. The second is not related to the individual but is related to the Ummah, nation, collective obligations and state politics like the conquering of lands, political and economic laws�.

According to Peter Hardy, Maulana Azad believed that, “The Muslim who would separate religion and politics for Muslims is an apostate who works silently�.


The loss of political power in India and the threat posed by a combination of forces to the temporal authority of the caliph, was so worrisome for the leaders of the Muslim community that some of them felt compelled to issue fatwas ‘in favour of migration (hijra)’ from India.


Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a fatwa which was published in the daily Ahl-e-Hadith of Amritsar on 30 July 1920. In his fatwa he urged Hijrat from India as an alternative to non-cooperation with the British.

Maulana Abdul Bari’s fatwa said, “every Muslim residing here should adopt non-cooperation but if (that is) impossible, should proceed for hijrat�. Maulana Shaukat Ali issued a statement on behalf of the Central Khilafat Committee, “expressing the hope that all dedicated Muslims would stay in India and work for the non-cooperation. Only if it did not succeed would they consider resorting to hijrat�. The impact of the fatwa was electrifying and thousands of Muslims preferred to leave the Dar al harb of India where their religious rights symbolized in the position of the Turkish Caliph was being infringed.

Vengat,

(but the question is did Gandhi&Co take a decision to harm people.)

No.

Did MAJ (pbuh) make the Pakistan demand to harm Muslims or Hindoos for that matter.

Regards

The diff btw religious Muslims and fundoos is very clear.

Harish,

"Gandhi in his misguided belief that he could appeal to a wider Muslim audience tried to cultivate the Muslim clergy by supporting the Khilafat movement"

We are trying to see Gandhi's actions through the prism of our time. We have had multiple paradigm shifts since the days of partition. It amounts to be charlatanic on our part to analyse a past decision without taking into the considerations the factors Gandhiji&Co would have chosen among the many. Gandhi&Cos decisions might have given results that are not acceptable in the current paradigm but the question is did Gandhi&Co take a decision to harm people.

The outcome of a decision the present generation desires and the aspirations of a long gone generation could not have been identical. Our present aspirations or the present ideas could have been an anachronism for the people of Gandhi's times.

When Gandhi could withdraw agitations just because he didn't approve of ChauriChaura, which the decision's outcomes presented themselves in his times, wouldn't he thought about the support for the Khilafat movement. Gandhi&Co would have gone by the covariates and the hypothetical results they could deduce out of decisions.

OTOH it is very different for being indecisive...you don't get bricks as well as bouquets.

Dada,

Maulana was the true rep of Indian Muslism and everybody knew it. A for him being a fundoo, it's only laughable. He's religious but not a fundoo.

He was the education minister of free India but he never imposed any religious education. There's Humayun Khan from East Bengal who succeeded Maulana as the Ed minister of free India; he too followed the path of Maulana. Prof Nurul Hasan of yesteryears too followed the great path of Maulana.

There's a diff btw religious Muslims and fundoos is very clear.

VRV sahib,

(Yasser does hate G/N/Gh coz they came in the way of Jinnah's Nizam in the whole of Indian Subcontinent. )

MAJ (pbuh) had no intention of imposing his "Nizam" all over India, he wanted a Pakistan only (incl whole of Bengal and Punjab). It was Azad types who wud have wanted to impose a Nizam -e-Mustafa over whole of India.

(but the moment he realized it was going nowhere)

He withdrew support becuase of the Chauri Chaura act. Not becuase Khilafat was going nowhere.

(At no time did Gandhi espouse violence or support any kind of violence - even in the heyday of the Khilafat agitation. I think you already know his stance on the Chauri Chaura killings. )

It was good that he eschewed violence at Chauri Chaura but what about the Moplah rebellion what made him keep his mouth mum. Maybe he had read some of Maulana Urstruly's fatwas that Muslim violence against idolators is right!!!

Regards

#691 by majumdar

It wud be fair enough to accept MKG's role also.

Gandhi in his misguided belief that he could appeal to a wider Muslim audience tried to cultivate the Muslim clergy by supporting the Khilafat movement, but the moment he realized it was going nowhere, he withdrew support. It may have been a foolish move but by no means a malicious one. At no time did Gandhi espouse violence or support any kind of violence - even in the heyday of the Khilafat agitation. I think you already know his stance on the Chauri Chaura killings. That was pretty much his stance throughout.

OTOH, Jinnah openly consorted with the communalists, playing up the differences (Hindus worship cow, Muslims eat it etc.) between the two communities at every given opportunity. He created paranoia amongst the Muslims masses by saying yoking Hindus and Muslims would result in civil war.

Maybe the answer is simple. He had none. He was merely being honest.

There are enough sources that blame Jinnah and the Muslim League for the DAD violence. If you go through the link I posted a couple of days back, you can see for yourself.

Dada,

I tell u the truth. Yasser does hate G/N/Gh coz they came in the way of Jinnah's Nizam in the whole of Indian Subcontinent.

He's Jinnah's prick extraordinaire!

Further to 694 (Zee),

Dari-speaking means that u r not a Gangaram but a blue-blooded Persian.

VRV sahib,

695

You are right. There were Momins with interests in progressing towards the modern world and there were others who wanted to live as per 7th century Arab norms. The same divisions exist today.

The point is MKG/INC chose to consort with the second types than with the first types. That is YLH's gripe.

Of course it cud be very well argued that the Type 2 Momins were right and Type 1 Muslims were wrong all along.

Regards

In just one day Yasser took this board towards 700 posts. Yasser the hoenybum, u never disappoint urself.

Majumdarda,

There're different hues in Indian history of that period. Muslims were not minorities at that time. They're equally represented in every field of life (no quota). Even in pre-Jinnah period Indian Muslims were prominent in promoting the cause of Indian Independence.

Name a meeting in London (pre-Jinnah period) in support of India or her causes, u have several Muslim names in that meeting. This is what I saw in pre-Jinnah period news items on India (The Times archive)

Zeemax (640),

The Khans were not into this game of TNT nor they were actively encouraging riots and murders.

I understand that u lived there (NWFP) and u r a Dari-speaking family.

Whether u like it or not Jinnah was an established criminal in India. It's for the Yasser to counter this.

VRV sahib,

Re: 692

That is the thing that is different about the way of thinking of some of desi Momins. I wud have used "wrong" but afraid of Kaal bhai's danda, I am using "different" instead. They had no issues with Brits ruling over India and running it to the ground but they suddenly discovered that British India was dar-ul-harb 'cos the Brits removed a frikking retarded ruler of distant Turkey.

Regards

'Besides I suppose no religious scripture played a part in Maulana Azad's famous fatwa in early 1920s that India was Dar-ul-Harb and the Muslims should move to Afghanistan.'
(689)

Yasserbhai,

U r puting things are divorced from the context.

It's the time when WWI was goin on & Khalifa was abolished by the British who're also ruling India. Since India was ruled by the British it was decided that they shud follow the example of the times of prophet Muhammed. That's why they wanted to migrate to Afghanistan i/o living under British.

But the truth is that a few hundred ppl moved o/a that fatwa.

Harishbhai,

(storm was building up months before in advance)

It wud be fair enough to accept MKG's role also. First of all he brought all kind of obscurantists to the fore by starting the Khilafat movement. Surely you must be aware of the karnameys of the God fearing Moplahs of Kerala. And then equally suddenly he called off the NCM without even fully consulting his partners the Muslims. With the result that a huge amount of distrust was created between Hindus and Muslims. So you had a double whammy.

A roused Muslim population.
Distrust between Hindus and Muslims.

So is it MAJ' sole fault that Muslims and Hindus were sepaarted by walls of distrust and animosity.

There indeed was a storm but if you want to locate the energy source of that storm system you have to look elsewhere!!!

(I don't know what motive Nehru had for not speaking out,)

Maybe the answer is simple. He had none. He was merely being honest.

Regards

#686 by majumdar

A dishonest man does not indulge in dishonesty all the time. He is dishonest only to service some ulterior motive. These guys may not have been dishonest when they did not accuse MAJ (pbuh) becuase they may have realised that their claims wud fall flat.

Who is to determine when these "dishonest" men were honest and when they were lying? Nearly 60 years later, Jinnah is still haunted by accusations of having instigated violence. As I said before he may not have been directly responsible for all that went on, but by turning a blind eye when his cohorts were instigating Muslims, he must accept his share of the blame. It wasn't as if he was caught by surprise; there were warnings early on and the storm was building up months before in advance in the form of provocative speeches where leaguers threatened to shed blood; thundered that they were no believers in ahimsa; that the death and destruction they would wreak would put Hulaku Khan to shame etc.

Harishbhai, Now since u believe that MKG and JLN were honest men shud you not accept that they were honest in not implicating MAJ (pbuh)

I don't know about Nehru, but I believe Gandhi was honest to a fault. A man who speaks about his innermost (even intimate) feelings in his book cannot be anything but that. He may be guilty of many misadventures but no one can accuse him of malice. I don't know what motive Nehru had for not speaking out, but with respect to Gandhi, it could simply be because he was never known to speak out against any of his rivals in public. If Gandhi didn't blame Suhrawardy, the man widely believed to be behind the actual violence - going on to even live with him for a month to demonstrate that Hindus and Muslims could live with each other in peace, what makes you think he'd talk about Jinnah?

Re: # 687

Except that they took every opportunity to blame others like Suhrawardy.

Besides I suppose no religious scripture played a part in Maulana Azad's famous fatwa in early 1920s that India was Dar-ul-Harb and the Muslims should move to Afghanistan.
But then I suppose in India the title of religious zealotry is reserved for those irreligious gentlemen who take up the political causes of a community based on religious identity.

Mahatmas and Maulanas are exempt from such love.

Vengat,

MKG and Azad were indeed religous zealots of sorts, under the right circumstances Azad may have evolved into a full time jihadi. JLN wasn't a zealot, he was just an idiot who was fond of kissing commie and Islamist fundoo a***s.

Regards

Re: # 686

Majumdar,

Don't get into the pipe logic. There are lateral roads. MKG, Nehru and Azad chose political expediency over anything else you can fill in here. Now don't try to describe all the above mentioned leaders in the plane of a religious zealot, who would have sought religious scriptures' guidance for his decisions, these leaders were intelligent and they had their own convictions.

Harishbhai,

(1. If you claim they were dishonest and if they had implicated Jinnah, you would have argued that the accusers weren't credible so we can't go by their word.)

Yes!!!

(2. And if we accept your claim of their dishonesty, since they didn't accuse Jinnah, doesn't it logically follow that they were being dishonest by not doing so? )

A dishonest man does not indulge in dishonesty all the time. He is dishonest only to service some ulterior motive. These guys may not have been dishonest when they did not accuse MAJ (pbuh) becuase they may have realised that their claims wud fall flat.

Harishbhai, Now since u believe that MKG and JLN were honest men shud you not accept that they were honest in not implicating MAJ (pbuh)

Regards

Re: # 683

Agreed bhai but I wasn't referring to you nor did you egg him on. :)

Re: # 681

Harish bhai

May I interject.

I think what Majumdar is trying to say is that since in his view they were dishonest, they would have jumped to the opportunity to denounce Jinnah at the first opportunity. The fact that even they didn't accuse Jinnah amounts to something.

#680 by MantoLives

Yaar Yasser, what is this term "Indian supporter"? What if one of your fellow Pakis, say Salman mian, accuse you of being egged on by your "Indian supporter" (Majumdar bhai)? What exactly are you trying to prove by saying that Salman has Indian supporters?

For the record, none of my posts have been in support of Salman and I have been asking these questions long before he even appeared on Chowk.

HP,

I haven't defined patriotism. Don't take my tit for tat responses to Salman mian as indicative of my definition of patriotism. You may visit #590 (for which I was abused by this brilliant ANP worker) and see for yourself that my definition is hardly based on taking any prisoners of conscience.

Anyone... be it Bacha Khan's grandson or GM Syed's nephew ..
who works for a democratic social welfare state and a strong Pakistani federation based on provincial autonomy and respect for diversity is a patriot of Pakistan i my view.

I do hope though that the followers of these gentlemen will not allow their illustrious forerunners to become symbolic tools in the hands of those who want to see Pakistan fail.

#637 by majumdar

Indeed I wud have argued just that. But the fact that they did not even bother pointing a finger at MAJ suggests that MAJ was not guilty.

Majumdar bhai, please clarify this for me.

1. If you claim they were dishonest and if they had implicated Jinnah, you would have argued that the accusers weren't credible so we can't go by their word.

2. And if we accept your claim of their dishonesty, since they didn't accuse Jinnah, doesn't it logically follow that they were being dishonest by not doing so?

Salman mian

Refer to 676 and 633. As for the sentence that you asked for. HP - who is Bacha Khan's biggest fan and supporter - has given you a sentence:

Salman is clearly is an unintelligent ANP supporter and has no idea what he is talking about

Adam Khan,

That is a very well written post and you know where I actually stand. However, it is better addressed to Salman. You may go to the begining of his posts on this board and see for yourself how he started this nonsense.

If a self-professed ANP worker comes up and starts levelling baseless allegations against Jinnah for example simply because of my very mild criticism of Bacha Khan in the article- none of which was untrue and we went through it point by point earlier in more civil times, I reserve the right to dig up with potentially disastrous stuff about Bacha Khan and others.

For the record... Zeemax was not the only person who claimed this. I was actually acting on the claims of Mr. Pavocavalry. However you may consider #580 when I voluntarily dropped this issue given the contradictory nature of the claims. Even that was taken to be sign of weakness as was my post # 590 where I once again tried to speak sense to Mr. Salman0902. He- irked on by his newfound Indian supporters- attacked me for even doing that.

To top it all off - this self professed ANP supporter declared that 1. I was not objective because I was an Ahmadi. 2. I was not objective because I was a PPP supporter and finally 3. He accused me of being a typical Punjabi chauvinist who wanted to build Kalabagh Dam. If this is the way secular ANP activists deal with criticism then it is a grave issue for NWFP.

You know that even Jinnah had great personal regard for Bacha Khan... and whatever negativity and misunderstanding was was created between the two in 1948 was well washed away by Bacha Khan and Wali Khan's wholehearted support for Fatima Jinnah in her quest against Ayubian dictatorship.
The fact of the matter is that I have never heard any ANP wallah abuse Jinnah except for this fellow here. Disagree with his politics but I have found ANP wallahs always properly respectful and this should be mutual.

-YLH

Mr Hamdani
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?

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

SHORT AN DBRIEF ONE SENTENCE ANSWER WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

Majumdar,

While you are correct to point out that the Khans did sup with the Islamists but at least they had a reason. They were making deals with them to take on a 800 lb gorilla (Brits, ZAB, Army etc) But if that makes them unsecular, what do you say about the PPP which cut deals with the some forces (Excommunicating Ahmedis, setting up the Taliban in 1995) when there was no pressing need to do so?

You are right as usual but I don't hold the brief for the PPP either. To PPP's credit though, it has never claimed to be secular or non-violent. (I am guessing though that PPP will claim similar expediencies- national interest, democracy and what not. The history of Ahmaddiya issue is full of establishment's conspiracy to destabilize governments starting from the attempt to bring down the Muslim League government by creating the anti-Ahmaddiya riots... in 1953 when Nazimuddin was sent packing. Bhutto just chickened out in 1974).

Salman mian,

I have answered this question several times. You may read my last response to Harish Bhai on the matter which is 633.
The issue here is not Jinnah in any event but your inability to defend Bacha Khan on his merits.

As for "doobtay ko tinkay ka sahara" bit, I voluntarily deferred the matter of Hayat Khan Sherpao assassination given that I was given two very contradictory views - each of which claimed with absolute certainty. It is therefore my inability to ascertain both claims that I have washed my hands off the matter.

Zeemax however has made a claim which I have neither accepted nor denied. He has every right to give his point of view.

Sallu bhai,

(do you mean that Jinnah didn't ask Muslim League to do it OR that Muslim League wasn't involved in violence. )

The picture that seems to emerge is that the ML was defo involved in violence but without MAJ's support or concurrence, possibly even in defiance of his instructions.

There was a lot of violence on both sides but it is more likely out of the inexperience, incompetence and laziness on both sides rather than a diabolical conspiracy on part of either leadership.

Yasser,

While you are correct to point out that the Khans did sup with the Islamists but at least they had a reason. They were making deals with them to take on a 800 lb gorilla (Brits, ZAB, Army etc) But if that makes them unsecular, what do you say about the PPP which cut deals with the some forces (Excommunicating Ahmedis, setting up the Taliban in 1995) when there was no pressing need to do so?

Regards

Adam khan
"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!"

Its called "doobtay ko tinkay ka sahara." haha
no one believes him so whatever support he finds he exaggerates it. poor Hamdani :(

Mr Hamdani
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?

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

Quoting Rafi Razas book

Rafi writes: "A few months before his death he
seriously considered leaving the Party altogether ... Of all those around ZAB, Sherpao's personal devotion had been the greatest and his subsequent disillusionment was consequently the most profound."

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.

Re: # 653

Amazing. Spoken like a true professional distorter.

Forget about giving me a candid camera tape, I asked if anyone from Jinnah's worst opponents accused Jinnah of violence ... say a statement from Gandhi, Nehru, Azad or Patel accusing Jinnah of violence. You couldn't produce even that.

Now putting words in my mouth will impress a simpleton like Salman, but to me it proves that you are a devious character without any sense of shame. On the other hand... what Zeemax is claiming was something that was proven in a court of law.

Zeemax,

What makes you think that Indians understimate Pakistanis?
I still consider myself fortunate enough to have watched the DD interview of Imran Khan, along with Sunil Gavaskar, in the late 80s and started admiring the clarity of his intellect. I remember him saying how the sub-continent masses are exploited with jingoism and how much they are common in their poverty? That was the first time I have seen somebody questioning the futility of being overly patriotic.

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

Zeemax,

Why should anyone ascribe genuineness to your claims? You just claim to know something because some body told you something and that is because you have all the big connections. All along Manto asked everybody for the candid camera's tape that incrminates Jinnah.

#647 Posted by majumdar,

Aap ke mooh mein ghee shakkar

Aap ko bhi.

There's one request I have of the Indian interactors here (not you of-course).

That is: Never underestimate the Pakistani Nation.

Regards.

One thing is certain: I was wrong when I put my faith in ANP as liberal democratic party. The more I learn about them, the more I get disgusted by them. I used to have a much higher opinion of these fellows but they are a bunch of hate-mongerers who would stab Pakistan in the back the first chance they get. They are neither liberal nor democratic. As Pavo said- and I quote- they are opportunists first class and third rate buggers.

#648 Posted by MantoLives,

I believe you have met Pavo, so I don't think anyone would doubt his credibility.

Pavo is a solid man - period.

#643 Posted by MantoLives,

In addition to a denunciation of Bhutto hanging, I think the people's government should set up a commission to investigate and answer all the questions about mystery deaths in Pakistan ... as well as investigating why Jinnah's ambulance was without petrol on 11th September, who killed LAK, Dr. Khan Saheb, Fatima Jinnah, ofcourse Hayat Khan Sherpao and finally Benazir Bhutto.

Manto, these are the questions which the entire nation, including you and me, demands - and has been demanding for a long time. This time around, someone will have to provide answers, or fall by the wayside.

Despite the doubters and the ill-wishers, and the enemies of Pakistan, I am thoroughly convinced that a quiet revolution has taken place, and Pakistan is a different country now.

The 'people' have spoken ... through sacrifices and bloodied heads of your professional community. All credit goes to the Lawyer's movement, and they will make sure Pakistan remains firmly on the track on which they have placed it the hard way. Political parties will all fall in line along with what the Lawyers say.

zeemax,

Pavo also told me that he was 100% sure it was NAP.

Zee sahib,

(an enquiry into May 12, Jamia Hafsa, Waziristan/Swat operations, impeachment of musharraf if he doesn't leave right now)

Aap ke mooh mein ghee shakkar

Regards

#642 Posted by majumdar,

Majumdar Saheb, ANP is a minor partner (as is now MQM) in the attempt at national reconciliation - a much needed and noble attempt. It will work. The real force behind this reconciliation, is not PPP but PML-N which is calling all the shots. PML-N is committed to the truth, which it has demonstrated yesterday through immediate release of the judges (no one should think that the PPP Prime Minister announced it the first thing after vote count so it was PPP's decision - it was not even on their agenda). This same PML-N will force the Government to either have an enquiry into May 12, Jamia Hafsa, Waziristan/Swat operations, impeachment of musharraf if he doesn't leave right now, and all the old questions such as who killed Hayat Sherpao, or fall. If PPP refuses to comply, they will be ousted by snap elections.

The credit for release of judges yesterday is only the first part of PML-N's agenda. There's much more to come. And, all of it is right in keeping with the Pakistani nation's long pent-up aspirations. PML-N will get credit for each as these are fulfilled one by one.

I think the Muazam Shah lead given by Zeemax is an important clue to Hayat Khan Sherpao's murder.

(investigating why Jinnah's ambulance was without petrol on 11th September, who killed LAK, Dr. Khan Saheb, Fatima Jinnah, ofcourse Hayat Khan Sherpao )

That wud require both Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple working together.

You guys may be able to solve BB's murder though.

Regards

Re: # 640

Thanks for that enlightening post.

In addition to a denunciation of Bhutto hanging, I think the people's government should set up a commission to investigate and answer all the questions about mystery deaths in Pakistan ... as well as investigating why Jinnah's ambulance was without petrol on 11th September, who killed LAK, Dr. Khan Saheb, Fatima Jinnah, ofcourse Hayat Khan Sherpao and finally Benazir Bhutto.


Re: # 641

That would certainly suggest that Lord-M was being controlled by Nehru and not the other way around.

However, another theory says that Lord-M was so taken aback by Jinnah's refusal to make him the governor general that he had become whole-sale anti-Pakistan and anti-Jinnah.

Zee sahib,

Thanks for #640. Btw even if they were really non-violent that cud be explained as arising out of Verkottey Vilayetiness.

(as it will be who killed Hayat Sherpao.)

With ANP poised to have powerful friends and an importnat position in govt do you think that ANP leadership wud be charged, assuming of course that they are guilty to begin with.

Regards

(it was Mountbatten controlling Nehru through his wife and not the other way around. )

Agreed. But then why did Lord M hand over the G-spot and the K-spot to India and not Pakistan?

Regards

VRV, Harish_hyd,

Bhayo ... I have been watching this debate with interest. It appears your arguments are that 'Bacha Khan' philosophy was Gandhian, and that in turn makes it 'non-violent'. Nothing is farther from the truth. I don't know much about Gandhi (because I was never interested in him nor his antics), but I sure as hell was interested in the 'Bacha Khan' antics with that fabulous region of Pakistan called the NWFP. I know NWFP like the back of my hand, even if I say so myself. It's in my blood.

The Sherpao bomb, was to preempt the PPP hold on NWFP, and it succeeded. There was no one after Hayat Muhammad Khan Sherpao, who could carry the candle he lit, except his brother (the ex-army major Aftab Sherpao who knew nothing about PPP), and PPP was stymied. That's why NAP killed Hayat Muhammad Khan.

If you ask me re evidence to support what I'm saying, I've already mentioned a name in a previous post. If you want more, I could provide that too. But of-course you understand such evidence is unverifiable on the web or in books. I know it from the people I knew (at the time), and still do.

My father was a very powerful Government functionary in NWFP at the time, with access to anyone who was anyone in NWFP - many of them were regular dinner guests at our humble abode.

Some say (like blame the victim) that ZAB himself got him killed. Nothing could be more absurd. ZAB had three brilliant people in the three most important provinces whom he trusted the most. Mumtaz Bhutto in Sind, Mustafa Khar in Punjab, and Hayat Muhammad Khan Sherpao in NWFP.

This tactic of blame the victim is a tried and tested one to create confusion and ambiguity.

Nevertheless, it is in the news today that the new Government is going to issue an official apology for the judicial murder of ZAB. As we know, history is written by the victors, and the truth seldom comes out. This step by the Pakistan Government will call ZAB's murder a murder, and history will be re-written - as it will be who killed Hayat Sherpao.

It was Lord-M and contrary to perception in Pakistan, it was Mountbatten controlling Nehru through his wife and not the other way around.

(Hint: It was neither Jinnah nor Gandhi and only partially Nehru. )

The Brits- Lord M particularly

???

Regards

Harishbhai,

(If they had done so, then you would have argued that since they were unreliable, their words didn't count.)

Indeed I wud have argued just that. But the fact that they did not even bother pointing a finger at MAJ suggests that MAJ was not guilty.

Regards

Re: # 634

PS: Had they done so, indeed that would be the argument. But the fact that they haven't implies that this was not even an issue or an accusation.

Re: # 634

The answer to who was responsible is given by Stanley Wolpert in his book "Shameful Flight". Unfortunately Salman is too dishonest to tell the truth.

Hint: It was neither Jinnah nor Gandhi and only partially Nehru.

#632 by majumdar

If MAJ was really responsible for starting the violence, JLN/MKG wud certainly have pointed fingers at MAJ.

If they had done so, then you would have argued that since they were unreliable, their words didn't count.

In that case we also have to accept that JLN was responsible for massacres of Muslims in East Punjab.

The killings happened on both sides so both sides are to blame. But who was responsible for starting the violence?

Dear Harish bhai,

I am glad you admit the possibility of Jinnah not being involved.

In so far as Calcutta Muslim League goes and Suhrawardy is cocnerned, I have not denied that Suhrawardy may have been responsible inadvertently for the fiasco through his decision of keeping the police but what I cannot accept is that it was bloodshed he wanted because it was his government that was going to suffer (and it did as a result- he was replaced by the Congress CM). Suhrawardy might even have wanted some troubles and disturbances... but he was not that kind of a man. Suhrawardy was certainly not an anti-Hindu Islamic fanatic. You should read about him. You will find Suhrawardy to one of the most secular and liberal politicians in all of South Asia. Reports that MAH Ispahani sent to Jinnah made a note of appreciation that Suhrawardy is trying really hard to stop the violence.

In Gandhi's passion Wolpert did write about "Muslim thugs" but he did not say that they were Muslim leaguers. It is much more possible that Muslim League being a constitutional party was inexperienced and completely unprepared to handle civil disobedience and direct action - as a result of which the Mob went crazy. Similarly there are no "Confessions" in Suhrawardy's memoirs. He only said what I am saying here.

If it is the issue of responsibility, then I admit that the ML was responsible as it did not have the means to control the agitation it had brought about ... but if it is the question of ML leaders deliberately calling for violence as a matter of policy ... I am afraid I cannot agree because the Direct Action Day itself was a day of peaceful civil disobedience which did unfortunately stoke off a communal war in Calcutta and Bihar.

Harishbhai,

JLN/MKG are certainly very unreliable and undesirable persons from my POV. But that is not the point. If MAJ was really responsible for starting the violence, JLN/MKG wud certainly have pointed fingers at MAJ.

(No can separate a ship from its captain.)

In that case we also have to accept that JLN was responsible for massacres of Muslims in East Punjab.

Regards

Yasser, if you do not want to concede that it was with Jinnah's consent that the DAD violence took place, it is okay. I won't press you on it and you may be right. But to deny that the ML started it all even after provocative speeches by leaguers in the days preceding the DAD and Suhrwardy declaring a holiday to the police force, his own confessions in his memoirs and Stanley Wolpert's indictment takes some doing.

Re: # 628

Even the initiation by ML is not clear for reasons I have already mentioned (Salman doesn't quote Wolpert where he says no evidence was found of Muslim League's involvement). All that can be said in my view is that Jinnah's call for direct action day had consequences that Jinnah did not intend or calculate and to that extent Jinnah is responsible as much as Gandhi and Nehru are responsible for violent acts by Congressmen throughout before and after the events of 16th August.

Re: # 626

Infact ... it is their lack of credibility that may strengthen my argument.

Is it not a fact that partisan opponents of Jinnah like Gandhi and Nehru and Azad did not accuse him of violence.

Yasser/Majumdar bhai,

No can separate a ship from its captain. That the ML initiated violence is clear. Whether or not Jinnah wanted it that way does not deflect from the fact that ultimately, the buck stops with him. Do you dispute this?

Re: # 625

For your benefit you may produce any statement from Nehru Gandhi or Patel or Azad or Bacha Khan (your so called largehearted fellows) accusing Jinnah of violence at any time during this "range" of "violent incidents" perpetrated in your imagination. (When we talk of whole range, I am sure you will include the genocide of Muslims in Punjab perpetrated by the Congress under Nehru right? )

BTW we were discussing only one issue : Bacha Khan's contradictory stances in Pakistani politics post 1947. Unable to impeach my arguments, Salman resorted to abusing Jinnah quite unsuccessfully.

The fact of the matter is all the things I said in the article are true. Salman did not have an argument.

1. He has retreated from his claim about Fakir of Ipi... which even ZAKKK admits was closely associated with Bacha Khan.

2. He still hasn't given us evidence for Pir of Manki Sharif's alleged desire to murder Nehru. Nor has he told us why then did Bacha Khan remain so close a friend of this evil Pir of Manki and even lowered him in the grave after his death.

3. He has also failed to respond to my questions about the "evil" KAQK who was an old comrade of KAGK.

#622 by majumdar

But at least we shud have some credible sources from Indian side (MKG/JLN etc) who accused MAJ (pbuh) of inciting violence against Hindoos.

Majumdar bhai, MKG/JLN etc. are credible? I thought they were on your sh!tlist, MKG for sleeping with his nieces (brahmacharya), his advocacy of all things "primitive" and JLN for his sympathies for the commies.

We're trying 2 diff topics here.

I am making comments abt the whole range of violent incidents perpetrated by AIML under Jinnah

&

U r making ref to DAD.

As for Suhrawardy, he himself made it clear thru' the 'Memoirs of Suhrwardy' that they (AIML) 'did it' in the provinces where ML was in power.

Why u need x, y or z to make accusations when he himself admitted to DAD violence?

VRV mian,

That argument doesn't make sense and is void ab initio.

The "too big hearted" fellows did accuse Suhrawardy didn't they? Nehru pointed fingers at Suhrawardy and many other leaguers several times. Why did he shy away from pointing fingers at Jinnah? The way you guys change goal posts is funny and ironic. My only regret is that you deceive simpletons like Salman into permanently dwelling in their fool's paradise.

Please refrain from making partisan statements with no roots in reality.

Majumdar babu,

JLN and Gandhi were busy dowsing the flames raked up by Jinnah. They are too big-hearted to make street-level comments that YLH is trying to make.

We have the whole media - India as well as foreign plus the administration - to the violence mooted & perpetrated by AIML. Period.

I guess YLH has a valid point. We do not need to insist on conviction as proof of guilt. But at least we shud have some credible sources from Indian side (MKG/JLN etc) who accused MAJ (pbuh) of inciting violence against Hindoos.

Regards

Re: # 618

My dear friend,

I have been completely honest. I have not been given the same courtesy. Instead of attacking the messenger, please feel free to come up with a plausible counter-argument.

Harish bhai,

I did not speak of "conviction". It was Vengatraman who brought it up.

Let me repeat:

"No court in the world can convict anybody going by your standards"

So surely you must have conviction after conviction and judicia orders against Jinnah then? right? Wrong. There isn't even a single case, single court of law, single judge whether Hindu, Muslim, Parsi or British ... who indicted Jinnah for violence.

Forget courts (because a fair court anywhere in the world would not even entertain ... could you even produce a single statement from Gandhi, Nehru or Patel or any other Congress leader accusing Jinnah of violence? How about Bacha Khan himself? Did Bacha Khan accuse Jinnah of causing violence all during this time. Surely these upright men .... much more upright than yourself or Sallu mian here would have accused him of violence.

Now ... Hamood-ur-rahman commission report accuses Army of violence. Is there any lawyer judge or a commission that bamed Jinnah? You tell me ... do you really think Jinnah intended for violence to happen?

#616 by MantoLives

Yaar Yasser, if conviction is the yardstick by which you can judge guilt, you're down a slippery slope. How many armymen were convicted for the 1971 genocide in Bangladesh? Tikka Khan (aka the Butcher of Bangladesh) actually went on to become the Governor (or some such thing) of Balochistan. Nor has Bush been convicted for the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, and biggest example which you guys never tire of pointing out, Modi actually won a landslide victory in the Gujarat elections after the 2002 riots.

No amount of trickery is going to take away the sins of Jinnah whose party engineered violence in all parts of India in the run up to the formation of Pakistan.

Even during the NWFP referendum, the AIML goons, with the active connivance of Jinnah, made statements of killing those ppl who oppose them.

Yasser,

That way u r positioning urself as Galileo. Lol!

Re: # 611

No I am comparing you to the Church.

"No court in the world can convict anybody going by your standards"

So surely you must have conviction after conviction and judicia orders against Jinnah then? right? Wrong. There isn't even a single case, single court of law, single judge whether Hindu, Muslim, Parsi or British ... who indicted Jinnah for violence.

Forget courts (because a fair court anywhere in the world would not even entertain ... could you even produce a single statement from Gandhi, Nehru or Patel or any other Congress leader accusing Jinnah of violence? How about Bacha Khan himself? Did Bacha Khan accuse Jinnah of causing violence all during this time. Surely these upright men .... much more upright than yourself or Sallu mian here would have accused him of violence.

This just proves my point.

Re: # 611

Yaar Sallu, you are not on the right track. Even these Indian friends know that you are talking nonsense.

I have responded to you completely honestly. It is about time you return the favor by being honest and upright.

Re: # 612

Dear Vengatraman,

Indians like you, VRV etc have been trying to pull the rug from under me for a very long time but unsuccessfully.

So let us do everyone a favor and refrain from these childish attempts to skew the discussion. Propping up off base characters like Sallu will only dent your credibility not mine. I know honesty is probably too much to hope from someone like you but I will try.

The way you fellows change goalposts is amazing. Now that none of you have been able to produce a single statement or action on part of Jinnah "inciting violence", you have come up with this pathetic excuse:

"Real time action does not require the protoganists to make unambigously clear, like they do in the bollywood potboilers, on what they are trying to do."

So this then equally applies to Gandhi and Nehru. The horrendous violence caused by Hindus and Sikhs in Gurdaspur is then directly the fault of Gandhi and Nehru and the Congress Party. This is a logical extension of your logic.

Now let us review the facts here:

1. Salman has not been able to point out one single flaw with the claims I made about ANP in the article.

2. Salman was caught lying about Fakir of Ipi. It is also confirmed that Fakir of Ipi was indeed in touch with KK.

3. He then came up with Pir of Manki Sharif and said he wanted to kill Nehru. He still hasn't given us any evidence of this lie.

4. Unable to make his points or provide evidence for his claims, Sallu mian attacked me for being a "qadiani" and PPP wallah. This to me was the end of discussion really.

So no amount of propping up by VRV, yourself or every Indian on this website will help Sallu "pull the rug" from underneath my feet because I am standing on solid ground.

Now coming to violence ... the truth is that Jinnah abhorred violence and there was no way he would sanction violence against anyone. This was a fact admitted by everyone. No primary source evidence exists of the "Divide or destroy" statement exists. It is based in the fertile imagination of a journalist who was't even present though she claimed it later on.

I would have no problem admitting it if it were true but it isn't.

Corrigendum:


* Yakub Khan aka Marudha Nayagam

Maruthanayagam (Marudhanayagam) Pillai a.k.a Muhammad Yusuf Khan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Yusuf_Khan

Manto Bhai,

"Sallu needs all the help he can get from his Indian buddies because he is not going to win on facts"

I believe Sallu managed to pull the rug under your feet. Real time action does not require the protoganists to make unambigously clear, like they do in the bollywood potboilers, on what they are trying to do.

Its childish on our part to expect a veteran lawyer and an intellect like Jinnah to come out in open and roar like Gabbar and then follow with:

"Hey I am gonna murder you....haha....hahahahahaha....hahaha....turns and faces the camera and squints his eyes".

Please do not understimate Jinnah Sahib. I would be okay to hear from you that Jinnah was ready to divide or destroy for the sake of Muslim people's well-being. It is perfectly understandable to fight against enemies and we have so many glorified characters, Hindus as well as Muslims, in the history of combined India. For egs Yakub Khan aka Marudha Nayagam Pillai or Veerapandya Kattabomman. They used violence as a tool for emancipation.

No court in the world can convict anybody going by your standards.

Mantolives,

U compare urself to Galileo??????????

Salman bro,

U're on right track and dont bother abt the liar-e-azam.

Yes... I suppose just like the valiant Church exposed Gallileo and ruled that Sun sets in your arse?

On another note: Sallu needs all the help he can get from his Indian buddies because he is not going to win on facts.

Brother Salman,

Thanx for exposing Mantolives thoroughly. Good Job.

In re: Fakir of Ipi and the KK

Zakkk writes:

"while the Faqir of Ipi was not a KK activist they did have an understanding with each other"

And yet this simple fact caused Salman to first claim that Fakir of Ipi was a Muslim leaguer who wanted to kill Nehru. When called for his lie, he changed his story (which he has done a million times) to Pir of Manki Sharif- for which he has failed to provide evidence as with all else.

The "debate" here stems out of Salman's inability to accept certain criticisms and facts about Bacha Khan and his movement.

Zakkk then writes:

"I have no fondness for the politics of the ANP, and i agree it is in fact dominated by one family, as are most families in Pakistan, even non entities like Asghar Khans. It's politics have become parochial and limited to to 3 points renaming, kalabagh dam and autonomy so it's core appeal is limited even within the pashtun belt."

That is their right ... it is part of the montage of Pakistan. What is wrong is for them to claim things that are paetently untrue.


The Hayat Khan Sherpao murder story is not closed yet. I have merely deferred it till I have more information... because I have two very established sources (both impartial non-PPP non-ANP non-League)... one claiming that Bhutto did it and the other (Agha Amin i.e. Pavocavalry) claiming that NAP did it 100% at the orders from the top (Wali Khan) and that he has objective information.

As for not espousing violence ... I remember Wali Khan waxing eloquent on "Eik Din Geo kay Saath" on the issue of Kala Bagh dam in which he declared "I will kill your children" if you deny "our" rights by making the Kalabagh dam which would be tantamount to killing "our" children. This is Wali Khan. I rest my case. Please feel free to see the show yourself... it was recorded a few months before Wali Khan's death and was re-aired in the week after his death again.

For the record I don't believe he meant it literally though those are his exact words. And then these people like Salman go and try and stretch the meaning of "Action" to mean violence... Is there no shame left?

Another gem from the ANP activist

"Extremist views"

Extremism when unable to bring up evidence to back your lies and third rate claims, you started abusing me for being a Qadiani and claiming that Jinnah was a Non-muslim because he was Ismaili... and therefore I - being a Qadiani + a PPP activist- cannot comment neutrally on Deobandi fanaticism. (However you can because you are ANP + Deobandi and we all know that combination makes for most balanced specimen of humanity yet).

If this is secularism ANP style I don't want anything to do with it.

RE: Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah and Wali Khan's support

I have mentioned and lauded Wali Khan's support for Fatima Jinnah against Ayub as principed and right thing to do in this article as well as my article on "Presidential Election of 1965".

However, given the opportunist track record of the Khan crooks and their family, and their latter pandering to Zia... one can also deduce that the only reason they joined up with Fatima Jinnah was because the "Jinnah" name was the only real guarantee of winning the election. Only the "Jinnah" name had credibility in both East and West Pakistan.

So it might just be that Wali Khan etc had no choice but to accept the leadership of Fatima Jinnah because out of all of them, only she had credibility.

As for the comment by ZAKKK about political expediency. Granted. But then ANP should not claim to be infallibility like this fellow here.

Re: # 597

Dear Zakkk,

Well said. Did you read 590 by myself. It was written in this exact spirit.

This is something that is clearly lacking in the ANP discourse as displayed by Salman mian. The poor fellow took my willingness to accept these guys as part of Pakistan as a mark of weakness. Well I'll expose these ANP freaks and Bacha Khan supporters for what they are... disgusting opportunist cowards and double-crossing faggots who sell their mothers to the army and the Mullahs when they get a chance.

I shared this article with you on facebook. Please note I was nothing but respectful towards the Khan family in this article (simply because they do have followers who worship them - otherwise I have no respect for their flipflops and opportunist politics) but Salman cannot accept simple criticisms.


My points remain unimpeached:

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?

Now you may have your own interpretation of these facts but you can't deny these facts.

Salman mian here decided that since these were unimpeachable facts, it was alright to abuse the one man who did something. I have already exposed his lies on the matter below.

Re: # 592

Yes the whole forum is watching. And anyone who is honest will concur with me that you've been exposed as a liar without shame. A true follower of Wali Khan's philosophy of LIES ARE SACRED

Re: # 602

"But again Mr. Wolpert does not seem to accuse MAJ (pbuh) anywhere of personally instigating that violence. "


He is not just ghalat ... Actually Salman is a liar without shame. He has failed to produce any evidence for his claims. For example he still hasn't produced the source for his claim that Pir of Manki Sharif wanted to kill Nehru.

I am beginning to think he is a VRV reincarnate because his "strategy" is to pick up words and add his own words to it and try and present as a quote... a strange mixture of "Fact" and "Fiction" ... a faction ... the ANP faction.

I really hope a lot of people read "Shameful Flight" though because the book says that had the British listen to Jinnah (and Gandhi) instead of Nehru and the Congress, there would have been no violence. So while Salman mian makes up stuff as he goes along, if he was to actually read the book in question, it would help him get over the ANP propaganda which he is clearly a victim of.

Sallu bhai,

(KYUN MAJUMDAR BHAI: MAI NAI GHALAT TO BAHI BOLA THA NA? )

Aap kabhi galat nahin boltey!!!

Thanks for 599 that was quite informative. But again Mr. Wolpert does not seem to accuse MAJ (pbuh) anywhere of personally instigating that violence.

Regards

Re: # 596

I can never learn to accept lies as the truth. I will continue to destroy Salman's lies as I have done so in my previous post.

Dear Salman,

What you have below is not from Wolpert but your own rendering of the book. Please tell me exactly where this paragraph is. So in other words Wolpert did not use "violent action" but simply "action".

So in other words you have failed produce the quote where Wolpert accuses Jinnah of "violence" and are now taking bits and pieces and adding your own words to what Wolpert wrote.

I am going to reproduce the exact extracts that you have produced:

Congress have made it clear that they do not accept any of the terms or the fundamentals of the Scheme (cabinet Mission) but that they have agreed only to go into the Constituent Assembly .... This fact, taken together with the policy of the British Government of sacrificing the inter¬ests of the Muslim Nation ... leaves no doubt that ... participation of the Muslims in the proposed constitution-making machinery is fraught with danger

and


"Whereas the Congress is bent upon setting up Caste-Hindu Raj in India with the connivance of the British ... the time has come for the Muslim Nation to resort to Direct Action to achieve Pakistan."


and

Direct Action

and

Goodbye to Constitutionalism and passive cooperation

and

action


Where in these quotes has Wolpert accused Jinnah of violence?

As for my earlier comments... I made them to give a respectable way out of your current mess and predicament. But you have no shame. What I really think of Bacha Khan is that he was a fool who got had by Gandhi and the like. In the end he did not achieve anything for his people.

Bacha Khan was an opportunist and a pathetic specimen of a politician whose party is responsible for a lot of mess.


So let us go through from the top:


1. Even your selective quotes don't show an accusation of violence against Jinnah.

2. You've still not produce any source for your claim that Manki was trying to kill Nehru. Nor have you explained why if Manki was such a bad guy did Bacha Khan perform his last rites.

3. You've failed to prove even a single statement of mine to be untrue.


You are a shameless person. You are where you are today because of Jinnah not Bacha Khan. He got you your own province in 1930s and your own country. Instead you lie about him and abuse him and then you want us to accept ANP and thugs like Bacha Khan who cooperated with the Mullahs and the military the first chance they got?

Have some shame at long last Salman. My offer still stands:


IF YOU STOP LYING ABOUT JINNAH, I WILL STOP TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT BACHA KHAN.

SHAMEFUL FLIGHT: The Last Years of the British Empire in India
STANLEY WOLPERT

Extracts From page 118 to 148

REGARDING DIRECT ACTION HOW JINNAH STARTED VIOLENCE

the "Congress have made it clear that they do not accept any of the terms or the fundamentals of the Scheme (cabinet Mission) but that they have agreed only to go into the Constituent Assembly .... This fact, taken together with the policy of the British Government of sacrificing the inter¬ests of the Muslim Nation ... leaves no doubt that ... participation of the Muslims in the proposed constitution-making machinery is fraught with danger." So the League resolved that "Whereas the Congress is bent upon setting up Caste-Hindu Raj in India with the connivance of the British ... the time has come for the Muslim Nation to resort to Direct Action to achieve Pakistan." This "Direct Action" resolution was Jinnah's angry re¬sponse to Nehru's "treachery" and the cabinet delegation's "betrayal" of his Muslim League. He said "Goodbye to Constitutionalism and passive cooperation," and welcomed violent "Action" instead.

He said "Goodbye to Constitutionalism and passive cooperation," and welcomed violent "Action" instead. (CHECK THIS “ACTION� IS IN INVERTED COMMAS)
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 action…
PAGE 119
POLICE WAS GIVEN HOLIDAY ON THAT DAY
Wavell met with his governors of Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Sind, and the North-West Frontier Province. Governor Sir Frederick Burrows of Bengal then informed the viceroy that Muslim League Prime Minister H. S. Suhrawardy had "asked" for a public holiday on August 16 "to avoid trouble on that day," and he had approved that request. Thus all of Bengal's police were given a holiday on what became Calcutta's dark¬est day of mass murder and arson.
all hell broke loose in Calcutta's "Great Killing," while Bengal's police enjoyed their holiday, and British troops and armored Dragoon tanks remained useless, locked inside their barracks.

FIRST MUSLIMS, THEN RETALIATING HINDUS
For three days and nights, British India's former capital, still its most populous city, became a free killing field for thugs and thieves, first Mus¬lims, then retaliating Hindus, murdering, plundering, butchering whatever attracted their eyes. Thousands of dead bodies were hauled off Calcutta's blood-stained streets by martial patrols, only belatedly brought into action by the stink of decaying flesh. "It was unbridled savagery and homicidal maniacs let loose to kill and ... main and burn," reported General Francis Tuker, who finally ordered out his British troops and tanks to put an end to the butchery (PAGE 120)

SUHRAWARDY’S GOLDEN WORDS
In early September, Nehru told Wavell that Suhrawardy had just in¬formed the press that if Bengal's Muslims took to the "war path" there would "not be a single Hindu left alive in eastern Bengal." Wavell met with politically shrewd Suhrawardy to ask if he had made that statement, and stood behind it. Suhrawardy was not afraid to admit the "truth," (PAGE 122)

MUSLIM LEAGUE’S VIOLENCE IN BOMBAY
In Bombay, from late August to October, when Sir Andrew Clow be¬came acting governor, 329 people had been murdered and 983 injured in communal "stabbings and bouts of stone-throwing."56 Clow was also disturbed by the economic "attack" aimed at the Muslim community. Hindu owners were forcing many Muslim mill hands to leave their jobs in Bombay and Ahmedabad. "Muslims are by now tired of the trouble and probably sorry they started it.
"Muslims are by now tired of the trouble and probably sorry they started it. PAGE 123

HINDUS WERE FORCIBLY CONVERTED TO ISLAM
… reports of rape and conversions to Islam in East Bengal's Noakhali Dis¬trict induced Mahatma Gandhi to leave his ashram and undertake his last and most arduous foot-pilgrimage of peace, walking from one burned out and torture-filled village to the next, seeking through his faith in Ahimsa to counter violent terror with the healing powers of love.
PAG 123
MUSLIM LEAGUE VIOLENCE IN PUNJAB
In mid-March, Jenkins (Punjab’s Governor) replied to a wire from Pethick-Lawrence request¬ing casualty figures for Punjab, reporting that approximately 500 had been killed in Punjab's cities and towns, and 520 in rural areas, mostly non¬-Muslims. About 1,000 more people had been "seriously injured" in the recent Punjab riots.18 The next day, Jenkins visited Attock and Rawalpindi and found some 25,000 terrified non-Muslim refugees and another 35,000 refugee villagers. "Attacks on non-Muslims have been organized with ex¬treme savagery," he reported to Abell. "Deputy Commissioner Rawalpindi believes that in his district alone there may be 5,000 casualties including killed, injured and missing ... feeling between communities is very bad indeed." A few days after that, Punjab's Muslim League leader, Raja Ghazanfar Ali, came to see Jenkins to urge him to put a League ministry in power in Lahore. "I said I would resign sooner than see one [Muslim League ministry] in office at this juncture," Jenkins replied. "The massacre had been conducted in the name of the Muslim League, and senior Military Officers thought that it had been carefully planned and organised.
IT HAD BEEN CAREFULLY PLANNED AND ORGANISED.
PAGE 133
SECULAR JINNAH’S PARTY USING RELIGION
Punjab's Commanding General F. W. Messervy reported on those com¬munal riots to Field Marshal Auchinleck:
The Muslim League, though a political party, has been framing its main propaganda on religious lines .... Pakistan and Islam together provide an almost irresistible force on the minds of the mass of comparatively unedu¬cated Muslims. PAGE 134

MUSLIM LEAGUI VIOLENCE IN LAHORE
Punjab's Governor Jenkins reported that same May 21 (1947) from Lahore that "Muslims seem determined to burn Hindus and Sikhs out of greater Lahore and are concentrating on incendiarism.
PAGE 148

i am home now here are the extracts from that book. I have other details about the same incidents and the journalists article who was there at that time and present during Mr Jinnah making statements.

The natural process of political evolution means that your politics can be based on a fundamentally different thought but that you still co-exist within that country and seek power successfully and unsuccessfully at differing times. That people like Suhrawardy could initially live outside Pakistan and then become PM is a reflection of system that acknowledges differences.

To stretch the analogy in Ireland in the 1920's the supporters and opponents of dominion status fought a civil war at the end and yet despite that the former opponents eventually achieved high office.

My own opinion is perhaps distinctive, perhaps because I dislike the philosophy of declaring people patriots and traitors as much as I dislike the philosophy of kafirs and believers. My perspective of history is that it is usually the self righteous patriots and believers who commit the acts that they are so swift to condemn others off..

Dear Salman,

I had it with him since I joined Chowk (2006) and I still want to give him benefit of doubt it he talks sense, coz we all make mistakes.

Ejaz Gul and Zakkk gave good perspectives to this tussle (btw Jinnahites and Ghaffarites) & it shud be that way..........i.e. live for the present and the future.

Yasser never learns :(

VRV Bhai
I AM HAVING FUN. THE WAY HAMDANI IS CHANGING HIS STANCE.. HE CANNOT OPENLY ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE. AT LEAST WHEN I KNOW I AM MISTAKEN AT A POINT I SHOULD ACCEPT IT.
LOOK AT HIS VIEWS

“I did write this article in good spirit whether you believe it or not.�
WHATS THE GOOD SPIRIT IN IT?
“So make no mistake about it: The portrayal of ANP's victory NWFP as a victory for secularism and democracy in that province is perhaps too optimistic an analysis given the history.�… to suggest that ANP has historically been consistently secular or democratic is not only naive but almost criminal when it comes to history..�

He calls the Khan family as crooks and opportunists, …�the world should know that Bacha Khan types are not the saint that people try to whitewash him as.�
Then he writes
“I also feel that Bacha Khan etc were good politicians and one should respect them.�
MAKE UP YOU MIND MAN. YOU DON’T BELIVE YOURSELF

He says ANP is a separatist party and anti-Pakistan (that’s what he was telling me before) people didn’t vote for separation.

NOW HE ACCEPTS THAT WE ALSO HAVE A SHARE IN THIS COUNTRY.
“What is important is that this Pakistan is as much yours as it is mine...�

Hamdani already knows my stance about Mr Jinnah and other politicians; only Qayyum khan cannot be forgiven for his crimes. Those were not only against the opponents but also against the people and the state. I always tried to write “Mr�. Jinnah thats due to respect, which means as long as you don’t tell lies about his opponents I will not speak the truth about him. As VRV wrote Badshah Khan’s one and jinnah’s a million.

I have written before I am a supporter of Ghaffar Khan. Wali Khan and Dr Khan Sahb are different people. You can compare them but they are not one. Wali Khan was part of NAP. Which was created by an ex leagui Bhashani. It was not Ghaffar Khan’s party. So they were not following or promoting Ghaffar Khans policies. Then why to blame him for the activities of NAP?
Regarding Pashtun Nationalism: NAP even after division had all the Baloch leaders and some Sindhi in it, only Bugti was with Bhutto that means NAP was not the party of Pashtun Nationalists only. Murry Mengal Bizenjo all were there. Mengal was the CM of Balochistan Province. Bizenjo was the 2nd to Wali Khan in the parliament and party.
As Hamdani wrote Mr Jinnah wanted to hand over Muslim League to Ghaffar Khan. That was the trust he had in Ghaffar Khan. Then later the same people were behind Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah against Ayub khan. Then Mr Bhutto wanted to assassinate Wali Khan. Bhutto banned his party and with all the hatred and hostility once PPP and Benazir Bhutto became Anti-establishment the newly formed Wali Khan’s ANP was their biggest ally. This all shows those people knew the reality. They accepted eachother from time to time, unlike Hamdani who cannot digest that they are the real leaders of the people of Pakistan. Wherever he finds an audience he starts his propaganda against the Khan Family.
VRV SINCE HAMDANI RETREATED FROM HIS EARLIER EXTREMIST VIEWS. REGARDING KHAN FAMILY AND ACCEPTED US A PART OF THIS COUNTRY. YOU ASKED ME TO SHOW THE EXTRACTS FROM STANLEY WOLPERT’S BOOK WITH PAGE NUMBERS. WHEN I REACH HOME TONIGHT I WILL PASTE THEM HERE. FOR YOU GUYS BECAUSE IT IS YOUR RIGHT. I WILL ALSO SHOW HOW MUSLIM LEAGUE GOT VOTES IN PUNJAB IT WOULD BE FROM HUSSAIN HAQANI A WELL KNOWN PPP MEMBER.
KYUN MAJUMDAR BHAI: MAI NAI GHALAT TO BAHI BOLA THA NA?

Salman,

Pl quote the Wolpert's paragraph.

The truth is that Jinnah actually regretted violence (he gave press statement on the next day, I think) and that's for record and it's a way of making an alibi to avoid legal implications in the form of criminal conviction.

Even if Jinnah regretted violence, how can he absolve himself of the frenzy building up to DAD?

U can see what Muslim Leaguers said and what the mouthpoce of Muslim League said. They called it jehad and compared it with al Badr (since the DAD was declared during Ramzaan period). We cant ignore the symbolism that goes with DAD.

Nobody wud imagine that Jinnah wud say blood-curdling statements abt smashing innocnets with crowbars & iron rods. These small detals are for the AIML cadre to take care of & the SW's job to facilitate the Plan.

++

U can notice the way this lawyer thinks. He wants to DEFER the argument abt Sherpao since he's advised abt Bhutto's hand in it but wants to think that Khan family INDEED bumped him off as per the EVIDENCE HE HAD!

U can see the magic of his thinking!

Zakkk,

Though u seem 2 sympathise with KKK but u sound very balanced and that's what I expect of this young lawyer all the time. U know, he disappoints us at Chowk.

Unfortunately Yasser said again that the KHANdaan were crooks!! Why this hyperventilation??? Who's a bigger crook than Jinnah? Yasser thus brought back the debate to the starting point again.

Venkat & others,

Jinnah was the chief architect of the major developments that conributed to the formation of Pakistan (no Independence, pl note). He took each and every decision with a singular purpose of carving out Pakistan outta British India. He took all vital policy decisions and presided over such decision making processes.

If violence - actually it's Indian Holocaust - happened then Jinnah is solely responsible since he's the benefactor of those developments.

HAMDANI WROTE “For the avoidance of doubt, Salman still hasn't produced the extract that he claimed (of Wolpert accusing Jinnah�

HOW ABOUT YOU GET SOME COURAGE AND ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE I WILL PROVE TO YOU THAT STANLEY WORLPERT HAS WRITTEN IT IN HIS BOOK THAT JINNAH WELCOMED VIOLENCE. INSTEAD YOU ARE FOOLING AROUND, LYUNG AND SHOWING YOUR MENTALETY BY SWEARING AT THE GREAT PEOPLE LIKE GHAFFAR KHAN.

You are showing your ignorance telling us that since you haven’t heard of something it wouldn’t have happened.

I have already proved, you are a liar. You again lied that i said muslim league in india merged into congress and that jinnah was created by churchill. Liars like jinnah bhutto and benazir are your favourite leaeders. Some morally corrupt some morally and financially corrupt. That’s what we can expect from you. Like Benazir said I don’t have accounts in Swiss Banks then later when it was proven she had them her statement was “Having accounts in swiss Banks is not a sin �

NOW ACCPET MY CHALLENGE I WILL PROVE TO THIS FORUM THAT JINNAH ACCEPTED VIOLECNE (ACCORDING TO STANLEY WOLPERT) THE WHOLE FORUM IS WATCHING YOU NOW. I REQUEST EVERYONE HERE TO TELL HIM TO ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE OR TO ACCEPT HIS IGNORANCE.

I don't really care for the tone of debates like these, the reality is Jinnah and others like Bacha Khan are now part of collective history and not the possession of parties that claim their image. Jinnah would have recoiled in disgust at the PML-Q, while Bacha Khan would never have supported the rich businessmans class that has come to ascendancy in the ANP.

Politics in the end is about expediency. It goes without saying that the Muslim League & the PPP used the Islam card as often as others did (Iskandier Mirza was deputed to raise a jihadi lashkar against the British by Jinnah as written in Mirzas book)..similarly while you can tar the Nizam-e-mustafa card on the NAP (and while the Faqir of Ipi was not a KK activist they did have an understanding with each other) to a degree it was ZAB's attempts to split the PNA that made him pander to the JUI (present day allies of the PPP in NWFP as far as back as 1990, which one should recall the Taliban took root during and with the blessing of a PPP govt). To put things in a certain perspective, one of the first acts of the taliban in jalalabad was to destroy the mauseolum made for bacha khan. So ideologically, while they may have similarities in terms of language and culture, the mullahs and the "surkh posh" are very much at the other end of the spectrum.

A couple of side points

1) The story about Sherpao is guesswork, but nobody can deny from a legal point of view of the blatant victimisation that the NAP faced under the hyderabad tribunal, it was those unfair and unjust policies that created an environment for ZAB's execution and the return of the Army.

2) The NAP and PPP had initially forged a consensus on many issues, and Sherpao was elected to the NWFP assembly with the help of the NAP in 1972.

3) Bacha Khan had broken with his brother over his siding with the establishment. To generalise an entire family under the acts of one is stupid, Jinnah is not judged by his daughter, BB not by the acts of Murtaza and Al Zulfiqar.

I have no fondness for the politics of the ANP, and i agree it is in fact dominated by one family, as are most families in Pakistan, even non entities like Asghar Khans. It's politics have become parochial and limited to to 3 points renaming, kalabagh dam and autonomy so it's core appeal is limited even within the pashtun belt. Where i do give credit is that is a party with genuaine roots, more democratic than most and never espoused violence to achieve it's beliefs.

A little quote from Bannerjees book the Pathan unarmed refers to that

Later, when son Wali Khan was sent to jail by PPP, an enraged Hama Gul challenged the frail and aging Badshah Khan, “I know that it is in the Quran that if anyone wrongs you, you forgive him — but is anyone ever going to forgive us, or are we expected to do the forgiving all the time?� To this and many other questions, however, Badshah Khan’s cool response remained the same: “Violence would get us nowhere.�

Let me make a final comment to Salman.

I did write this article in good spirit whether you believe it or not. I am not a Bacha Khan/ANP supporter as is my political right but I did rejoice ANP's victory over the MMA.

What I wrote in the article, I still believe to be true. I also feel that Bacha Khan etc were good politicians and one should respect them just as you should respect Jinnah even if you disagree with him. I don't agree with many of your assertions which are based on misunderstanding.


What is important is that this Pakistan is as much yours as it is mine... and regardless of whether we follow Jinnah or Bacha Khan we should come together to make this country a great working social welfare secular democracy. That is the most important thing and this is what we should agree on.

Manto mian,

(May I suggest that Henry Thoreau came before Gandhi as well. So there isn't any "ingenuity" there either. )

The Thoreau chap was sleeping nikkid with his nieces (sob wala icon)

Regards

PS: May I suggest that Henry Thoreau came before Gandhi as well. So there isn't any "ingenuity" there either. That was not your question ... your question was fundamentally different.

Re: # 586

Please read the post again because you haven't bothered to read what I have or haven't claimed.

Re: # 578

Manto,

Tell me, how you managed to type this humungous post in a jiffy...(a surprised icon)

Upon a cursory glance, I can see that you claim Jinnah as the inventor of Simon Commission protest. You also have taken credit for Civil Disobedience movement. 'Civil Disobedience' was initially resisted by leaders like Tilak, Jinnah, BP Pal ...Gandhi rescinded on the movement when it took a violent shape. Many were disillusioned with Gandhi for that. The list includes Nehru's father also. As far Simon protest you have to remember that Lala Lajapathi Rai died because of that.

I don't see the ingenuity of Jinnah but that doesn't take away what a great leader he was. You know all great men don't easily strike a chord with the commoners. You could attribute it to the higher intellect plane they travers.

Harishbhai,

(On the other hand, I can show you many instances of Leaguers baying for Hindu blood)

Yes. But did MAJ (pbuh) himself did.

Manto mian,

(ZAB might have bumped him off because of some sort of a relationship between Hayat and one of his daughters)

You have to concede one thing. On the whole Pakistani politics and politicians (I'm including foujis among politicians) are far more fun than Injuns. I cant imagine spending even a few minutes on a website discussing Indian politics.

JLN was a colourful guy no doubt but the colour went out with him.

Regards

Harish bhai,

Jinnah never called for violence against Hindus either. This is also a fact of history. So then the logic stands.

Furthermore, the "baying" for the blood of Hindus on part of Leaguers... similar, if not worse statements- were made by Patel and other rightwing Hindu leaders within the Congress.

#579 by majumdar

By that logic aint JLN and MKG responsible for the massacres of Muslims in Delhi, Eastern Punjab and patches in Bihar and UP?

Majumdar bhai, the responsibility lies with those who initiated the violence. Can you show me a single instance of JLN/MKG or any other leader who called for violence against Muslims? On the other hand, I can show you many instances of Leaguers baying for Hindu blood.

Manto mian,

(A Congress-Muslim League coalition at this point would have been a terrific blow to the British control over Punjab.)

Mian, I am not even sure that in the period that you are referring to i.e. 1946, Britain wanted to retain any control over Punjab or any other part of India.

(The Communist role in the entire thing was the most positive of them all.)

Somehow this notion of commies playing a positive part in anything is laughable unless you happen to be a Chink!!!

(History would have been different, had the Congress Party paid heed to the Communists then. )

Thank goodness they didn't. And there is a moral in this story, dont listen to the commies and you will be better off.

Regards

Re: # 579

I used to think that as well, but a closer examination of the events around Jinnah's reorganization of the Muslim League after 1936 shows a completely different picture.

There is no question that in Pakistan phase, he was mass leader. I think the mere fact that he drew crowds of 100 000 at Lahore and Delhi in the 1940s makes him a mass leader, not to mention huge crowds whereever he went.

The question is whether he was a mass leader during his secular Indian nationalist phase. There too I must say he was and I have given the reasons for it.

Ref: Sherpao murder

Also, I must say that I am going to have to defer the issue of Hayat Sherpao murder because I have just heard from a very notable person that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto might have bumped him off because of some sort of a relationship between Hayat and one of his (Bhutto's) daughters (Benazir?).

With that being a motive apparently I think it is better to defer the argument on this count for later. I still am more inclined to believe that NAP did it because of the compelling nature of evidence but we should defer discussion on this count.

Harishbhai,

(Isn't it the leader who takes responsibility for a screw up?)

By that logic aint JLN and MKG responsible for the massacres of Muslims in Delhi, Eastern Punjab and patches in Bihar and UP?

Vengat,

You are right that MAJ (pbuh) was not much into mass politics. Which in some ways was a tragedy as it did not allow bonding to form between the masses and political parties (incl ML) which was necessary for democracy to take roots.

Regards

Vengatramanan,

I find this is a rather contradictory argument. On the one hand Indians abuse Jinnah of riling up the masses and dividing the country and on the other hand they claim that he was not a mass leader.

Let me submit that Jinnah was very much a leader of the masses... except that he was always in the favor exhausting constitutional means first. After he broke with Gandhi, someone tried to paint him an opponent of the "non-cooperation" idea and he refused. He said he was for non-cooperation but he opposed what he felt was Gandhi's approach i.e. bringing Muslim and Hindu holymen into politics.

Even in Indian nationalist phase Jinnah held many marches and protests... notable being the Simon Commission protest... where Jinnah led the protest against the Simon Commission for not including Indians... or the protests he held against the Lord Willingdon. Infact there is a memorial hall in Bombay called "People's Jinnah Memorial Hall"


Jinnah's People's Memorial Hall, is located inside the compound of the Indian National Congress building near Lamington Road, in Mumbai, India.

The grateful citizens of Bombay built the Jinnah Memorial Hall to commemorate the mass demonstration that Jinnah and his wife led against the arrogant colonial governor of Bombay, Lord Willington. The hall was built in 1918, inside the compound of old Congress House, nowadays is known as P.J. Hall.


The civil disobedience movement against the British-backed Khizer ministry mounted by the Muslim League and supported by the Communist Party in Punjab was perhaps the most successful disobedience movement in that period. Had the Congress joined in- instead of joining the government, history of the subcontinent would have been different.

Read this article I wrote :

Our Party is the only organization that has actually worked for Congress-League Unity. We alone have tried to explain the view-point of one to the other during the last two and a half years. We have popularized the Muslim demand for Pakistan among Congress men, and the Congress demand for NationalGovernment and the need for the release of Congress leaders among the Leaguers… Anti Unity, pro-sabotage and pro-Hindu elements among the Congressmen have tried to stop us getting a hearing by spreading the slander that we were government agents and in private paying the compliment (not meant to be such) that we were able to work out the case for Pakistan better than even the Leaguers. Joshi P C, They Must Meet Again, People’s Publishing House Bombay, January 1945.

General Zia’s ideological Islamisation in the 1980s disconnected the Pakistanis from their history, not just ancient but recent history i.e. events leading up to the creation of Pakistan. Most notable of this was amnesia induced vis a vis the left elements in Pakistan. The communist left which had played a very important role in Muslim League’s victory in Punjab was presented as the group that had always opposed Pakistan, whereas the right wing Islamic clerical class which had opposed the creation of Pakistan were championed as its true ideologues.

These claims of the Military regime in the 1980s flew in face of the real facts. It remains a little known fact that the only organized political party which supported the Pakistan Movement other than the Muslim League was the very secular and non-communal Communist Party of India. The coveted prize was Punjab where a non-communal alliance of Muslim, Sikh and Hindu feudal elites- which called itself the Unionist Party- had its firm grip on power. Indian National Congress and the Communist Party had been unable to make inroads into the feudal heartland of Punjab, which consisted of collaborators and pro-British zamindars. A lot of this had to do with how Punjab was actually ruled by the British. Punjab’s importance to the British was two-fold:

1. From West of Delhi to Potohar Plateau Punjab had some of the most fertile lands in all of the Indian Subcontinent and was therefore the agricultural hub of the subcontinent.

2. From Potohar Plateu to the rugged North West Frontier, Punjab produced the “martial race� of soldiers that made the bulk of the cannon fodder for the armies of the British Empire in the two world wars.
Therefore the British preferred to deal with local notables through the bureaucracy with wide ranging political powers.

A deputy commissioner was the king in his jurisdiction dealing with notables – choosing who to acknowledge, who to offer a chair etc. In no small way did this help dwarf any genuine political development in this region. In a way this was also natural given that Punjab did not have the industrial bourgeoisie that other areas of the subcontinent did. It was therefore natural that All India Parties – organized on no matter what agenda- were unable to make a dent on the political landscape of the province. The stalwarts of the Unionist Party which included such capable men as Sir Fazli-Hussain, Sir Chotu Ram and Sir Sikandar Hayat kept the Congress, the Communists and the Muslim League at bay. Congress’ push for independence found no support in a sufficiently collaborated Punjab. The local communist movements such as inquilab, Gadar, Naujawan Bharat Sabha and the Kirti Kissan Party were too weak to mount a counter and Sir Chotu Ram’s theory of Jatt consciousness and identity was far too deeply entrenched in the Unionist Party for any Muslim leader to seriously consider Jinnah and his Muslim League in UP and Bombay as a serious ally. Still, by 1938 Sir Sikandar Hayat thought it prudent to enter into what is referred to as the “Sikandar-Jinnah Pact� which benefitted the Unionists more than it did the Muslim League as the latter failed to get any real organization going in the presence of the dubious allies in form of the Unionist Party. The pact fell apart in the 1940s and Muslim League was up in arms against the Khizer-led Unionist Party.

In Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan the Communists saw the first really potent slogan that could be used to upstage the Unionist Party in Punjab. For accuracy and in all fairness, it must be remembered that the Muslim League itself had made a similar calculation after 1937. The 1937 elections had shown that Muslim League was essentially a party of the Muslim minority in Hindu Majority provinces which enjoyed little support in the Muslim Majority areas in North West and North East of India. This considerably compromised the effectiveness of the Muslim League to negotiate as the main organization of the Muslim minority in India. League needed a slogan that would have appeal in the Muslim Majority areas. The idea of a separate Muslim state had been talked about for a while and even crudely referred to as “Pakistan our fatherland� by Ch. Rahmat Ali. Since the idea had found enough currency for a major political leader in Punjab to sponsor the publication of “A Confederacy of India� by “A Punjabi� (ironically the original name of the book “Pakistan� was changed on the request of Mahomed Ali Jinnah, the president of the Muslim League), it was adopted as Muslim League’s central creed through the Lahore Resolution on 23rd March, 1940.

Muslim League’s case was based on the premise that the unitary centre for India was a British creation and India consisted of many nationalities and creeds who had to be brought together through a compact that recognized its diverse character. This was endorsed by the Communist Party. P C Joshi, a stalwart of the Communist Party wrote:
We were the first to see and admit a change in its character when the League accepted complete independence as its aim and began to rally the Muslim masses behind its banner. We held a series of discussions within our party and came to the conclusion in 1941-1942 that it had become an anti-imperialist organization expressing the freedom urge of the Muslim people that its demand for Pakistan was a demand for self determination and that for the freedom of India, an immediate joint front between the Congress and the League must be forged as the first step to break imperialist deadlock. A belief continues to be held that League is a communal organization and what Mr. Jinnah is Pro-British.

But what is the reality? Mr. Jinnah is to the freedom loving League masses what Gandhiji is to the Congress masses. They revere their Qaid-e-Azam as much as the Congress do the Mahatma. They regard the League as their patriotic organization as we regardthe Congress. This is so because Mr. Jinnah has done to the League what Gandhi did to the Congress in 1919-1920 i.e., made it a mass organization. Congress and the Communists, PC Joshi, People’s Publishing House Bombay, p 5.

G. Adhikhari explained the soundness of the Two Nation Theory in the following words:

In 1938, were yet wrapped in the theory like the rest of the nationalists, that India was one nation and that the Muslims were just a religious cultural minority and that the Congress-League United Front could be forged by conceding ‘protection of cultural and religious rights and demands’. We stood on the same basis as the Congress leadership, and were guilty of the charge of denying the peoples of the Muslim nationalities their just right to autonomy in free India. Since 1940, the party began to see that the so called communal problem in India was really a problem of growing nationalities and that it could be solved on the basis of the recognition of the right of self determination, to the point of political secession of the Muslim nationalities as in fact of all nationalities which have India as their common mother land. In those days many comrades were shocked by the formulation that India was not one nation and its development was in the direction of a multinational unity… the demand for Pakistan if we look at its progressive essence is in reality the demand for self determination and separation of the areas of Muslim nationalities of the Punjab, Pathan, Sindh, Baluchistan and the Eastern Provinces G.Adhikari, Pakistan and National Unity, People’s Publishing house, August 1942, pp. 29-30

The break up of Sikandar-Jinnah pact in 1944 had come about after Sir Chotu Ram- the leader who succeeded the then departed Sikandar Hayat- declared that he would have nothing to do with Muslim League and would not be dictated policy by Jinnah. Muslim League leader Shaukat Hayat, Sikandar Hayat’s son, was snubbed by the Governor of Punjab for declaring the Punjab ministry was in effect a Muslim League ministry. This break between the League and the Unionists was widely held to be turning point by the Communist Party.

Sajjad Zaheer wrote explaining why the Governor had a problem with the Muslim League ministry:
Behind this conflict of names was hidden a bigger reality. So long as the League acquiesced in whatever the Unionists chose to do in its name, the Unionists, that is to say, the Governor and his fellow bureaucrats had no objection to Unionists being also called Muslim Leaguers; but when it was a question of submitting to the democratic discipline of a rapidly growing people’s party and of carrying out its policy and acting according to its instructions, it could not possibly be tolerated by the bureaucracy. It is precisely this conflict long brewing- which finally came to ahead in March, April, 1944… the task of every patriot is to welcome and help this democratic growth which at long last is now taking place among the Muslims of Punjab. The last strong hold of imperialist bureaucracy in India is invaded by the League. Let us all help the people of Punjab capture it. Zaheer, Sajjad, Light on League Unionist Conflict, People’s Publishing House, Bombay, July, 1944, pp 26-33
Many young communists, like Daniyal Latifi, Abdullah Malik and Mian Iftikharuddin (the major leader of the Congress Party in Punjab) now joined the Muslim League, viewing it as a truly people’s party waging a valiant war against the feudal aristocracy of Punjab.

The elections of 1946 brought about the following results:
1. Muslim League 75 seats
2. Congress 51 seats
3. Unionists 20 seats
4. Panthic Sikhs 23 seats
5. Miscellaneous 4 seats

The Communists now sponsored the idea of a people’s ministry supported by the League, Congress, Akali and the Communists. A Congress-Muslim League coalition at this point would have been a terrific blow to the British control over Punjab. What is more is that it could have made a compromise between the Muslim League and Congress easier at the centre and a settlement on the basis of Pakistan would have come about in terms qualitatively different from the terms on which it was eventually achieved.

Shortsightedness on the part of the Congress made sure such a ministry would never come about. Congress chose instead to join up with the Unionists and the Akalis to form their own ministry, which dealt a death blow to the Communist expectations. The British encouraged and egged the Congress on, seeing in its actions a new lease of life for itself. The Congress-Unionist-Akali coalition instead of soothing the tensions amongst communities only exacerabated the issues since it was viewed by Muslims of Punjab as a great betrayal by the Hindus and the Sikhs. Muslim League described those who entered the ministry as traitors in cahoots with the British and launched a civil disobedience movement against the ministry.

The Communist role in the entire thing was the most positive of them all. They had hardest to bring together a coalition of Indian peoples against the British raj but had failed due to petty and selfish considerations of those who had long donned the mantle of being the champions of independence and United India. History would have been different, had the Congress Party paid heed to the Communists then.

#576 by vengatramanan

Vengat, I think you should ask Yasser. I am more of an Internet scholar if you know what I mean.

Haris and Majumdar,

Can you provide me some links, which shows Jinnah's standing amongst the masses, his ingenuity in inventing protests and his ability to muster people? I would also like to know how he managed to convey his ideas on the fight for freedom and the freedom itself to the masses.

I am serious here...The serious lack of material on Jinnah is the cause...

Its my opinion, since Jinnah was never a mass leader, he was never approached or was never incumbent on him to arrive at a decision when various options were presented. Its common knowledge that if you have to go for a decision, a sizeable number of people would be for and against it. Again making a decision is in itself presents challenges like the idiosyncrasies of your friends, your own conviction, and the bigger picture.

He, perhaps, was regarded as an intellect who could enumerate ideals but somebody who would not be inclined or not have the ability to shepherd the masses.

How can an effective leader remain a non-controversial figure?

Even Muhammed, the prophet, had his own share of controversies...Even Gods are mired in controversies.

#574 by majumdar

I have no doubt as to the culpability of HSS but the issue that Sallubhai raised was that of MAJ (pbuh).

Majumdar bhai, the buck stops at Jinnah. Isn't it the leader who takes responsibility for a screw up?

They were the rulers of India at that point of time, they had no business backing out.

The Brits were here to exploit India, not to care for their wellbeing. And when their own behinds were on the line due to the WW2 and communal disturbances, do you think the safety of Indians would have been their priority?

Harishbhai,

I have no doubt as to the culpability of HSS but the issue that Sallubhai raised was that of MAJ (pbuh).

(As for the British, why would they have cared?)

They were the rulers of India at that point of time, they had no business backing out.

Regards

PS: We are also waiting on his claim that the Barelvi Pir of Manki wanted to kill Nehru.

We can have the discussion on the alleged culpability of Suhrawardy but the issue here was as majumdar pointed out Salman's earlier claim about Wolpert accusing Jinnah, which is clearly not the case.

#570 by majumdar

I dont doubt that Muslim thugs wud have initiated the violence possibly in connivance with some ML govt members. My only point is that SW's stuff does not personally indict MAJ (pbuh).

Majumdar bhai, had not Suhrawardy created conditions ripe for death and destruction, the story might have been different. By declaring a holiday to the police force when they should have been deployed in full strength to prevent any untoward happenings, half of the work was done. The rest was left to the footsoldier to complete.

As for the British, why would they have cared? They weren't the ones dying, were they?

Harishbhai,

(Brutal violence unleashed a year earlier by Muslim thugs in Calcutta had triggered Hindu counterattacks and the murder of more Muslims in Bihar.)

I dont doubt that Muslim thugs wud have initiated the violence possibly in connivance with some ML govt members. My only point is that SW's stuff does not personally indict MAJ (pbuh).

(Mountbatten, however, refused even to consider Suhrawardy's brilliant plan)

As a Bong Hindoo I can only be thankful that Mountbatten sahib did not approve of HSS's "brilliant plan".

Regards

For the avoidance of doubt, Salman still hasn't produced the extract that he claimed (of Wolpert accusing Jinnah) nor has he produced the extract/source of his claim that Pir of Manki wanted to kill Nehru.

Thanks for the clarification. Also I was actually checking the Wikipedia link.

It is there on the NYT website and I acknowledge it.

It is interesting that even there, neither Gandhi nor Wolpert accuse the Muslim League or its leader of violence.

Every British officer, including Governor Sir Frederick Burrows and Chief of the Eastern Command Lt. General Sir Francis Tuker, pointed to Suhrawardy as the villain of the terror that exploded after he gave Calcutta's police a special holiday to "celebrate" Direct Action. What those self-righteous British officers failed to explain, of course, was why the army they commanded was kept in barracks until the rioters had done their worst work. As soon as troops did show themselves, marching through the streets up Garden Reach, Metia Bruz, Beliaghatia, and along the Lower Circular Road, the killers slipped away. Calcutta's Marwari Hindu merchants and bankers also pointed fingers at Suhrawardy. So did their sycophants in every court and bazaar, who soon hired their own thugs to wreak vengeance on Muslim quarters of the city, gutting homes and shops there for months.

Suhrawardy by now was stripped of Calcutta's chief ministership, replaced by Dr. Profullah Chandra Ghosh, leader of West Bengal's Hindu Congress majority provincial government. Nor would Suhrawardy be picked to become chief minister of East Pakistan; his less popular Muslim League rival Khwaja Nazimuddin had been selected instead by Jinnah to take that post in Dhaka. Jinnah knew that Suhrawardy's dream had been to preside over an independent nation of Bengal—Bangladesh—a new nation state he had lobbied hard to have carved out of the Eastern quarter of British India. His vision was to integrate Hindu majority West Bengal and Muslim majority East Pakistan into a single unified land of Bengali speakers, whose language and culture would transcend any differences of religious doctrine or practice.


...

And if you read "Shameful Flight"- the latest work by Stanley Wolpert you would see that Jinnah endorsed Suhrawardy's plan of Bangladesh as well.

CHAPTER ONE
Gandhi's Passion
The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi
By STANLEY WOLPERT
Oxford University Press

Read the Review


-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------


Midnight in Calcutta




MAHATMA GANDHI fell into "darkest despair" on the eve of India's independence in August 1947. Savage fighting spread from Punjab and the North-West Frontier to Eastern Bengal and Bihar. Brutal violence unleashed a year earlier by Muslim thugs in Calcutta had triggered Hindu counterattacks and the murder of more Muslims in Bihar. Mayhem, rape, and murder spread to the villages of Bengal as well, each report inciting more massacres of innocents as communal hatred raged across most of South Asia's subcontinent.

On July 17, 1947, acting on the advice of India's prime minister-in-waiting, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the consent of Pakistan's governor-general-to-be M. A. Jinnah, Viceroy Lord Mountbatten won his government's final approval to partition Punjab and Bengal along religious lines prior to Great Britain's withdrawal from India. Their plan to carve up British India was never approved of or accepted by Gandhi, however, who realized too late that his closest comrades and disciples were more interested in power than principle, and that his own vision had long been clouded by the illusion that the struggle he led for India's freedom was a nonviolent one.

"Who listens to me today?" a despondent Gandhi muttered. "And why should anyone?" To disillusioned devotees, the Mahatma ("Great Soul") freely confessed his "bankruptcy," admitting that he lived in "a fool's paradise." Nonetheless, the seventy-seven-year-old little Father (Bapu) of his nation did not surrender to sorrow. Great Soul that he was, Gandhi carried on, passionately ignoring daily threats to his life, refusing to silence his criticism of the government, and rejecting appeals to remain in New Delhi to celebrate the dawn of India's freedom at midnight on the Fifteenth of August 15, 1947. "What is there to celebrate?" This "vivisection of the Mother," as he called partition, was fit only for prayer and "deep heart-searching," not for fireworks, proud speeches, and songs.

Gandhi had tried to win Nehru over to his faith in the virtues of simple living, urging his aristocratic Anglophile heir to give up India's democratic throne, abandon the great house he planned to occupy, and instead move into a "village hut." He argued: "I believe that if India, and through India the world, is to achieve real freedom, then ... we shall have to go and live in the villages—in huts, not in palaces." Gandhi feared now that India was approaching its doom, whirling mothlike round the hot light of power till its wings would burn. His duty was to save India from that sad fate, though he well understood it might take his last passionate breath. As Delhi draped itself in miles of festive electric lights and the saffron, white, and green bunting of India's bright national flag symbolizing wishful Hindu-Sikh-Muslim unity, Bapu entrained for Bengal on his lonely pilgrimage of prayer for peace.

"What to do?" was the mantra he muttered daily that November as he walked barefoot through the blood-soaked mud of Noakhali District's scorched villages in Eastern Bengal's anguished Delta. He had gone there in response to his old Quaker friend Muriel Lester's personal plea, made after she had met Hindu widows who had watched their husbands butchered by Muslims. Before their husbands could be cremated, those widows were dragged off to be "converted" and "married" to the same killers. "These women had a dead look," Muriel wrote him, a look of "utter blankness." Gandhi soon saw worse things in Noakhali. Believing as he did that "Truth is God," he could not understand how so much he thought true about India turned out to be so violently false.

Lured back to Delhi by appeals from the new viceroy seeking Gandhi's wise advice on how to stop the killings, Bapu offered it. But Mountbatten was staggered by what this naked "old fool" told him. He consulted Nehru, who explained that the "old boy" was "out of touch" and could hardly be taken seriously when he urged the viceroy immediately to replace his own Congress ally and heir with their most hated Muslim League enemy, Jinnah. Mountbatten agreed, understanding little more about India than what Nehru, Nehru's closest comrade, V. K. Krishna Menon, and his own clever wife, Lady Edwina, explained to him. They all agreed that Gandhi was a saint, but saints should never indulge in practical politics or govern nations, should they?

Gandhi realized soon enough that it was all a charade, a polite royal brush-off, once the tea party ended, the carriages were called, and the servants escorted him down the garden path. That was when he decided to leave Delhi and return to Noakhali, where he was at least listened to, if not worshipped, by villagers too uneducated to be insincere, too timid for flattery or duplicity, too poor to fear that he wanted anything from them. These were the people he loved best and felt most at ease and at home among. Mostly naked, with no possessions to worry about losing, they had nothing to hide; they were as remote from regal Mountbattens and Nehrus as Noakhali was from New Delhi.

But before reaching Noakhali, his train steamed into Calcutta's noisy, bustling station, arriving five hours late in that smoky magnificent "City of Dreadful Night." Imperial bullies later hammered her into the richest, sexiest, sickest capital of the grandest empire on earth, built along the wrong side of a river named Hughli atop dung-filled mud at whose ancient womb worshippers of the Mother Goddess Kali laid petals of puja and slaughtered sacrificial goats and lambs. Gandhi considered all modern cities satanic, the ugliest fruit of Western civilization. He had long sought refuge from their soul-crushing noise, industrial speed, and poisonous air, preferring the harmony of India's ancient village community. And the train ride (he adamantly refused to fly) was exhausting. Noisy crowds awaiting his arrival at every stop, shoving, shouting, banging at his carriage windows; even a glimpse of the Mahatma—his darshan—was considered a blessing to devout Hindus. He tried to wave them off and to spin or pray in peace, but they never left him alone, testing his patience, causing him often to lose it, making him shout angrily at them through toothless gums. Too tired to move on immediately to East Bengal, he got into a car that was waiting at Calcutta's station to drive him to suburban Sodepur, where his Bengali disciple Satish Chandra Das Gupta had established a retreat for the hand-spinning of cotton.

He never planned far ahead. "One step enough for me," he often said, quoting the last words of the hymn he loved best, "Lead, Kindly Light," by Cardinal Newman. He waited at all times for instructions from his "inner voice" before making his next move. Only now he heard many voices, mostly those of anxious Muslims importuning him to stay in Calcutta. The Muslim minority there feared that the transfer of power to a Hindu Congress government in West Bengal would revive riots that had started a year ago, on August 16. That was proclaimed "Direct Action Day" by Quaid-i-Azam ("Great Leader") Jinnah, president of the Muslim League. Of all his failures, the one Gandhi regretted most was not convincing Jinnah of the error of his insistence on partition, the dreadful operation that was to bring Pakistan to birth by virtually bleeding Mother India to death. If only Mountbatten and Nehru had agreed last April to tempt Jinnah by offering him the premier crown of thorns! Now it was too late, and the sole penance Gandhi could perform was to spend the remaining days of his life in Pakistan, trying to protect minorities there from extortion and violence by the Muslim majority. He resolved to leave India, moving either to Karachi or Lahore on that final pilgrimage, but first he would visit Noakhali once again to bring what little comfort his unarmed presence could to Hindus living there in daily fear of death.

Calcutta's anxieties that the previous year's orgy of terror would be repeated, however, inspired him now to launch one of his most creative initiatives in problem solving. The man most widely blamed for the mass murder of Hindus and the torching of their property in the days and weeks following Direct Action Day was Bengal's Muslim League Chief Minister Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy. Every British officer, including Governor Sir Frederick Burrows and Chief of the Eastern Command Lt. General Sir Francis Tuker, pointed to Suhrawardy as the villain of the terror that exploded after he gave Calcutta's police a special holiday to "celebrate" Direct Action. What those self-righteous British officers failed to explain, of course, was why the army they commanded was kept in barracks until the rioters had done their worst work. As soon as troops did show themselves, marching through the streets up Garden Reach, Metia Bruz, Beliaghatia, and along the Lower Circular Road, the killers slipped away. Calcutta's Marwari Hindu merchants and bankers also pointed fingers at Suhrawardy. So did their sycophants in every court and bazaar, who soon hired their own thugs to wreak vengeance on Muslim quarters of the city, gutting homes and shops there for months.

Suhrawardy by now was stripped of Calcutta's chief ministership, replaced by Dr. Profullah Chandra Ghosh, leader of West Bengal's Hindu Congress majority provincial government. Nor would Suhrawardy be picked to become chief minister of East Pakistan; his less popular Muslim League rival Khwaja Nazimuddin had been selected instead by Jinnah to take that post in Dhaka. Jinnah knew that Suhrawardy's dream had been to preside over an independent nation of Bengal—Bangladesh—a new nation state he had lobbied hard to have carved out of the Eastern quarter of British India. His vision was to integrate Hindu majority West Bengal and Muslim majority East Pakistan into a single unified land of Bengali speakers, whose language and culture would transcend any differences of religious doctrine or practice. Mountbatten, however, refused even to consider Suhrawardy's brilliant plan, just as he had ignored Gandhi's proposal to replace Nehru with Jinnah. Though Suhrawardy's dream of becoming the king of Bengal was thus aborted, he lived to emerge less than a decade later (but only briefly to remain) as prime minister of Pakistan. He was removed by martial coup and died a few years later in Beirut.

Gandhi had long known and liked Suhrawardy, who for three decades had admired him as well. So when Muslim friends pressed him to stay on in Calcutta, at least until after Independence Day, the Mahatma agreed to do so, on one condition—that Shaheed Suhrawardy share the same roof with him so that they could appeal to Muslims and Hindus alike to live in peace in this greatest of all Indian cities. "Adversity makes strange bed-fellows," Gandhi told his prayer meeting that August 11. Suhrawardy agreed, and they moved into the abandoned Hydari House, a once-splendid residence whose terrified Muslim owners had fled, leaving it to be robbed and ruined by looters and hoodlums. They seemed an odd couple, the almost naked Bapu and Bengal's Big Daddy dressed meticulously in his white linen or beige silk suits. But Gandhi's genius for symbolic gestures was never wiser than this experiment in Hindu-Muslim cohabitation. It visibly demonstrated to Calcutta's millions of angry and fearful Hindus and Muslims alike that a Mahatma and the Muslim League leader most often blamed for instigating the worst of last year's riots could peacefully live under a single roof. They stayed there together for almost a week, answering the most hostile, angry questions as honestly as they could, as fearlessly as both of these remarkable men had lived all their lives. It proved to be a potent lesson in the practical possibility of peaceful coexistence, cooperation, and the powers of love. Of the lessons Gandhi had labored most of his life to teach, this was one of the most important. The interlude with Suhrawardy, however, was his last demonstration of the miraculous force of love and the value of trust and faith in one's fellow man as well as in truth. Pacifist Horace Alexander, whose leadership of the Society of Friends had first brought him to India in 1929, was invited by Gandhi to join them in Hydari House, where Alexander proved useful in helping to keep crowds of irate Hindus from breaking in that first night. "Why have you come here?" they shouted at Gandhi. "Why did you not go to places from where the Hindus have fled?"

"I have come here to serve not only Muslims but Hindus," he explained. The hooligans told him to "go away," but Gandhi was never easily dissuaded or intimidated from doing what he believed to be right. "You can obstruct my work, even kill me. I won't invoke the help of the police. You can prevent me from leaving this house, but what is the use of your dubbing me an enemy of the Hindus? I will not accept the label." The Mahatma then asked them what good it would do now to "avenge" the wrongs committed in 1946.

On August 14, Gandhi argued again with the young Hindus who had so angrily challenged him the previous day. By evening he had won their hearts and minds. "What a spell-binder this old man is!" one of them cried. "No matter how heavy the odds, he does not know ... defeat." That same convert volunteered to help guard Hydari House against any future attacks. An estimated ten thousand people gathered to hear Gandhi's prayer that evening. "If the flames of communal strife envelop the whole country," Bapu asked, "how can our newborn freedom survive?"

He awoke at 2 A.M. on August 15, having slept through Nehru's "Tryst with Destiny" speech at midnight. When he left Hydari House for his morning walk, crowds followed him, keen for just a glimpse of the Mahatma. Soon after he returned, West Bengal's new cabinet arrived, seeking his blessings. "Wear the crown of thorns," Gandhi told them. "Strive ceaselessly to cultivate truth and non-violence. Be humble. Be forbearing ... beware of power; power corrupts. Do not let yourselves be entrapped by its pomp and pageantry. Remember, you are in office to serve the poor in India's villages."

How obvious it seemed to him now, that simple prescription for using power most wisely, and yet how long it had taken him to learn. And how difficult it was to avoid life's lures and traps, the pomp and the wrong passions.

(C) 2001 Stanley Wolpert All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-19-513060-X

#564 by MantoLives

The claim Salman had originally made was that Wolpert accused Jinnah personally of violence.

Yaar Yasser, I haven't followed all the previous interacts so I may not be aware of everything going on here for the past 3-4 days. However, Majumdar bhai's post #537 which reproduces an earlier post by Salman is clear and says Wolpert blamed Muslims (note his post). I merely provided the reference Majumdar bhai was asking for in response to his post.

However, please note that I tried to verify this claim and I could not find the quote in "Gandhi's Passion". Please tell us of the exact page number so that I can see it for myself.

I do not have the book with me. The excerpt I posted is from an online source (New York Times), you may visit the link to read more.

nor can I see the said quote on the link you produced.

Re: # 562

Harish bhai,

This is not fair. You can see what was asked was different.

The claim Salman had originally made was that Wolpert accused Jinnah personally of violence. That is the evidence Majumdar was asking for. That is the evidence Salman has failed to produce.

We've already acknowledged that Salman changed his story.
However, please note that I tried to verify this claim and I could not find the quote in "Gandhi's Passion". Please tell us of the exact page number so that I can see it for myself.

Re: # 546

In addition to my post 555

The more I read your posts, the more I realize how important it is to expose the lies of Bacha Khan, Wali Khan and their followers.

For your information: Republican Party was formed by bureaucrats and a bunch of Punjabi feudals to undercut the Muslim League. Its biggest leader was Dr. Khan Sahab - yes the CM of NWFP and Bacha Khan's elder brother. Yes it did have people like Feroz Khan Noon, who had jumped on the Muslim League ship briefly - but were essentially establishment men. However the true Muslim Leaguers, Sardar Abdul Rab Nishtar, Khaliquzzaman, Raja of Mahmoodabad etc stayed put.

In 1950s, Suhrawardy created the Jinnah Awami Muslim League along with Mamdot and Mujeeb-ur-rahman. This later developed into the Awami League.

Even the NAP had roots partly in the Muslim League. Renowned leftist Mian Iftikharuddin (Jinnah's greatest supporter and owner of Pakistan Times) who left th Muslim League in 1951 formed the Azad Pakistan Party which was later merged into the NAP. However, the leftists in the NAP were soon sidelined by the Pushtun-ethno-nationalist element and ultimately became a family party of the Bacha Khan family. As for GM Syed... he left the Muslim League.

As for your claim that the Muslim League in India merged into Congress is a funny claim. Muslim League still exists in India and infact External Affairs State Minister of India, Mr. E Ahamed is a Muslim Leaguer.


Be original stop using my lines. Let me repeat: You stop lying about Jinnah and I'll stop telling the truth about those two-bit cowards and third rate dishonest unprincipled crooks you call Bacha Khan and his family.

So far you've not been able to prove a single one of my claims to be a lie. You tried to get off on a technicality by claiming that NAP was banned in 1975 knowing full well that the entire Khan family (and all the leaders of the banned NAP) was part of the Nizam-e-Mustafa Movement to establish Islamic Law in 1977.

Furthermore, we still await for evidence that you've promised us but never produced.

#537 by majumdar

Salman: HIS FAVORITE AUTHOR STANLEY WOLPERT HAS ALSO BLAMED MUSLIMS FOR STARTING THAT VIOLENCE.)

Majumdar bhai: Can you quote the extracts.

Majumdar bhai,

From "Gandhi's Passion" by Stanley Wolpert (http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/wolpert-gandhi.html)"

"MAHATM A GANDHI fell into "darkest despair" on the eve of India's independence in August 1947. Savage fighting spread from Punjab and the North-West Frontier to Eastern Bengal and Bihar. Brutal violence unleashed a year earlier by Muslim thugs in Calcutta had triggered Hindu counterattacks and the murder of more Muslims in Bihar. Mayhem, rape, and murder spread to the villages of Bengal as well, each report inciting more massacres of innocents as communal hatred raged across most of South Asia's subcontinent."

Some more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Day

Salman writes:

"oh so you the prophet or you are just scoring points because the last time you talked about The Prophet you were comparing him with Jinnah and telling us Jinnah was better than him. "

So still playing the Bacha Khan-style "Jinnah is not Muslim enough" card against me?

But let's not forget that you've already declared that I am a kafir- a born one at that. So why does it matter?

Re: # 545

No I was merely responding to your erroneous claim (as all of your claims are always erroneous) that I had run away.

Pathetic.

"And is your defence of MAJ (pbuh) the same as mine- that he was too ill to have been responsible for that and it was the rest of the GOP who probably took that decision."

Well that he was on deathbed and very seriously ill is true.

My question is what ordinance are we talking about? The ordinance to "confiscate property"? Such an ordinance would technically come from the Governor of the province (Sir George Cunningham) and then acceded by the legislature of the province.

But I have never heard of this "ordinance" and like everything else claimed by Salman looks like a dubious lie.

In any event... this is a typical case of confusing two things by our dear boy who is at his wit's end. He wants to link the police action against the "Godly" servants with this non-existent ordinance about cofiscation of property which he claims was signed by Jinnah.

Manto mian,

(Begum Naseem Wali Khan , Wali Khan's wife and notorious "Panties thief" in London)

Seems to be a person much of my way of thinking (tongue wala icon).

Coming back to the July 1948 Ordinance.

Was that Ordinance true. And is your defence of MAJ (pbuh) the same as mine- that he was too ill to have been responsible for that and it was the rest of the GOP who probably took that decision.

Regards

Yet another Salman lie:

"Qayyuam Khan was the biggest Muslim leagui at that time"

This is also a lie. Qayyum Khan was a Congressite untill late 1946.

He was not even a member of the Central Executive Committee of the All India Muslim League.

He was however right about the deceptive dishonest nature of Bacha Khan and others ... and therefore, was the right person for the CM's job after partition.

RE: The Bhutto accusation

Zakkk,

Could you give us a motive for Bhutto bumping off Sherpao.

This is as fantastic a theory as the claim that Jews blew up the World trade center.

Majumdar,

Salman's dishonesty is on display once again. Even if we accept Salman's one-sided narration of the facts at Bhabra (and its not sharif), his claim that Jinnah was some how responsible is just a fabrication, which can only come from a dishonest crook's mind.

From June 15th onwards and August 12, 1948, Jinnah was bed-ridden with cancer and tuberculosis and was dead by September 11, 1948. So here you see Salman lying like a pig with lipstick on.

Ask him what "ordinance" was issued. The police present at the meeting opened fire. What ordinance is needed for it?
Unfortunately, Bacha Khan's followers are dishonest crooks which is why they make up lies which cannot appeal to reason.

Now as far as his claim that ANP was not part of the Nizam-e-Mustafa movement... I can only laugh at this liar. Begum Naseem Wali Khan , Wali Khan's wife and notorious Panties thief in London, was leading the remnants of the banned NAP with Wali Khan's instructions and she was part of the Nizam-e-Mustafa movement.

As for your point about Bhutto being tyrant etc... maybe so, but the movement was NOT just about Bhutto being a tyrant. The Nizam-e-Mustafa movement was a movement to establish Islamic System of Government. Now any party can fight for any ideal... but why and how can they claim to be secular?

Infact, it is now wellknown that the Nizam-e-Mustafa movement was funded and engineered by the CIA which had planned the whole thing in Afghanistan and wanted a compliant military dictator like Zia instead of a tough negotiator like Bhutto who was also pandering to the Soviets and the Chinese.

So in effect, these fellows were not just fighting for an Islamic system in Pakistan but were part of America's proxy against Pakistan's democracy.





Salman,

I am surprised that a liar like yourself is calling me a liar.

I read through your inane post once again and there isn't a shred of evidence in it. Where is Wolpert accusing Jinnah of violence? You still haven't shown us.

Jinnah is the only politician - whose integrity even your God Gandhi did not question but rather reaffirmed. So you can go abusing the man, but that shows just how pathetic you are.

As for Pir of Manki Sharif, I have already shown you that Barelvi principles of Sharia i.e. "Spiritual Pluralism" is not in conflict with Sharia. It is the "Deobandi Islam" that is the problem.

Now where is that evidence for your lie that Pir of Manki Sharif wanted to kill Nehru. Reproduce a single piece of evidence that suggests that.

As for Jinnah's alleged statement about getting India destroyed... this was the fabrication of a fertile imagination. There is NO primary source evidence of this statement. It was invented by Bourke-white - who was extremely pro-Gandhi- and then repeated by Lapierre. However, no historian studying primary sources - neither Indian nor British nor American- has accepted this statement as being true.


Now onwards to Bhabra event. Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan acted on his own animosity with Bacha Khan, who he had been with in the Congress for two decades. KAQK and KAGK had become mortal enemies ... and KAQK had left the Congress out of hostility with Bacha Khan and had joined the Muslim League after the 1946 elections. Infact it was this mutual hatred between KAQK and KAGK that created problems later.

Sallu bhai,

I am not very conversant with Pak politics. But even if ANP did associate with N-e-M movement or the fundoo parties in 1977 it does not reflect badly on ANP's part. They had to bring down a tyrant (ZAB) and all opposition parties had to sink their differences and unite for that.

Regards

Mujamdar bhai
Qayyuam Khan was the biggest Muslim leagui at that time and after. he was the right hand of Jinnah and later also was with Bhutto. when he was involved in the crackdown against NAP.
there are 2 scenarios
1) either Jinnah was involved in it. because the ordinance was issued by the Governor general
2) Jinnah was not capable of ruling the country. so he had to quit his job and not let the country be abused by criminals like Qayyum khan.
in both case Blame goes to Qayyum and Jinnah becaue it was done by Muslim League Government. so they are the culprits.

Hamdani's claim that Wali Khan was Involved in Nizam-e-Mustafa movement is also a big lie like his other big lies.
NAP was banned in 1975 and the leadership including Wali Khan and all the baloch leaders were in prisons. Niza-e-Mustafa movement started in 1977. How can you balme a party which doesnt even exist and the leaership is in jails to be part of a movement. If its not true then hamdani has to tell us about the rallies attended by Wali Khan and perhaps show us some of his speaches. if he can't then he is again a Liar like his leaders. ofcourse he has proved himself a coward already.

Old hat!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ardeshir Cowasjee

THOSE who kill or maim their fellow human beings at the bidding of
others  for vengeance, for political gain or for money  such as the
men of our so-called agencies, those who blow up hospitals or places
of learning, are to my mind the scum of the earth.

On April 14, a bomb planted at Imrans Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer
Hospital at Lahore exploded. The count so far: seven dead, three
critically wounded, many more under treatment. The damage is estimated
to be in the region of Rs 50 million. Unassessed is the fallout, and
many more will suffer for want of treatment and the hospitals inability
to provide it.

Prime Minister Bhutto stopped doing what it was she was doing in
Peshawar that day, boarded the peoples plane, and rushed to Lahore. Big
deal! She arrived at the hospital, said the right and the wrong things.
She asked how it could be presumed that she and her party would take on
Imran. He is not a politician. He is no danger, no threat, they have no
reason to blow him up.

Whatever Benazir may say, the fact remains that Imran and his hospital
are being targeted and harassed. What the people give Imran, they give
voluntarily. He does not extort and this irks our professional
extortionists and their slimy supporting contortionists.

Imran wanted time on television to advertise his hospital and raise
donations, and he offered to pay, as do the Colas and others. But the
government said NO. Why?

Nawazs government had sanctioned payment of Rs 5 million a year to the
hospital from the Zakat Fund. This government has rescinded the
sanction. Why?

Cases have been filed in our courts against Imran, accusing him of
illegally or unauthorisedly collecting funds, not accounting for them,
misusing them, etc. Why? The people are well aware that these are all
trumped up charges, that those who have levelled them, are toadies who
have been thanked and well rewarded. It is an old story.

Now we go back 21 years to a place of learning, to the Peshawar
University, to that fateful Saturday, February 8, 1975. Whilst
addressing the students, a good man Hayat Mohammed Khan Sherpao, senior
minister of the NWFP and president of the provincial PPP, was blown up
by a bomb and killed. Another Prime Minister Bhutto, Zulfikar that time,
stopped doing what he was doing in New York that day, boarded the plane,
flew back, and wept at Sherpaos grave.

The very next day, on February 9, the leaders of the opposition NAP in
various parts of the country were arrested. These included Wali Khan,
Arbab Sikander, Qaswar Gardezi, Mehroz Akhtar, Arbab Saifur Rahman,
Major General M.G. Jilani (Jil of Narowal), Amirzada Khan, Haji Ghulam
Ahmed Bilour, Mohammed Adil, Rukhnuddin Kazmi, Hassan Hameedi,
Rehmatullah Khan Rohaila, Abdul Khaliq Khan (Roedads brother, the best
of the lot). They were held under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO)
ordinance and various other false charges.

Barrister Azizullah Shaikh, chief of the NAP in Karachi, who was in
Hyderabad, managed to remain out of reach. His home, with his wife and
three small daughters, was surrounded by agency men, it was pelted with
stones, and the children terrorised. Friend Sardar Sherbaz Mazari moved
in with his own armed bodyguards and stayed overnight to protect
Azizullahs family.

On February 10, the government of Pakistan dissolved the National Awami
Party and forfeited all the properties and funds of the Party. The
action, according to Gazette of Pakistan notifications, has been taken
under Sub-section 1 of Section VI of the Political Parties Act of 1962.
The notifications said that the government was satisfied that the NAP
was operating in a manner prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity
of Pakistan and it had, therefore, formally declared the NAP to be
operating in such a manner. Following the government order, all the
offices of the Party throughout the country have been sealed. (Dawn
Feb. 11, 1975).

The movement of scores of other office-bearers of the NAP in various
centres of the country were restricted under the dreaded MPO. On the
same day government agents raided and ransacked the offices of Asghar
Khans Tehrik-i-Istiqlal and of the Jamaat. The office of the defunct
daily newspaper Shahbaz was set afire.

On February 14, the champion of liberty, Minister for Provincial Co-
ordination Hafiz Pirzada declared that the administrative action taken
by the government in dissolving the National Awami Party was not
arbitrary or out of rancour and acrimony  it was strictly in conformity
with the provisions of the Constitution.

I now quote from Bhuttos biographer, Stanley Wolpert, the first man
allowed access to the archives of the great leader at 70 Clifton. He
had no doubt, moreover, as to the identity of the murderers, though no
party or individual would ever claim credit for killing Sherpao. Zulfi
felt as certain that Wali Khan was the man responsible for Sherpaos
death as Ahmed Raza was certain about who killed his father.

I've heard from fairly high up sources that it was ZAB who killed Sherpao. It was well known towards the end of Hayat Sherpaos life he was totally disillusioned with ZAB and about to leave the PPP.

Sallu bhai,

Thanks for 549. This was news to me. The ordiance stuff and the Barbra massacre if indeed true is a blot on Pakistan.

(In July 1948 the provincial governor of NWFP promulgated an ordinance.....)

If this is true, it certainly relfects very poorly on the Pakistan govt/PML leadership. My take on it though on the whole is that MAJ (pbuh) may not have been personally responsible for either this or the Barbara firings in August 1948. The poor gentlemen was in his last days and possibly his name was misused by the actual perpetrators for the whole deed.

I hope YLH wud give his interpretation of the whole incident.

Regards

Ijaz sahib,

(Bengalis, having been at the centre of the idea abandoned it.)

It was not the Bong Muslim who abandoned Pakistan, it was Pakistan which abandoned the Bong Muslim- ideologically by abandoning the founding principle (Lahore Resolution) and physically- in the 1965 War.

Regards

Check the crimes of Jinnah and Qayyum.

Babara Masscre

August 12th 1948, a day that went down in the annals of Pashto history as a dark and bleak day. Heroes and villains both were born this day, some to be forever glorified for the ultimate sacrifice any human can give, and others to be always remembered for their treachery.

A day when peaceful protesters marked with blood the very ground they stood on. A day when they stood what for they believed was their right, the right to congregate, to demonstrate and to question their representatives, the right to a trial, this was after all why they with their undying ideologies had split India into two. To raise their voice against what they thought was wrong. It was a day when they would heavily pay the price for their core beliefs. Men who had been in the forefront for the fight of this country called Pakistan, a country they considered their own nation.

Rewarded with the unjust bounty of having their lands seized and unconstitutional detainment, they were being silenced with the very shackles that they had so bravely fought to free themselves of. Sadly this time it was not the British but one of their own, a coward by the name of Qayyum.
In July 1948 the provincial governor of NWFP promulgated an ordinance which authorized the government of detaining any one indefinitely and confiscating their properties without disclosing any reason to the detainee. The worse thing was that these detainees were even not allowed to challenge their arrests in the courts. The shameful part of this ordinance was that the governor was feeling so guilty of this act that he stated clearly that he is promulgating this ordinance on the special orders of Governor General Quaid-e-Azam MAHAMMAD ALI Jannah. Hundreds of nationalists were arrested, tortured and their properties were confiscated under this ordinance.

To protest against the arrests of Bacha Khan, Dr Khan Saib, Qazi Attah-ullah, Arbab Abdul Ghafoor Khan and other notables, it was decided that the Khudai Khidmatgars would in a peaceful procession march from Charsadda to Babara on12th august 1948. The march was announced ahead of time in the major newspapers, all participants were told to congregate at Charsadda empty handed and to peacefully march to the Babra grounds. There seemed to be no objection from the government, but on the 12th, they surrounded the Babra grounds with militia units, police forces, armored vehicles and tanks.

The men started out from Charsadda empty and walked toward s the grounds of Babara, they were informed of the police presence at some point, yet they believed that they were safe. They were after all the men who had sworn, “As Allah needs no service, and I shall serve Him by serving His creatures selflessly. I shall never use violence. I shall not retaliate or take revenge, and I shall forgive anyone who indulges in high-handedness and excesses against me….I shall lead a simple life, do well and refrain from wrong doing�.

When they reached Babra the police sitting in a mosque started firing on the procession and these brave men kept marching. After 45 minutes when the shooting stopped and the smoke cleared there were by one estimate, about five to six hundred dead and a 1000 to 1200 injured. Some eyewitness put the death toll at 1300. Of the two hundred and fifty bodies that were thrown into the river, many were never recovered. The real number of dead may never be known for what followed was even more inhumane, and many chose not to disclose who in their families had perished.

Women of the village seeing their men razed to the ground put Qurans on their heads and rushed into the foray screaming for the firing to stop, but their pleas fell on deaf ears and were as mercilessly shot and killed. Unarmed women and men were killed regardless of their age or sex, regardless of the fact that they were only asking for a basic human right. The right to be heard.

These atrocities did not stop here, and fully knowing how the dead are respected and afforded the courtesy of a burial, the savages started to a throw bodies into the river Kabul. No mercy was shown to the injured either and many drowned. As soon as the police departed the rest of the bodies were quickly claimed and removed by their loved ones and taken to Charsadda bazaar. Emotions were hard to control as the crowd turned on those that supported the government, but cooler heads prevailed and we can proudly say that the Pakhtun acted with honor that day.

Doctors were forbidden to treat the injured, those that did risk it were arrested and their properties confiscated. Incarcerated for showing some humanity on this inhumane day, these decent people suffered for being true to their Hippocratic Oath.

Raids followed and people found with anyone injured in their house or if their family members had died were fined for the bullets that the government had spent to kill them. People were fined outrageous sums and property was confiscated. Those who had nothing to their name were not spared either, they were deprived of their children.

What makes this sad is that it was not a foreign occupying force but their native country that had done this to them. The very country that was responsible for their safety, had let them down miserably and showed no remorse for it. No one should ever have to suffer such an indignity.
In September 1948, Chief Minister Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan gave a statement in the provincial assembly, "I had imposed section 144 at Babra. When the people did not disperse, then firing was opened on them. They were lucky that the police had finished ammunition; otherwise not a single soul would have been left alive". Khan Qayyum said hinting at the four members of the opposition in the provincial assembly. He said; "If they were killed, the government would not care about them."



There are no monuments to mark where the hundreds of fallen, there is no mention of them in school history books. There is no park or not even a plant where one can sit and contemplate what these brave men and women died for. Most children grow up not knowing what or where Babara is. We should arrange school trips to Babara and add a chapter our history books, for this is after all our history and our blood that colored the ground that fateful day. We will wear our scars with honor and pride.

Hussain Shaeed Soharwardi’s words

if Bengal's Muslims took to the "war path" there would "not be a single Hindu left alive in eastern Bengal.

You said it’s a propaganda of opposition, It was his statement to the press if Stanley Wolpert also writes it then?
Infact what you write about Khan Family is propaganda.

Hamdani
You can't accept my challenge in front of this forum. They all saw you how cowardly you are trying to ignore the challenge. I feel sorry for you.
You say you have written this article in good spirit. I asked everyone here to see what good spirit is there in these foolish claims you have made. Prove to us that there was a "special" kind of rigging in the election to support ANP
First you say there was rigging then you ANP got votes because of its social agenda. You don’t even believe yourself. For your info. Vote for ANP is not vote for separation.
Prove to us where Wali Khan had ties with Zia-ul-haq? It is a big lie you told before and you retreated from it. If Dr Khan Sahb joined the establishment it was a bad thing. When Ghaffar Khan went against the establishment it is also a bad thing. Tell us what should they have done to please Mr Hamdani? You keep talking about Mufti Mehnud and Wali Khan anti establishment and anti Bhutto alliance.
In few years: will you also blame ANP to be part of APDM where Mullah Fazal Rehman, Jamaat-e-Islami, Nawaz shareef were there? Which is anti-establishment anti Musharaf?
For your ignorance ANP was formed in 1980s. so blaming ANP for something happening in 1970s is a lie. You said ANP is opportunist. Can you explain? As everyone knows; Wali Khan refused Zia’s offer to become Premier of Pakistan. What else a person would want, who would never have a majority government in Pakistan in future. Later Nawaz Sharif requested him to become the president of Pakistan. He refused that. Asfandyar Wali was just offered the same premiership, but he excused. What else better can you get? Or you just make up these lies which go with your character.
I didn’t lie anywhere. I told you I was confused in these 2 names Pir of Manki and Fakir of Ipi. I showed you how the secular Jinnah wrote a letter to convince Pir of Manki that Pakistan will have no rule against shariya law. (Do you know about that letter or I have to copy paste it here?) Then Pir formed a Jehadi organization. In fact Jinnah lied to almost everyone. No wonder Hamdani follows his path. The way Jinnah got support from Khan of Kalat. When Khan came to ask him to fulfill his promise Jinnah was annoyed with him. Why the hell he keeps reminding of Jinnah’s promises.
5) for pir of Manki and his jehadist organization check “Khizr Tiwana, the Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India� By Ian Talbot page 133. Don’t ask again about the proof of Pir’s organization.
When he was asked why you don’t form the constitution of Pakistan. Jinnah was smart he knew if he told what he would bring in Pakistan. A lot of people won’t like it. So he said. We will form a constitution once we get the land. Like Afghanistan wrote their constitution after they got their land. (What a great example he gave at that time).
Prove to us that Ghaffar Khan and his Khuda-e-khidmatgar were involved in violence along with Fakir of Ipi. The whole world knows him as THE PATHAN UNAMARED. Then you come, repeat the lies of Hayat Sherpao’s assassination and blame Wali Khan and Ghaffar Khan for that. Why do you hate them so much? He is a great guy the whole world has acknowledged it. That’s why he was nominated for Noble Peace Prize. If he would to kill someone then Qayyum Khan was the best candidate for that. When the whole world knows him as nonviolent then you tells us. Hey he was not nonviolent he was with fakir of Ipi. Don’t consider them secular. He was with Mufti Mehmud. He forgets that the way Jinnah used Islam and violence nobody in India has used it. In NWFP their slogan was “Islam is in Danger.� Qayyum Khan told Khan Sahb: “you are not a true Muslim�. In Punjab it was like if you don’t give vote to Muslim League you are not Muslim. Your Nikkah is false. You will go to hell. The same conservative and religious fanatics were killing Hindus and Sikhs. To tell the world that if you left us together. We will not leave India in peace. Like Jinnah said. We will have either have divided India or destroyed India. That’s why after Pakistan was created when the Hindu enemy wasn’t there. Muslim League disappeared. But the Muslims who were supporting Jinnah and were left in India went to congress. Congress delivered their promises and proved a real political force supported by the masses. On the other hand the biggest leaders of Muslim League even left it. Some formed Republican Party. Soharwardi left ML and later was being assassinated by the establishment. G. M Sayed became a separatist. When their own leaders didn’t remain there. How can you prove it was a real party and Jinnah was real leader?
Nobody in Pakistan is more secular, democratic and Nonviolent than the organization of Ghaffar khan. If you know someone then please do tell us.
Like Wali Khan told your leader Bhutto. You stop telling lies about me I will stop telling truth about you. So you stop telling lies about Ghaffar Khan I will stop telling the truth about Jinnah and his gang.
I can prove everything whatever I have said about Mr Jinnah. It’s just you who cannot face the challenge. If you say Stanley Wolpert has never written that Muslims started violence or Jinnah welcomed violence then why you don’t accept my challenge.

oh so you the prophet or you are just scoring points because the last time you talked about The Prophet you were comparing him with Jinnah and telling us Jinnah was better than him.

Btw our friend knows that today being the Birthday of the Prophet is off for most Pakistanis. Most normal people are trying to spend time with their families instead of responding to every inane comment by ANP wallahs

Yet this did not stop him from claiming victory against me.

Dear Ijaz gul,

Precisely and this article was written in that spirit. But people like Salman don't even want to listen to any criticism of Bacha Khan even though what I have written in this article is both 100 percent the truth (I challenge Salman to show one untruthful statement in it).

Now unable to defend Bacha Khan on facts, this Pakistani started off by making ridiculous claims like Fakir of ipi was leagui and wanted to kill Nehru. When I exposed his lie he brought up Pir of Manki and claimed that he wanted to kill Nehru. So far he hasn't given us a single iota of proof.

Then he started claiming all sorts of nonsense against Jinnah. He claimed that Wolpert backed his claim but now he has changed his story to "he blamed Muslims". Infact Wolpert has not taken a position on who started the communal riots quoting both the British reports that Hindus are erecting barricades to stop Muslims from getting to the meeting place at 7 30 am and later claim about stick wielding Muslims in the afternoon. Both Majumdar and I have begged Salman to produce the quote where Wolpert allegedly accuses Jinnah but he has failed to do so. Yet he continues to lie.

But d the most amazing claim he has made is that I cannot be trusted because I am an Ahmadi and from the PPP. So much for the "secular" ANP.

I find it strange that I should be asked to respect these people when ANP wallahs are so hateful and bigoted towards the rest of Pakistan. The 1973 constitution notwithstanding these hatemongers were reprimanded by Najeeb for being so opportunistic as to both sign the constitution and work against Pakistan. Even Pakistan's worst enemies in Afghanistan have reprimanded these fellows for their opportunism. My source of information is that indefatigable Afghan friend of ours - Pavo Cavalry.


I would like nothing more to see the ANP truly work for a secular democratic Pakistan. But I fear that has never been their interests. They wouldn't be part of alliances like PNA's Nizam-e-Mustafa alliance.

And there is no point abusing PPP for its contradictions. PPP never claimed to be the beacon of secularism and nonviolence. PPP never claimed to be all the things ANP does. So why hold PPP to that standard. But atleast PPP has remained loyal to the constitution it created.


Salman mian,

Disappear where? Declaring victory so soon. I am travelling and using a blackberry to respond to your lies again.

Please answer Majumdar's question now. Produce the extracts that he has asked you for. Instead of abusing me and lying about Jinnah grow up and learn to accept facts as they are.

As for your abuse regarding my "neutrality" you've quoting much more partisan things. I have not quoted any partisan view unlike you. So please have some shame, show us that legendary pushtun integrity and accept that your claims against me are unfounded and baseless.




Majumdar,

The case against ANP was dropped by Zia and there was no real acquittal. Zia and the ANP wallahs were in bed against Bhutto you see.

Pavo believes it was a 100 percent NAP job and Pavo is someone we know is not a pro-ppp or pro-Muslim League fellow. He is very well connected and knows things unknown to most people. He actually claims to have met the person who planted the bomb on the instructions of the NAP leadership.

Hayat Sherpao was their old enemy because he challenged the tribal-feudal customs like a true leftist (and not mere fashionable ones as the NAP wallahs post Iftikharuddin.

Since Salman has failed to provide the evidence for either of his claims nor has he managed to mount a specific challenge to any of my assertions, I am going to go enjoy my long weekend.

On PPP refer to last part of comment to Ijaz Gul.

Please do alert me if something needs my urgent attention ... Otherwise I am going to try and be at peace till Monday. Thank you.

Ijaz gul brother.
Thanx for your imput. thats what I keep telling him. you like some just praise him write whatever good you can find. why make up things about other people and hurt the feelings of their supporters.

Just for the sake of what we are up against, please read my post on another board. Its about what lies ahead and we must not brag about the past which in all apsects is tainted with a few bright spots.

"I may add that we should not have illusions about the inportance of our strategic proximity to Afghanistan and grant ourselves the luxuray of being indispensible. After the withdrawl of USSR, Afghanistan was deliberately allowed to burn in multi dimensional conflict and no develpoment plan was put in place by USA. It appears from what Agha has written, development policies even now are lukewarm. What does it mean? In my view, the policy of burnout now also includes Pakistan. This is what they pursue. They will keep just enough forces (mostly NATO) that will keep the pot simmering on both if the Durand Line.This is our fate and we must awaken to reality."

I may also add that just like this burnout threatens to transcend into Pakistan, if Pakistan burns, India will be next. We have to have a look at regional security. In some ways, masadi's views look incisive.
Cheerios

YLH and Salman
Pakistan to different Pakistanis means differently because different schools of thought and political leanings approach the issue from a different perspective.
The religious parties opposed Jinnah.
The Bachaites opposed him and supported Congress.
The opportunist politicians under the broad brush of UNIONISTS, corrupted its political vision.
Bengalis, having been at the centre of the idea abandoned it.
Most, the establishment with the support of military formed an overbearing and interventionist tradition of extra constitutionalism.

But there are trends that unite the people.

Constitution of 1973; to which even the ANP et al are original signatories. They have sworn by it repeatedly.

Elections of 2008 in which the people voted against the military and the backwash of unionists.

The combined struggle of the winning parties for restoration of constitutionalism and Judiciary.

Having sprouted from different roots and ideologies we are all Pakistanis.

Shake Hands and Cheerios

majumdar Bhai
I told you he will disappear. He will be back when he sees many posts here and will ignore my challenge. and start his abuse again like nothing has happened.
Hamdani says I have so much hatred in my heart. He is mistaken I have a great profession a great job a very loving family. I don’t burn myself in thinking about dead people and hating them. Haha. that I have left to him. Mr Hamdani this is how it goes. What you have in yourself you see in others. I neither hate anyone nor have I time for that.
There are some people who think when you disrespect others you will get respect for that, since no one will be respectful there. This is a wrong approach and it never works.
My advice to Hamdani is: write good about Mr Jinnah, Mr Bhutto, People’s Party, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed and anyone he likes. So people would know about their good things. That’s how they will respect them. But if he abuses their opponents that wont bring “them� admiration, because he is already biased nobody believes him and it goes otherwise. So stop hating the Khan family. I always see you writing against them. The whole world knows them very well you are just proving yourself foolish. Everyone who I talked to told me not to take you seriously.
People can be friends staying in different political parties keeping their own point of view about certain things. I had friendship with Jamaati students, PSF, APMSO, and people from all other parties in my University in Karachi. It doesn’t mean that I was helping Jamaat-s-islami or MQM in any ways.
In “Pashtunwalli� you have to have the highest regard for others even if he is your enemy. So Ghaffar Khan’s relation with fakir of Ipi was not only the for pashtunwalli but also fakir was a freedom fighter and was a hero a well respect person among the Pashtuns. I showed you how the Brits praised him on his death. Calling him a brave, principled enemy. When you don’t know the culture you will always be mistaken (not in case of hamdani he is deliberately doing it) If Ghaffar Khan’s khuda-e-Khidmatgars (Red Shirts) were involved in fakir’s violent struggle then you could have argued about it. Otherwise it’s quite acceptable. Later Ghaffar Khan was nominated for Noble Peace Prize also.
HAMDANI JUST WANTS TO SCORE POINTS, CHECK HIS LIES, HE CANNOT PROVE A SINGLE POINT OF THEM
The more I think about it... ANP is a fascist party not a democratic party, and despite claims of non-violence, Asfandyar Wali Khan, just like Bacha Khan and Wali Khan before him. Tell us who killed Hayat Sherpao of the PPP? Was it not done at the orders of ANP in the life times of both Bacha Khan and Wali Khan?
again
So here is the question: what about non-violent Bacha Khan's involvement in calling the hit on NWFP's greatest secular liberal left leader Hayat Sherpao - who was assassinated on the orders of either Bacha Khan or Wali Khan?
MUJAMDAR BHAI’S REPLY
There is no evidence that ANP ordered his assassination. It is just a rumour that is all. I said as much to Yasser mian and I think he admitted it too.
---------------------------------
Ghaffar Khan is different from Wali Khan. Dr Khan sahb is a different personality. ANP is different from NAP. You cannot just bring them in one sentence or stereotype them.
I gave a book name and the page number where it is stated that Pir of Manki (supporter of Jinnah, whom Jinnah promised Shariyya law for Muslims in Pakistan ) formed a jihadist organization. What else do you want? Just go read the book and then hit your head to the nearest wall, for being such a disgrace on this earth. haha
AGAIN, BEFORE YOU WRITE ANYTHING ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE OR ACCEPT DEFEAT. I CAN RELAX MY TERMS FOR YOU WITH LESS PUNISHMENT. HAHA

Zulfiqar Bhutto was the one who assisinated Hayat Sherpao, everyone in Pukhtunkhua knows it. It deosn't help Late Bhutto's case that a day before the assasination Bhutto said that something terrible was going to happen, he just have a "feeling" :)

I admire Bhutto for many reasons but lets not forget his totalitarian approach.
Jungraiz Pukhtunyar

Salman bhai,

(Hayat Shaerpao assassination. Which already been proved that ANP was not involved.)

It is a point well-taken. There is no evidence that ANP ordered his assassination. It is just a rumour that is all. I said as much to Yasser mian and I think he admitted it too.

(PPP history is full of violence and assassination )

This again is factually correct as I pointed out to YLH. PPP has a terrible amount of blood on its hands.

Incidentally I am a big admirer of NS and PML-N and one of the reasons is that he has never commited mayhem on the same scale as PPP and the Bhuttos.

(he belongs to a Ahmedi religion so his negative views about Deobandi branch cant be accepted as neutral.)

Here I cannot agree with you. He has criticised Deoband for its regressive ideology not becuase he is personally an Ahmedi. His writings on the subject are in public domain. As a matter of fact he has never been a blind believer in Ahmediism either.

(HIS FAVORITE AUTHOR STANLEY WOLPERT HAS ALSO BLAMED MUSLIMS FOR STARTING THAT VIOLENCE. )

Can you quote the extracts. Thanks in advance.

Regards

Hamdani
please when you send me e-mails write something in subject cuz I cant open em. there is nothing to click on.
S

I wish Hamdani could accept my challenge instead he is fooling around and trying to provoke me about Hayat Shaerpao assassination. Which already been proved that ANP was not involved. Some say Bhuuto assassinated him to create a martyr for his party to get sympathy votes and also blame his opponents for that. PPP history is full of violence and assassination of opponents. Bhutto attempted to assassinate Wali Khan: his political opponent 2 – 3 times and finally arrested him for conspiracy and thrown him and other opposition leaders into jail to hang them all. Bhutto was the guy who pushed for Operation Gibraltar which started 1965 war and also he was the political arm of the establishment which broke the country into two in 1971. Now the PPP activist tells us that someone else is involved in killings and breaking the country to hide his party’s crimes and fascism.

My point that he is not a neutral in both cases is a fact he belongs to a party which was the opponent of NAP and he belongs to a Ahmedi religion ( I am not sure about him but his father is) so his negative views about Deobandi branch cant be accepted as neutral. If I take a Congress activist who writes against Muslim league. He will be considered biased. The same way Muslim Leagui supported is considered biased when he writes “Negative� about Congress. That’s the rule. Regarding my views about Jinnah. I have nothing against him. And I am not out here writing ARTICLES (I have not written article against Jinnah or Bhutto anywhere) about Jinnah or Muslim League or even PPP or Bhutto. I am here only to defend Ghaffar Khan. And showing the mirror to Hamdani. Again I repeat that Ghaffar Khan Wali Khan Dr Khan Sahb are different personalities and had different political views different life styles different parties. Ghaffar Khan was not part of NAP or ANP.
One historical fact is that Wali Khan’s party NAP divided because Wali Khan Supported Jinnah’s sister Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah against the dictator General Ayub Khan in presidential elections. Where as Bhutto was part of the cabinet of Ayub Khan which also included American CIA agent Muhammed Shoab,

I don’t want go into these details now and my point that Muslim league was involved and started Violence against other Indians is a well known fact. here I am telling him that HIS FAVORITE AUTHOR STANLEY WOLPERT HAS ALSO BLAMED MUSLIMS FOR STARTING THAT VIOLENCE. Which he cannot believe.
His point that more Muslims were killed than Hindus is a fact but MuslimsLeague started it and caused the retaliation in which more Muslims died . So I gave him a challenge that I will prove that in front of all you. he so scared that he disappears when I challenge him and comes back when he sees other people have posted something so he can come and make his false accusations again.
HAMDANI ACCEPT CHALLENGE OR ACCEPT DEFEAT. Don’t say other things and respond to my challenge.

Manto,

What would be your reaction if Salman or VRV manage to provide evidence that incriminates Jinnah? What's your criteria for acceptable evidence?


P.S Tomorrow is a holiday...Any plan to distribute sweets?

About Suhrawardy, I suggest people read up on his life instead of relying on one-sided propaganda.

Mr. Suhrawardy was a remarkable man in many ways. He was also Pakistan's foremost activist for joint electorates and secular democracy in the 1950s. Infact barring Jinnah and Nehru, he was probably the most liberal and secular politician in all of South Asia.

He is also the founder of the "Awami League" and thus one of the founding fathers of Bangladesh.

Re: # 524

For me discussing things with Salman has opened up my eyes to how deeply hate-filled these ANP wallahs really are. I was under the impression that they are all good secular fellows like Adam Khan etc who are not hateful.

And so much for their non-violence and secularism. In the very first post the ANP activist posted here, he abused me for using "Hindu" authors. Then he attacked Ismailis and Qadianis.

Today being a slow day I spent much of today reading about Hayat Khan Sherpao. He was truly a great man. What a waste.

Now I see why you call these fellows traitors.

Re: # 528

Majumdar,

MKG stayed at Suhrawardy's insistence.....

Do you find the difference in a cop staying with a prisoner? Just because a cop enters the prison doesn't make him a prisoner...

P.S. Maju Anna, for gods sake Vengat isn't a spelling mistake. Now stop typing Venkat...Vengat is the right one and has meaning...

If they had practiced, MKG would have chronicled :D

Re: # 526

Ofcourse I am only speaking for Jinnah.

Also I did not say Hindus killed Hindus. If you look at Direct Action Day body count, you will see that Muslims were on the receiving end.

Majumdar to VRV,

"But none of your posts seem to indict MAJ (pbuh) personally, there is no evidence that he incited violence or that he encouraged a bloodbath against anyone."

Exactly. Jinnah was- as I have always said- the most consistently and constitutionally Non-violent politician in South Asia. Unfortunately many Indians and their Bachaite toadies have a problem accepting this fact of history.

Venkat,

(Gandhi established his stand by staying with Suhrawardy in the same room.)

And Suhrawardy established his stand by staying with MKG in the same room. So what's the point?

Regards

PS: I hope they didnt practise any brahmacharya together!!!

VRV sahib,

Re: 499/500/501/503/504/505/507/509/510/512/514/515

Thanks. That was quite informative. You may be quite right that the Bengal govt failed in its duty and that Suhrawardy was a worthless communalist. As a matter of fact most ML fellows apart from the J-man were useless toadies and self-seekers.

But none of your posts seem to indict MAJ (pbuh) personally, there is no evidence that he incited violence or that he encouraged a bloodbath against anyone.

Regards

Re: # 523

"So then by that logic the absolute genocide of Muslims in gurdaspur was directly Gandhi's doing right."

Gandhi established his stand by staying with Suhrawardy in the same room. No INA Gandhian guy would have dared to think otherwise.

Now, you trying to absolve Jinnah is perfectly plausible, but can you absolve all the MLs?

Nobody here says that Muslims killed Muslims rather Muslims killed Hindus and vice-versa...You almost said that Hindus killed Hindus...

Dear Salman,

I still await your answers and evidence to the questions asked.

#466 Posted by MantoLives Re: # 454

So are you saying that ANP activists were blowing up national leaders like Hayat Sherpao during the lifetime of Bacha Khan and Wali Khan?

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.

What does that say about their non-violent credentials?

Manto Bhai, NAP (ANP) is/was the MQM of NWFP. Same thing. Ditto. Non-violent? My foot! Need I say more?

So then by that logic the absolute genocide of Muslims in gurdaspur was directly Gandhi's doing right.

Please don't muddle the discussion here like VRV has simply because he could not produce what Majumdar asked for.

Re: # 521

Why would the congress Muslims kill Hindus or vice-versa?

Re: # 519

So in other words nationalist Muslims of the Congress would also be Muslim leaguers.

Dear VRV,

I have already shown how you've lied and have distorted the sources. Now in the future kindly put quotes in "".

I am glad you've admitted that you had no answer to Majumdar's query.

Manto writes:

"1. Muslim League claimed to be the representative party of the Muslims because it won the elections. Now if a Muslim A, B or C does something somewhere, how is that the Muslim League.. several Muslims tried to assassinate Jinnah... were they Muslim Leaguers too?"

Now thats technically an impregnable argument ;). If thats the case, can we argue that Muslims killed Muslims and Hindus? I mean if the entire violence were not the manifestations of ML's and INA's agendas, atleast that is what we have on books, can we attribute agendas that fall into the domain of unknown unknowns or known unknowns.

It is common knowledge that polarization happened on the lines of the two parties' stand. That is the most perceptible reason.

Yasserbhai,

Stew in ur own juices. I'd come back tmrw. I have a life to live and job to do.

In the meanwhile keep propping up ur article and provoke more posts and be called a successful writer.

Good luck.

Salman,

If Yasser ever tries to be in politics, pl see that this guy is opposed as he never want peace with India but perpetual war.

By the way, most of what is quoted below is VRV's own words and fails verification of sources.

I think I can rest my case given VRV's sudden attack of hysteria where he has now ceased to make any sense whatsoever.

Keep up the good work VRV. I want 600 posts by the time I come back.

FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN HISTORY OF DIRECT ACTION DAY:

Sir Francis Tuker on Direct Action Day (relevant portions are culled for the sake of brevity): Mr. Tuker is in-charge of the army of Eastern command.



------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------



Direct Action Day speech by Suhrawardy:

.........Direct Action Day would prove to be the first step towards the Muslim struggle for emancipation..............


Sir Francis Tuker :

Our intelligence patrols noticed that the crowd included a large number of Muslim goondas, and that these slipped away from the meeting from time to time, their ranks being swelled as soon as the meeting ended. They made for the shopping centres of the town where they at once set to work to loot and burn Hindu shops and houses.



------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------

VRV,

1. I am afraid Tuker didn't say who started it. He also said that the Hindus and Sikhs were armed with guns and swords and were riding on buses. Who brought Sikhs into Calcutta and gave them arms? Was it the ML?

2. I am asking you to quote Suhrawardy's book. Why don't you? This is not the first time you've made this claim and run away. What is it with you apologists for Congress and making up lies?

3. I have already explained that your comment that Muslim League would create disorder where they were in government does not make sense.

4. This pokes a big hole in your lies against the Muslim League.

``Last weekend has seen dreadful riots in Calcutta. The estimates of casualties is 3000 dead and 17000 injured. The Bengal Congress are convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League Ministry, but no satisfactory evidence to that effect has reached me yet. It is said that the decision to have a public holiday on 16th August was the cause of trouble, but I think this is very far-fetched. There was a public holiday in Sind and there was no trouble there. At any rate, whatever the causes of the outbreak, when it started, the Hindus and Sikhs were every bit as fierce as Muslims. The present estimate is that appreciably more Muslims were killed than the Hindus``

And this H V Hodson - someone who was there in India at the time:

``The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen.``

(Page 166 `The Great Divide`)

In the meanwhile I quote these portions from Freedom at Midnight by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre. Both Collins and Lapierre are Hindus (wink) and Congressmen (double wink).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----



Page 33:

At the dawn on 16 August, howling in a quasi-religious fervour, Moslem mobs had come bursting from their slums, waving clubs, shovels, any instrument capable of SMASHING IN A HUMAN SKULL. They came in answer to a call issued by the Moslem League, proclaiming 16 August `Direct Action Day`, to prove Britain and Congress Party that India`s Moslems were prepared `to get Pakistan for themselves by ``Direct Action`` if necessary`.

They savagely beat to a sodden pulp any Hindus in their path and stuffed their remains in the city`s open gutters. The terrified police simply disappeared. Soon tall pillars of black smoke stretched up from a score of spots in the city, Hindu bazars in full blaze.


Page 34:

The threat that Muslims had been uttering for years, their warnings of cataclysm which would overtake India if they were denied their own state, took on a terrifying reality.

(MANTO, THE AUTHORS ARE WRITING ABT PEOPLE LIKE YOU!)

History, beyond that written by his own people, would NEVER ACCORD MOHAMMED ALI JINNAH THE HIGH PLACE HIS ACHIEVEMENTS MERITED.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

Harish wrote:

#506 Posted by harish_hyd on September 18, 2006 11:36:05 pm
#500 by Mantolives

Collins and Lapierre`s book was entirely based on Mountbatten`s views...

Prove it. Just because you say it doesn`t mean it is true. And we all know your track record.

Jinnah of Pakistan is by Stanley Wolpert- an American, .....

Wolpert in his book Gandhi`s Passion says it was Muslim mobs that started the cycle of violence in Calcutta on August 16th.

I`ve found no evidence of muslim league involvement in calcutta killings and appreciably larger number of Muslims died than Hindus

So how is the fact that more Muslims died evidence of the ML`s innocence?

Tomes have been written about how the ML`s provocative language and Jinnah`s aggressive overtures could lead to violence. Almost every newspaper foresaw what was going to happen. Suhrawardy, Jinnah`s blue-eyed boy, declared a holiday to the Police despite the tense atmosphere on August 16 and Jinnah did squat about that. The man himself was sleeping on the floors and didn`t speak a word to his constituency about stopping the violence until after 5 days when the violence had died down.

And yet Yasser thinks Jinnah was innocent...sure...

I just read your "Excerpts from Suhrawardy's book" and they don't even come close to your claim.

So what is your point? Do you think by inundating people with cut and pastes of your own posts you will be able to hide the facts?

The fact is that you'e completely failed to produce the evidence that was asked.

Sir Francis Tuker :

Our intelligence patrols noticed that the crowd included a large number of Muslim goondas, and that these slipped away from the meeting from time to time, their ranks being swelled as soon as the meeting ended. They made for the shopping centres of the town where they at once set to work to loot and burn Hindu shops and houses.

I wud also like to repeat the Memoirs of Suhrawardy:

MEMOIRS OF SUHRAWARDY
University Press Ltd ,Bangladesh

Pl hear this from Horse mouth:

Background to DAD:

At this time, betraying the Muslim cause, the Viceroy called upon Pandit Nehru to form an interim government which he did, but the Muslim League refused to participate in it Jinnah even cancelled his talks with Lord Wavell, the Viceroy, and proclaimed 16 August as Direct Action Day.

On Why DAD was active in Calcutta not elsewhere:

The one-member majority Muslim League government in Sind, formed after the assassination of the Congress Chief minister Allahbux, was also asked, but, because it was a shaky government, its Muslim League members could not be trusted. So, all the risks of the Direct Action Day fell on the Bengal government On that day Muslims were expected to gather in large numbers to proclaim their adherence to the concept of Pakistan Shaheed Suhrawardy declared a holiday for that day in Calcutta

Suhrawardy`s explanation to Wavell on bloodshed:

The Viceroy wanted to know from Prime Minister Suhrawardy how he could be held responsible for the riot. Suhrawardy explained that the riot was a consequence of the formation of the interim government without Muslim League representation.......

Replication of DAD in other states? Read this.....

He further warned that what had happened in Calcutta would repeat itself all over India unless the British government changed its policy.



------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------


It`s very clear from the two key people in Bengal, it was Muslim League that started the cycle of communal holocaust. Unlike u, I cant poohpooh ur data of who died more, coz I need to check them. If u take the 2-3 months of Bengal violence and give them as DAD violence then u go back and forth to the politics of Muslim League. They stand as the main accused in all the communal violence in United India. If u go back further to the violence of all invader kings then it was the natives who died more than Muslims.

Lets limit our details 16th August i.e Direct Action Day, then u stand accused of lying again!! Lying btw, is ur second nature, no doubt.

It`s more than clear that u want to invent history and wipe-off the sins of Muslim League! Supporters of violence wud perish one day. Pl rememebr the story of Jewish story? A person ignored the violence since it was not his town, street. By the time his turn came, there`s nobody left to speak for him.

Suhrawardy himself didnt say that COngress planned it but mantolives tels the world that Congress planned violence. Lol!

SUHRAWARDY THREATED TO REPLICATE CALCUTTA EVERYWHERE IN INDIA IF PAKISTAN IS NOT GIVEN.


Background to DAD:

At this time, betraying the Muslim cause, the Viceroy called upon Pandit Nehru to form an interim government which he did, but the Muslim League refused to participate in it Jinnah even cancelled his talks with Lord Wavell, the Viceroy, and proclaimed 16 August as Direct Action Day.

On Why DAD was active in Calcutta not elsewhere:

The one-member majority Muslim League government in Sind, formed after the assassination of the Congress Chief minister Allahbux, was also asked, but, because it was a shaky government, its Muslim League members could not be trusted. So, all the risks of the Direct Action Day fell on the Bengal government On that day Muslims were expected to gather in large numbers to proclaim their adherence to the concept of Pakistan Shaheed Suhrawardy declared a holiday for that day in Calcutta

Suhrawardy`s explanation to Wavell on bloodshed:

The Viceroy wanted to know from Prime Minister Suhrawardy how he could be held responsible for the riot. Suhrawardy explained that the riot was a consequence of the formation of the interim government without Muslim League representation.......

Replication of DAD in other states? Read this.....

He further warned that what had happened in Calcutta would repeat itself all over India unless the British government changed its policy.

Re: # 505

Dear VRV...

Looks like you`ve completely lost your mind.

1. Muslim League claimed to be the representative party of the Muslims because it won the elections. Now if a Muslim A, B or C does something somewhere, how is that the Muslim League.. several Muslims tried to assassinate Jinnah... were they Muslim Leaguers too?


2. I blame the person who taught you the English language. You clearly have no idea about metaphors... in the same speech, Jinnah called Congress` civil disobedience a gun ... what does that mean? If it was violence, why - according to you - was Jinnah then taking all the blame on the 17th? Direct Action Day was supposed to be day of peaceful protest which it was everywhere except Calcutta where, the Congress planned all the murders.

3.

a. Blitz was a Congress Mouthpiece ... Penderel Moon says so very clearly. Forgive me for believing him rather than you.

b. Should we quote what Wavell thought of Gandhi and Nehru. As for Azad being more of a Muslim than Jinnah... we all know that Azad was more ``Muslim-looking`` but he had discredited himself with the Muslims by walking into Gandhi trap on the Khilafat movement issue... it is not about who was more Muslim but who was more of a man of integrity and had the confidence of his people. Besides, dress looks and rituals don`t make a Muslim. Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain also had an Azad-like Muslim cleric in their court... look what happened there.

c. Clearly you are not very good at the English language. The reference to ``Congress newspaper`` in this particular post was to the Congress mouthpiece Blitz. However the Statesman was not a British newspaper... but had it been, it would just show how far the British would go to support their lackeys the Congress Party.


By the way you`ve been arguing and screaming at the top of your voice... but to date you still haven`t been able to produce a single statement or factual piece of information that blames the Muslim League. Opinions and editorials from newspapers are merely based on conjecture and surmises and don`t hold up in court my dear friend.

Please also tell me exactly which part of the following is ``cooked up``?


``Last weekend has seen dreadful riots in Calcutta. The estimates of casualties is 3000 dead and 17000 injured. The Bengal Congress are convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League Ministry, but no satisfactory evidence to that effect has reached me yet. It is said that the decision to have a public holiday on 16th August was the cause of trouble, but I think this is very far-fetched. There was a public holiday in Sind and there was no trouble there. At any rate, whatever the causes of the outbreak, when it started, the Hindus and Sikhs were every bit as fierce as Muslims. The present estimate is that appreciably more Muslims were killed than the Hindus``


... as for the Gujurat comparison ... it is a valid one... In Gujurat Hindus used perceived outrage, to go on a rampage against Muslims killing murdering plundering them and their families... In Calcutta, Hindus used the pretext of a civil disobedience campaign to unleash hell on Muslims.... In both cases appreciably more Muslims died than Hindus... And like Modi, Patel gloated in Calcutta on this great Hindu victory... and Gandhi made a few noises like Advani.

One more:

Azad told Wavel:

Suhrawardy organised the hooligans of Calcutta`s underworld his supporters & the declaration of holiday made them believe that they had the licence of the government to act as they liked.

(Azad was worried more abt the safety of Muslims in Up and Bihar, where they are in minority).

Burroughs in his report to Wavell gave his info:

A large number of the processionists are reported to have been armed with iron bars and lathis (page 296, ToP, Vol XIII).

The Times dated 17th Aug 1946.

Looting and Stabbing:

Calcutta was in the hands of hooligans as Muslims observed Direct Action Day. From early morning Muslim mobs scoured the city, beating up Hindu shop keepers, looting and burning shops and assaulting unoffensive pedestrians.

.........

Direct Action Day called by the Muslim League in protest against the British plan for India, had been declared a holiday in Bengal and other provinces with Muslim League governments.

Crowds tonight raided the Calcutta offices of the Bengal Provincial Congress party and premises of two Congress newspapers Hindustan Standard and Anand Bazar Patrika. Demonstrators set on fire to the house of DR. B.C. Roy, a Congress party leader, who is not in the city.

++++++++

Mr. Manto, the Times reporter apart from Burroughs must be a Hindus or Congressmen (mischievous wink)?

I have loads of info and I wud give that as we go. In fact I cud retype the whole passage on DAD from the book of the memoirs of Suhrawardy in a couple of days.

May be the language give u the suspicion abt the authenticity BUT Suhrawardy confessed/narrated his version and this was given in the book (edited by Mohammed Talukdar) pages 23 & 24 of the Memoirs of Shaheed Suhrawardy.

My friend:

Nothing you've quoted is a speech or statement from Jinnah

Majumdar clearly asked for those.

Now you are repeatin posts I already debunked.

Exceprts from Suhrwardy's biography written by his son (sic) with inputs from the papers of Suhrawrdy himself.

I reproduce the first para of the book, page 23:

�AT this time, betraying the Muslim cause, the Viceroy called upon Pandit Nehru to form an interim government which he did, but the Muslim League refused to participate in it. Jinnah even cancelled his talks with Lord Wavell, the Viceroy, and proclaimed 16 August as Direct Action Day. The one-member majority Muslim League government in Sind, formed after the assasination of the Congress Chief (Is it Chief or Prime?? I need to check again) Minister Allahbux, was also asked , but because it was a shaky government, its Muslim League members could not be trusted. So all the risks of DAD fell on the Bengal Government. On that day Muslims were expected to gather in large numbers to proclaim their adherence to the concept of Pakistan. Shaheed Suhrawardy declared a holiday for that day in Calcutta.

���..

���..�

THERE IS ONE AND HALF PAGE MATERIAL ON THIS DAD, WHICH I LEAVE IT TO U TO READ FROM WHICH EVER SOURCE U GET, IF U CANT GET THE BOOK FOR URSELF.

Now I question:

1.If the DAD is a peaceful event, then why Suhrawardy tells that: Since ML members of Sind cant be trusted, the job of the �Plan� fell on Bengal. What�s the JOB?

2. Why only Bengal and Sind declared holiday and NI Act?





II.

Suhrawardy like Modi had helped the rioters in all possible ways. He even visited the Police Control Room (like Modi�s minister did) and spent his time there with ML supporters. Commissioner of Police even said this that it�s odd for a Minister to spend time in Police Control Room and engage in the work of police.

Wavell to Pethick Lawrence: (Page 313, 314)

There may however be a good deal of criticism of the police�..mainly owing to ministerial interference�..too much LATITUDE seems to have been allowed TO RIOTERS & LOOTERS on the first day��

Horace Alexander to Pethick Lawrence. Page 287,288)

�..But I MUST record that I have not heard of any instances of effective intervention from the police during whole of Friday and Saturday. I have heard of several stories of police looking on or refusing to intervene.

Burroughs to Wavell: (page 297)

Suhrawardy made a Laodicean speech, of which the audience naturally remembered the hot passages more clearly than the cold.

�.


But the Central Intelligence officer and a reliable reporter deputed by the military authorities agree on the one most mischievous statement.

�He had seen to police & military arrangements who would not interfere�.

ToP Volume IX, page 13:

Wavell�s Notes on his interview with Suhrawardy

Looking as much as a gangster as ever�..

Aur ek:

Page 302.

��..this is a very small number of fatalities as the great majority were left lying in the streets & wrecked houses. NO APPROPRIATE FIGURE OF THE DEAD CAN YET TO BE GIVEN. It may nearly 2000 at the least (this is what the newspaper Statesman estimated) and may be substantially more.�

There were many newspaper reports of the corpses being thrown into Hoogly river, gutters and manholes. So any report of such and such number of people (either Muslims or Hindus) died is more of a conjecture than a fact.

Burroughs: (page 303)

�..at the outset, I had always to consider the susceptibilities of my (Bengal) Ministry. The dual personality of Suhrawardy (as minister in charge of Home Portfolio) and the most influential member of the Muslim League in Bengal was a constant embarrassment.�

One more:

Transfer of Power Vol VIII, page 229, dated: 13.08.1946.

Wavell to Pethick Lawrence:

``Just before the Governors` Conference Mudie (Governor of Sind) had trouble with two of his ministers who made violent speeches including practically a THREAT to have ``Quisling`` Muslims MURDERED and to START A JEHAD.
......

In any other country they would have been dismissed and arrested. Here we have to content ourselves with a promise that they will not do it again - till the next time.``

Manto, Muslim League ministers are calling for the murder of Dr. Zakir Husain and Azad

++

The newspaper reports and the reports of military and civic administration clearly mention that no authoritative count of the dead is available. It`s more of estimation. If the government headed by Suhrawardy cooked up such figures as to misinform then I need to rely on the data of the British military and independent newspaper reports. Therefore ur contention that more Muslims died wud remain a propaganda tactic of the Muslim League.

Here, I give the Surgeon General Report on the casualties handled in Calcutta.

Between 16th -20th August:

Total admissions (alive) ���. 2931
Subsequent deaths �������.. 168
Discharged ����������.. 569
Remaining under treatment ���. 2194
Brought-in dead ��������.. 276.

(NOWHERE DID ANYBODY MENTION THE RELIGION, NOR THE DOCTORS ARE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THE RELIGION as they are bound by the Hippocratic oath).

Dear VRV,

Please note that none of those contain the speeches that Majumdar asked for.

As you've cut and paste your own post, please recall that I debunked it earlier- let me quote it again:

Dear VRV,

Your comments are pathetic and as usual without basis.

For point No. 1

Let me remind you that the discussion here is about Calcutta killings and not any Id flareup. Could you tell me how you are going to relate the two? All Muslims don`t equal Muslim League.


For point No. 2

That is Wavell`s estimate of Suhrawardy yes. But where does he say that he was responsible for Calcutta killings. He doesn`t and you are wrong again.


For point No. 3

I fail to see the relevance. How is this quote - whatever it is supposed to mean- relevant to Calcutta Killings.

Now only an utter idiot would assume that Wavell`s statement that there was a flareup or an incident where Muslims were involved equals to somehow his blaming the Muslim League. Please show me where in the said quote does he mention Muslim League, League or Muslim Leaguer? He doesn`t nor does he think Muslim Leaguers start trouble... he infact blames Congressmen of being dishonest and without any integrity again and again.

About WAVELL The only conclusive thing we have is:

1. Wavell said he had no evidence of League`s involvement in Calcutta Killings.

2. Wavell said appreciably more Muslims died than Hindus.

3. Wavell said Congress` claim was far fetched.

``Last weekend has seen dreadful riots in Calcutta. The estimates of casualties is 3000 dead and 17000 injured. The Bengal Congress are convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League Ministry, but no satisfactory evidence to that effect has reached me yet. It is said that the decision to have a public holiday on 16th August was the cause of trouble, but I think this is very far-fetched. There was a public holiday in Sind and there was no trouble there. At any rate, whatever the causes of the outbreak, when it started, the Hindus and Sikhs were every bit as fierce as Muslims. The present estimate is that appreciably more Muslims were killed than the Hindus``


As for Statesman... if you had seen I had quoted the editorial of Blitz, the Congress Mouthpiece... which holds a diametrically opposite view:


Meanwhile the Congress Mouthpiece ``Blitz`` wrote this about the direct action day:

The worst enemies of the Muslim League cannot help envying the leadership of Mr Jinnah. Last week`s cataclysmic transformation of the League from the reactionary racket of the Muslim Nawabs, Noons, and Knights into a revolutionary mass organisation dedicated, by word if not be deed, to an anti-Imperialist struggle, compels us to express the sneaking national wish that a diplomat and strategist of Jinnah`s proven calibre were at the held of the Indian National Congress. There is no denying the fact that by his latest master-stroke of diplomacy Jinnah has outbid, outwitted and outmaneuvered the British and Congress alike and confounded the common national indictment that the Muslim League is a parasite of British Imperialism

Now why would a Congress Newspaper praise Jinnah if Direct Action Day was all that you are making it out to be...

The fact is that Calcutta was an exception... a well thought out plan by the Congress which sabotaged the League`s programme for temporary political gain....



You also seem to suggest that Direct Action was in of itself violent... It is funny how Indians here use the word `Direct Action` as if it means some kind of violence in of itself... Infact in the examples of `Direct Action` ... this website speaks of `Non-violent Direct Action` by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr....

http://www.free-definition.com/Direct-action.html

Direct Action simply means civil disobedience... as Dr. King put it:

``Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.``


Now consider H V Hodson`s description of the League Programme:

``The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen.``

(Page 166 `The Great Divide`)


Explaining Direct Action Jinnah made it clear that the direct Action will not be in any form but in peaceful form...


``16th August is not for the purpose of resorting to Direct Action in any form or shape, Therefore I enjoin upon the Muslims to carry our the instructions and abide by them strictly and conduct themselves peacefuly and in a disciplined manner.``

Press Release Jinnah 14th August 1946

Aur ek: as to how AIML cant think rationally.


In page 275; from the letter of Wavell to Pethick Lawrence.

``The trouble is that rank and file of the League consist very largely of unstable elements in the towns and of students and many of them ARE NOW INCAPABLE OF RATIONAL THOUGHT ON POLITICAL MATTERS.``

++++

Here, I quote what the Star of India published on 13.08.1946 (emphasis in capitals is mine).

�I appeal to the Mussalmans of Calcutta, Howrah and Hoogly, Matiaburz and 24-Paraganas to raise to the occasion and make the rally a massive success. We are in the midst of rainy season and Ramzan fasting. BUT THIS IS THE MONTH OF REAL JEHAD OF GOD�S grace and blessings, spiritual armament and the moral and PHYSICAL PURGE OF THE NATION. IT�S A SUPREME OCCASION OF OUR TRAIL. Let�s the Muslims brave the rains and all difficulties and make the Direct Action Day a historic MASS MOBILISATION of the Millat.

MUSLIMS MUST REMEMBER THAT IT WAS IN RAMZAN THAT THE QURAN WAS REVEALED.

IT WAS IN RAMZAN THAT THE PERMISSION FOR JEHAD WAS GRANTED BY ALLAH.

IT WAS IN THE MONTH OF RAMZAN, THE BATTLE OF BADR, THE FIRST OPEN CONFLICT BETWEEN MUSLIMS AND HEATHENISM WAS FOUGHT AND WAS WON BY 313 MUSLIMS.

AGAIN IT WAS IN RAMZAN THAT 10,000 MUSLIMS UNDER THE HOLY PROPHET CONQUERED MECCA AND ESTABLISHED THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF ISLAM IN ARABIA.

THE MUSLIM LEAGUE IS FORTUNATE THAT IT IS STARTING ITS ACTION IN THIS HOLY MONTH.�

Manto, call for Jehad was given (for Direct Action Day).

FROM THE PAGES OF ``WAVELL, THE JOURNAL OF VICEROY`` (edited by Penderel Moon). This contains details from the personal-cum-official diary of Viceroy Wavell himself.

Page 340.

I then had three quarters of an hour with Suhrawardy. He was polite and not at all aggressive and took in a subdued way of a homily I delivered to him on his duties as Premier of Bengal......

On the general political situation I said that I had done my utmost to secure a fair deal for the Muslims, but that I was quite unable to support Jinnah over the question of a nationalist Muslim, and that I thought a nationalist Muslims in the place of a Hindu shoud be a source of strength to Jinnah rather than otherwise.

After dinner I had another hour with the Governor.........the danger of a really big flare-up at the Id with Hindus and Muslims, WITH MUSLIMS THE AGGRESSORS*; the small number and low morale of Calcutta police, to whom he was going to give a pep talk next day.....

AND

page 348. (on his interview wiyh Suhrawardy on 08th Sept 1946)

`` I had always thought HE`S A DISHONEST AND SELF-SEEKING CAREERIST WITH NO PRINCIPLES``.

+++++++++

Sept 10, 1946.

Mrs. Sarojini Naidu dined and we had a long talk on politics and of the necessity of getting Jinnah and the Muslim League in and the DIFFICULTIES OF JINNAH`S CHARACTER. Mrs. N SPOKE OF JINNAH RATHER AS OF LUCIFER, A FALLEN ANGEL, one who had promised to be a great leader of Indian freedom.....``

* I comment on thsi: Wavell thinks that it`s always Muslim leaguers who resort to violence, otherwise why he casts them as trouble makers?????

Majumdar, This is for u:

FROM THE PAGES OF WAVELL, THE VICEROY JOURNAL Edited by Penderel Moon (OUP)
(EMPHASIS IN CAPITALS & BRACKETS ARE MINE)

+++++++++++

Page 326. ``...the Legue`s resolution would certainly increase communal tension which was already acute...`` (On ML resolution to reject CM proposals.)

Dated: 17th August, page 334.

On August 16, which the ML had decided to celebrate as Direct Action Day, and which the ML Government of Bengal UNWISELY declared as a pulic holiday, there`s an appalling outbreak of communal rioting in Calcutta that lasted several days.

August 19th. page 335.

I had half and hour meeting with Azad about Calcutta riots and the Interim Govt. He criticised the Bengal Ministry severely, and said that although they had apprehended trouble they had not taken sufficient precaution, as they had been too late in enforcing a total curfew, and the troops had not been called out soon enough.
......
......

Azad is an attractive character and really A MUCH TRUER REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MUSLIMS THAN JINNAH. He was obviously worried at the possible fate of the Muslims in such places as Cawnpore and Lucknow.

On his visit to Calcutta on August 26. page 339.

The (Police) Chief points to my mind were Suhrawardy`s continual presence in the Control room on the first day with many M. League friends and HIS OBVIOUS COMMUNAL BIAS, that the victims were entirely goondas and people of the poorest class.; that there were no attcks on the police;

........

I then saw Bucher......commented on the completely COMMUNAL ATTITUDE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER, SUHRAWARDY, when he had driven round with him on the 18th.

The came the Chief Secretary, Walker and his assistant Martin. They agreed on the COMMUNAL BIAS OF SUHRAWARDY........He (i.e Suhrawardy) thought that Calcutta might get thorugh the Id without fresh disturbances unless Jinnah declared a jehad.

.....

I had half an hour or so with the Governor.....he said that Suhrawardy had forfeited everyone`s confidence and suggested the possibility of a Coalition Ministry under Aiz ul Huque.

Yasser mian has an entry in wikipedia in his name. Dunno if any other chowkie shares the same distinction. And he is a regular feature of sorts on BBC Radio.

Regards

1.2 million... not 1.5 million lest I be called a liar for a simple mistake.

I am not "propping" up anything. You people claim something which is wrong and inaccurate. I simply respond to it with facts.

In the process yes... my board(s) are getting propped. I have close to 1.5 million hits on my writer's page (Yasser Latif Hamdani)... that makes me the most read writer on Chowk.

U can keep propping up ur board and claim urself to be a successful writer. We can see thru that.

You said nothing at all- atleast nothing that made sense or was honest.

Yasser & Majumdar,

I said nothing abt the decline (to 10%).

Majumdar,

I wonder how jayp, vrv and the like will pin that decline from 1951 to 2007 on Jinnah who died in 1948.

Manto mian,

(Pakistan in 1947 also contained Bangladesh which still has a sizeable Hindu population.)

10% today down from c. 25% in 1951.

Regards

Re: # 488

When all is said and done - I am sure even you know that I have always acted completely honestly.

No point slandering me simply because you can't produce counter arguments.

Re: # 486

Jayp is recipient of divinely revealed knowledge.

#483 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2008 2:33:44 am

Thanx u told that I am dishonest. Coming as it does from you, I consider it as a compliment.

Dada,

OK, I'll try.

Re: # 484

Has it come to this? Unable to win an argument... claim divine knowledge?

Pakistan in 1947 also contained Bangladesh which still has a sizeable Hindu population.

Harishbhai/VRV sahib,

Feeling a bit too lazy to read or google. Can you guys paste some of the inciteful speeches made by MAJ (pbuh) along with the sources. Thanks in advance.

Jayp,

(jinnah was happy, and he did or said nothing about it.)

He certainly cud do nothing about it but is there any evidence to show that he was happy about it?

(Jinnah should be doing bangara in hsi grave of his achievement. )

Punjoos do the bhangra, MAJ (pbuh) was a Mojo!!! Mojos dont do bhangra.

Regards

Re: # 480

In other words you don't have any evidence.

Re: # 427

majumdar,

the fact is that when hindus were driven out of pakistan, jinnah was happy, and he did or said nothing about it.

You have to realise that jinnah never wrote anything, he gave verbal instructions, and they were simply opportunistic and he had no ideology other than that muslims cannot live with the hindus, Hence it is unthinkable that jinnah would not have supported the ethnic cleansing of hindus in pakistan. One should not forget that in 1947 23 poercent were hindus in pakistan and today it is less than one percent.

Jinnah should be doing bangara in hsi grave of his achievement.

VRV,

"An empty heart can claim anything..."

What a remarkable confession indeed! My dear friend, I am being completely truthful. I am quite disgusted by your display of dishonesty.

As for Salman mian, he was forced to admit three of his lies earlier and recant his statements.

comes to truth...

Salman,

Let him claim victory. An empty heart can claim anything but one can feel in hearts of hearts who is truthful.

If it comes truth, I hold Badshah Khan & his party and legacy as spotless.

Yasserbhai,

'The Congress wanted to bring down Muslim League government in Bengal...'

by declaring DAD?

What AIML did and the background of DAD was very clear that who wanted to resort 'direct action' to achieve Pakistan when all 'peaceful methods' failed.

Liaqat openly said abt the violence to achieve Pakistan. Star of India said it (jihad) and the govts of AIML in Sind and Bengal helped the cause of AIML.

I dont expect Jinnah to say on All India Radio or Radio Chicago to say openly that they wanted to kill thousands and blackmail the British govt about the impending civil war in India if Pakistan is not given.

What was quoted as a reason for conceding Pakistan by the British was the civil war in India. THAT'S THE REASON WHY BRITISH AGREED TO THE CREATION OF PAKISTAN.

Who r u fooling Yasser?

BUT who' talking abt ur creation? It's only abt HOW it's created.

U r a lawyer & I expect u not to be liberal with facts. Pakistan was NOT given Independence. It's India that's given Independence. India was partitioned & Pakistan was formed. So pl dont talk abt Pakistan's Independence.

Salman mian,

Your Indian comrades have tried hard to rescue you and Bacha Khan from the facts here but we still haven't received answers for Majumdar's questions.

Please refer to his posts and feel free to respond at any time.

My friend,

You can go on lying but facts will remain facts.

The Congress wanted to bring down Muslim League government in Bengal. If you think Congress didn't arm the Hindus and the Sikhs who did? I don't know what press you are talking about but even if they did, it doesn't mean anything till you show us the evidence of violence. Anyone can claim anything but the devil is in the details and facts. So far everything you've quoted are merely one sided opinions and nothing concrete linking Jinnah to violence.

A biased "ANP activist" might accept your one-sided rendering of the facts, but a historian always has a balanced view. And lets not forget that this whole drama here has been staged because Salman could not counter the facts I put up about Bacha Khan and the ANP.

So he started abusing Jinnah, Muslim League, PPP, Ahmadis, Qadianis, Ismailis, Africans and the list goes on.

Tukar wrote as to who started it and mentioned of iron rods carried openly by AIML cadre..

a week b4 the actual DAD (news & editorials)

Harish,

British press wrote editorials against the planned DAD, and hold on, they called it a plan to violence by AIML.


'Remember even the "armed" Muslims were armed with sticks, where as Hindus and Sikhs were armed with guns and were brought in from outside of Calcutta. So clearly this entire thing was well planned... '

by Congress to achieve Pakistan????????????????? & Suhrawardy declared it as public holiday under NI Act & he released anti-social elements from jails to help Congress to achieve Pakistan???????

Yaar Yasser, have a break, bhai.

Re: # 473

I agree that restating old positions is futile and meaningless.

But just as a response to the scenario you've painted.. perhaps there was just too much hype that had been created when Muslim League's movement was itself completely peaceful.

Remember even the "armed" Muslims were armed with sticks, where as Hindus and Sikhs were armed with guns and were brought in from outside of Calcutta. So clearly this entire thing was well planned...

Yasser, it is futile to argue further because we're only restating our old positions and not adding anything new.

One last point: even if the Congress funded Hindus and Sikhs (even though there's no evidence to prove it) as you say, it would be understandable because they had to defend themselves against the ML's murderous intentions. What those intentions were were clear to even ordinary newspapers which reported that the ML was planning a violent campaign against Hindus and Sikhs. Please read what the newspapers had to say about it at the following link.

http://voi.org/books/mla/ch2.htm

And Hayat Khan Sherpao was a much greater human being, gentleman and a democrat than Bacha Khan and all his family combined multiplied 10 times over.

"If somebody from ANP did some wrong then it's not becoz ANP resolved to kill him or authorised it."

Wah... great logic. Except that the same courtesy is not extended to others can it?

But as a matter of fact, if true the order for hit came Asfandyar Wali or Wali Khan himself.

Re: # 468

If you don't know about "Hayat" dude, then you are clearly not well versed with the politics of the frontier. ANP has been involved in a fair share of violence both in NWFP and Karachi (much more substantially than your claims against the League in Calcutta)

In any event your ANP friend Salman - the apologist for Bacha Khan and the Deobandi fundamentalists- has declared that all Ismailis and Ahmads are Non-muslims and are not allowed to comment on anything.


To use Salman's logic, we can't believe you because you are an Indian and hate Pakistanis.

VRV,

1. I am afraid Tuker didn't say who started it. He also said that the Hindus and Sikhs were armed with guns and swords and were riding on buses. Who brought Sikhs into Calcutta and gave them arms? Was it the ML?

2. I am asking you to quote Suhrawardy's book. Why don't you? This is not the first time you've made this claim and run away. What is it with you apologists for Congress and making up lies?

3. I have already explained that your comment that Muslim League would create disorder where they were in government does not make sense.

4. This pokes a big hole in your lies against the Muslim League.

``Last weekend has seen dreadful riots in Calcutta. The estimates of casualties is 3000 dead and 17000 injured. The Bengal Congress are convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League Ministry, but no satisfactory evidence to that effect has reached me yet. It is said that the decision to have a public holiday on 16th August was the cause of trouble, but I think this is very far-fetched. There was a public holiday in Sind and there was no trouble there. At any rate, whatever the causes of the outbreak, when it started, the Hindus and Sikhs were every bit as fierce as Muslims. The present estimate is that appreciably more Muslims were killed than the Hindus``

And this H V Hodson - someone who was there in India at the time:

``The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen.``

(Page 166 `The Great Divide`)

#464 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2008 1:29:12 am

India won freedom becoz of Hitler?

Yeah u can also link that it's ONLY becoz Hitler mom and dad had sex that India won freedom. That'd be more appropriate.


465. Again giving isolated quotes. How Jinnah ill-tretaed Badshah was all documented.

#466 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2008 1:34:25 am

I dont know abt this Hayat dude but ANP gives life than take somebody's. If somebody from ANP did some wrong then it's not becoz ANP resolved to kill him or authorised it.

#461 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2008 1:18:54 am

1. What Wali Khan wrote cud be a summary of deaths of DAD and Bihar riots. Bihar riots were a response to DAD by AIML. Now, I dont approve of any violence i.e DAD or Bihar riots.

'Now where are those quotes from Suhrawardy's book because that book claims that Congress planned the murders and violence. '

A WHITE LIE.

2. As for the quote from Tukar's book, he said it's the AIML who STARTED it.

He also said that Suhrawardy relased goonds from jails a few days b4 DAD. Thse goods were jailed under National Security cases i.e they were dreaded ppl. Suhrawardy relied on these goondas and the British officails were baffled at such release. These goondas formed part of the anti-social groups and AIML that created/STARTED the mayhem.

To say that Congres 'planned DAD violence' is like saying that someone is born from the rearend. Is that possible (coz Congress didnt want Pakistan).

Jinnah wanted Pakistan and gave calls for it. AIML did violence in the places where their govts were in power ie Sind and Bengal.


(ppl those who are interested can go back to the old pages of Chowk debate on DAD btw Yasser, Harish and VRV. I dont like this chutiypa of going in circles without going to the root of it).

Re: # 454

So are you saying that ANP activists were blowing up national leaders like Hayat Sherpao during the lifetime of Bacha Khan and Wali Khan?

What does that say about their non-violent credentials?

Re: # 463

Bacha Khan was treated very well by Jinnah. Read Raj Mohan Gandhi's book on Bacha Khan. Even Bacha Khan admitted that Jinnah was very warm and kind towards him.

It was Abdul Qayyum Khan who later imprisoned Bacha Khan for colluding with the Islamist jehadi Fakir of Ipi as well as making statements in the frontier saying that Pakistani government was anti-Islam.

Could you logically explain how Gandhi and the Congress Party gave India and Pakistan freedom? And what exactly did Mr. Khan do a freedom fighter? Was he able to force British out?

The truth is that had Gandhi not come into the forefront, India would have won Canada style dominion status by 1925. The only thing Gandhi did was to provide the British an excuse to delay responsible representative rule.

The truth is that India won its freedom thanks to German Gandhi Adolf Hitler.

What Jinnah did as a member of National Assembly was diferent from what Mr. Khan did as a freedom fighter. Mr. Khan may not be the freedom fighter of Pakistan but the whole of India. If Jinnah achieved Pakistan it's ONLY becoz India got freedom from British by the efforts of Gandhi of the Congress party. British had no plans to create Pakistan in isolation.

But once reconciled to the idea of Pakistan Mr. Khan tried to compromise with Jinnah but how Jinnah treated Mr. Khan is very objectionable though he he never made a fuss abt it. Post-Pakistan they sat in jails for years.

Yasserbhai, we agree to disagree on Badshah Khan & Jinnah.

Re: # 460

Again all these are unsubstantiated lies and claims. The truth is that you don't have any evidence to back up your claims.

Francis Tuker's account speaks of armed Hindu and Sikh Gangs. Who armed them?

Sir Francis Tuker

Courtesy: While Memory Serves
(London: Cassell, 1950), pp. 137-151



From then onwards the area of military domination of the city was increased. Static guards took over from police guards and a party of troops under Major Littleboy, the Assistant Provost-Marshal, did valuable work in the rescue organisation for displaced and needy persons. Outside the `military` areas, the situation worsened hourly. Buses and taxis were charging about loaded with Sikhs and Hindus armed with swords, iron bars and firearms.


The answer is quite clear. Congress was funding and arming these gangs.