My Pakistan Diary: The Feudal

Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq and Khwaja Nazimuddin represented very different constituencies. That was apparent even during the first elections under the 1935 India Act when Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq became the first Prime Minister of United Bengal:

Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq was the voice of the farmers and the laborers of Bengal. In the 1937 elections Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq contested Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin in the elections in a constituency that was basically the latter`s zamindari. Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin was a leading zamindar, a polished politician, first cousin to the Nawab of Dhaka and an Executive Member. Fazlul Huq heading his Krishak Praja Party (the Party of sharecroppers) told the voters that ``he came from a family having no resources.`` He declared that ``by the grace of God,`` he would abolish zamindari ``within the shortest possible time,`` and that the ``peasantry of Bengal were dearest to his heart.`` Needless to day, Shere-e-Bangla of K.P.P. handily defeated Sir Khwaja Nazimuddin of the Muslim League in a constituency that more or less comprised of the the latter`s zamindari (Patuakhali in Barisal).

Khwaja Nazimuddin was left without a seat in the Bengal Legislature after his defeat to Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq. Fortunately, Suhrawardy had won from two constituencies. Suhrawardy gracefully gave up one of them so that Nazimuddin could get himself elected to the Bengal Legislature.

History has recorded how Nazimuddin paid back Suhrawardy for this favor a decade later. When Suhrawardy tried to enter Pakistan from Calcutta, he was dubbed a traitor and an Indian agent by Nazimuddin and sent back to Calcutta!

#167 by sigalph235

+++++
that kind of off the cuff remarks are a bit uncalled for, specially given the fact that Yasser has been one of the most ardent well-wishers of Bangladesh and Bengalis for years.
+++++

I had made my ``off the cuff remarks`` on the basis of what I perceived to be Mantolives` contempt for Bangladesh and Bangladeshis when he gave short shrift to my posts with condesceding comments about ``Bengali historians``, ``his prized Banglapedia`` etc. If sigalph235 feels that Mantolives` past posts have proven that Mantolives doesn`t grudge Bangladesh or Bangladeshis per se, I`ll not dispute that assessment. Perhaps Mantolives` inappropriately phrased outbursts were directed more at me personally than at Bangladesh or Bangladeshis.

+++++
..... was indeed asked to leave by the Nazimuddin ministry in Dhaka when he returned from Calcutta.
+++++

Yes. And I had quoted a DAWN article that specifically stated, ``.....Suhrawardy stayed back in Calcutta to help the riot-affected people. The irony was that when he wanted to come to Pakistan, he was dubbed as a traitor and was not allowed to enter Pakistan......``

This is just one of the facts in my posts that Mantolives found very difficult to accept. He accused me of ``concocting facts``, insultingly asked me ``Have you no shame?`` and condescendingly advised me not to get ``hung up about some op ed and some Bangladeshi professor``!!!

Suhrawardy was indeed turned back to Calcutta on the plea that he was a traitor and an Indian agent. Initially Liaqat Ali Khan pretended that he had nothing to do with the externment - on July 13, 1948 (Jinnah was still the Governor General) Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan informed Suhrawardy that the action of expulsion from East Bengal taken against him was a ``matter entirely for the Provincial Government and he (Liaquat Ali Khan) can`t interfere in their administration.``

But even this pretext was not maintained for long. Liaqat Ali Khan declared in the Constituent Assembly, ``Today in Pakistan there is no difference between the Central Government and Provincial Government. The central Government is composed of the provinces. …. We must kill this provincialism for all times.`` The Liaqat Ali Khan government had Suhrawardy`s membership to the First Constituent Assembly terminated with effect from March 2, 1949 on the plea that Suhrawardy was not a permanent resident of Pakistan!

#168 by Mantolives

+++++
My only crime here was that I contradicted Mr. Nakhok ..... instead of taking it in good spirit of argument, Nakhok launched into personal attacks.
+++++

This is not an honest claim. Mantolives found it difficult to accept that:
(1) When Suhrawardy tried to come to Pakistan from Calcutta, he was dubbed a traitor and sent back to Calcutta.
(2) The Liaqat Ali Khan government terminated Suhrawardy`s membership in the first Constituent Assembly on the plea that he was not a permanent resident of Pakistan.

Mantolives took the above facts so badly that he accused me of concocting facts, demaded ``Have you no shame?``, made pejorative innuendoes about ``Bengali historians`` and advised me condescendingly not to get hung up on ``some op ed and some Bangladeshi professor``.

#167 by sigalph235

+++++
Suhrawardy sahib was perhaps the most astute Bengali politician ever produced
+++++

Suhrawardy made his share of blunders. Among them is his blunder that blotted his image after the Great Calcutta Killings:

---

http://www.newagebd.com/dec1st03/051203/edit.html

New Age, Dhaka, Bangladesh
December 5, 2003

Suhrawardy and his times
By Syed Badrul Ahsan

..... His declaration of a general holiday on 16 August 1946 as a way of observing Direct Action Day called by Jinnah was a blunder whose consequences he clearly perhaps did not foresee. Or did he? Once the killings abated, Suhrawardy told Lord Wavell, the viceroy, that if the League demand for Pakistan was not accepted, similar disasters would take place in the country. He was certainly not planning the disasters. But that there was in him a clear absence of regret at the grievous loss of life on his watch was telling. That holiday on 16 August made it clear where Suhrawardy stood. He was prime minister for all Bengalis, Hindu and Muslim. But he chose to speak for his fellow Muslims, ignoring the millions of Hindus whose sense of security had worn thin once he adopted the Direct Action plan of his party. .....

---

Another blunder was Suhrawardy`s stance during the Suez crisis:

In M.J.Akbar`s biography of Jawaharlal Nehru, Suhrawardy comes off as less than a statesman during the Suez crisis of 1956.

As a member of CENTO and SEATO, the Pakistan government under Suhrawardy had come out very strongly against Nasser`s Egypt during the Suez crisis. Nehru`s government was of course a study in contrast and India`s stock rose high among the peoples of the Muslim world, in general, and of the Arab world, in particular. The Arabs christened Nehru, Rasul-al-Salaam (messenger of peace).

There was much embarrassment in Pakistan for Nehru`s role destroyed its strategy of isolating India from the Muslim world. Moreover, while the Suhrawardy government squirmed, Pakistani poets showered encomiums on Nehru. A verse written by Rais Amrohvi was published in the Karachi Urdu paper, Jung:

Jap raha hai aaj mala ek Hindu ki Arab
Bramhan zade mein shaan-e dilbari aisi to ho
Hikmate Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru kki kassam
Mar mite Islam jis par kafiri aisi to ho

A rough translation:

The Arab world is singing praises today of
a Hindu Bramhin`s courage. Nehru is such a
man that even Islam would embrace such an
infidel.

---

Notwithstanding such blunders, Suhrawardy deserved better than to be EBDOed into insignificance by ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan. Suhrawardy, like Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan, had never spent time in British jails. The first time Suhrawrdy had to spend time in jail was during ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan`s regime. When Suhrawardy came out of jail, he was never again the same man:

http://www.newagebd.com/dec1st03/051203/edit.html

New Age, Dhaka, Bangladesh
December 5, 2003

Suhrawardy and his times
By Syed Badrul Ahsan

..... In the dark world of the 1960s, though, the best he could offer was hope. By the time he died, in exile, he was a disillusioned man, a sign of how his brand of politics may have come to develop cracks along the line. He was one man who could have given Pakistan a new sense of purpose. But Pakistan had little need of him. That was the tragedy. .....

#167 by sigalph235

+++++
Suhrawardy sahib was perhaps the most astute Bengali politician ever produced
+++++

Astute or not, it would be wrong to downplay Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq as a politician, especially in any interaction under the banner of dost-mittar`s article that zeroed in on the feudals.

Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq became the first Prime Minister of United Bengal in 1937 and he remained so for 6 long years. Those were memorable years:

`` His ministry fortified the tenant-peasant against the landlord and the moneylender. This help was neither as prompt nor as large as Huq had promised before he became the Prime Minister, and it did not reach the sharecropper, but it was undoubtedly a step forward. Fazlul Huq ministry also started a number of schools, colleges and hostels for Muslim students, and fixed a fifty percent Muslim quota, and a fifteen percent scheduled caste quota, in new recruitment to government jobs.``

In fact it was the Fazlul Huq strand of politics rather than the Nazimuddin strand or even the Suhrawardy strand that gave Bengal politics its populist stamp:

---

www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Wednesday December 11, 2002-- Shawwal 06, 1423 A.H.

Why Jinnah`s Pakistan ended
by M B Naqvi
mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

..... One emphasises a narrower reason for the earliest power struggle between the Punjab and Bengal Groups in the first Constituent Assembly in 1948-49. East Bengalis had opened their account with the expropriation of all intermediary landed interests between the state and the cultivator. This without compensation reform frightened the social elites in West Pakistan, almost all of whom landlords. Bengalis acquiring the central power seemed to them like encouraging the new Bolsheviks to repeat that enormity here also. So they were determined to deny the Bengalis their due share of power and entered into an open conspiracy: they sought help from the bureaucracy and got it. With West Pakistan`s landowning MPs help, they cornered all power.....

---

Dear Sigalph,

Thankyou for the vote of confidence. My only crime here was that I contradicted Mr. Nakhok by quoting directly out of Suhrawardy`s own letters, the British High commissioner of the time in India and finally from Azad`s book. Instead of taking it in good spirit of argument, Nakhok launched into personal attacks.


The fact is that the creation of Bangladesh was just and fair, ... but just like how we in Pakistan continuously define Pakistani Nationalism in `not-India` terms, Awami League historians like to define themselves as `not-Pakistan`. I am working on a piece on how History is distorted in Bangladesh using especially the non-facts put here by Nakhok.
As for Suhrawardy I am reading more about him especially his letters to Jinnah, Gandhi, Nehru, Mountbatten and others that I quoted from earlier, and my perception of him is no doubt undergoing a transformation. He was true patriot of Pakistan... precisely why we have the famous `Khayaban-e-Suhrawardy` in Islamabad.


One good book on H.S. Suhrawardy`s life is `Hossein Shaheed Suhrawardy` by none other than that great Pakistani woman and his niece Shaista Ikramullah.

-YLH

Re nakhok

``He didn`t even try to hide his contempt for Bangladexsh and Bangladeshis as he...``

Frankly that`s sheer nonsense about Yasser aka Mantolives. Notwithstanding the disagreement at hand about Suhrawardy sahib`s history, that kind of off the cuff remarks are a bit uncalled for, specially given the fact that Yasser has been one of the most ardent well-wishers of Bangladesh and Bengalis for years. Heck, the guy is more harsh on his own Punjabis about 1971 than I am! And yes, I am a panta-bhat eating, Tagore-loving Bengali, with roots going back to Mr Suhrawardy`s Calcutta.

I am aware of the article by Mr Ahsan in New Age. Not only is Mr. Ahsan a colleague of my mother`s but I myself write for the newspaper. I am afraid his details are a bit sketchy. Understandably so because much of that time period is recorded more in rhetoric than calm history. I am a huge fan of H S Suhrawrdy. From what I understand, he was indeed asked to leave by the Nazimuddin ministry in Dhaka when he returned from Calcutta. Apparently Maulana Akram Khan and Nazimuddin didn`t want a tussle for the Provincial League leadership. If I am not mistaken, he flew to West Pakistan for a while during this period of hostility. His membership in the First PCA was indeed cancelled by the Liaquat Ali Khan central ministry but, to my recollection, restored by the Federal Court (precursor to the Supreme Court) and he did take part in the earliest debates on the Constitution.

As an editorial comment, Suhrawardy sahib was perhaps the most astute Bengali politician ever produced and equally at home amongst the masses and classes. Pakistan never had a better Prime Minister. And, if my snobbishness be forgiven, he was better dressed than almost any politician in the region.

http://www.newagebd.com/dec1st03/051203/edit.html

New Age, Dhaka, Bangladesh
December 5, 2003

Suhrawardy and his times
By Syed Badrul Ahsan

.....There was surely a transformation in Suhrawardy once Pakistan came into being. His old colleague Khwaja Nazimuddin, never one to be associated with the masses, saw to it that Suhrawardy was expelled from East Bengal as soon as he set foot in it once he had completed his peace mission in what had by then become the Indian state of West Bengal. In Karachi, Suhrawardy made the discovery that his membership of the constituent assembly had been cancelled on the (flimsy) ground that he had been absent .....

# 152 by zamir1

+++++
This is a matter of perception. Life of an ordinary person is still better in Pakistan than probably any other south Asian country.
+++++

Driven by its ``separatist ideology``, the West Pakistan based ruling cabal had decided long before 1971 that the only circumstances under which it will live in a United Pakistan is one in which its boots over-rule the wishes of the ordinary people majority of whom lived in East Pakistan.

In fact, after the 1971 partition, members of the (West) Pakistani ruling cabal had argued speciously that the partition was all for the best because West Pakistan had already extracted what it could out of East Pakistan and from now on, the latter would prove to be a drag on the Pakistani economy.

Well, now we are into the 21st century. (West) Pakistan still remains under army boots. General Tikka Khan who had earned infamy as the Butcher of Pakistan went on to earn infamy as the Butcher of Balochistan after the 1971 partition. And Generals Zia ul-Huq and Musharraf have made sure that the Corporate interests of the Pakistani military continues to be accorded priority over the interests of ordinary Pakistanis.

Bangladesh, on the other hand, has made gains that actually place it ahead of Pakistan in rankings in the 2003 UNDP Human Development Report. In population control, iliteracy eradication, women education, women empowerment and so on, Bangladesh has done better than Pakistan.

http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/pdf/presskit/HDR03_PKE_HDI.pdf

Rankings In 2003 UNDP Human Development Report:

Norway 1
United States 7
Maldives 86
Sri Lanka 99
Bhutan 136
Bangladesh 139
Nepal 143
Pakistan 144
Sierra Leone 175

+++++
Nakhok on the other hand is hung up about some op ed and some Bangladeshi professor who according to him is the only trained historian in the world.
+++++

Mantolives, of course, has made up his mind not to be confused by facts! It is futile to convince him of any thing that he has already denounced as nothing more than lies by ``Bengali historians``.

For the others, here`re the facts:

The op ed in question (a 2003 DAWN article) very clearly restated the well known fact that Suhrawardy had been prevented from entering Pakistan - he was sent back to India on the plea that he was an Indian agent. There were a few follow up letters to the editor in DAWN after the publication of this article. But no one took issues with the above fact in the article, nor did DAWN ever publish a retraction.

Essentially, Mantolives has fallen victim to the ubiqtuous ``Great Conspiracy Theory`` that abounds among his ilk - the op ed must necessarily be a Conspiracy by the author and the DAWN. And if there was no retraction by DAWN or no letters to the editor disputing the facts, that too must be a part of a Great Conspiracy!

The DAWN op ed had alluded to a well known fact. For those interested in the details, here are some more facts about that incident when Suhrawardy was denied entry at the East Pakistan border. Liaqat Ali Khan and Nazimuddin were in it together. But initially Liaqat Ali Khan pretended that he had nothing to do with the externment - on July 13, 1948 (Jinnah was still the Governor General) Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan informed Suhrawardy that the action of expulsion from East Bengal taken against him was a ``matter entirely for the Provincial Government and he (Liaquat Ali Khan) can`t interfere in their administration.``

But even this pretext was not maintained for long. Liaqat Ali Khan declared in the Constituent Assembly, ``Today in Pakistan there is no difference between the Central Government and Provincial Government. The central Government is composed of the provinces. …. We must kill this provincialism for all times.`` The Liaqat Ali Khan government had Suhrawardy`s membership to the First Constituent Assembly terminated with effect from March 2, 1949 on the plea that Suhrawardy was not a permanent resident of Pakistan!

Essentially, the Muslim League succeded in eating their cake and having it too. First it refused Suhrawardy entry from India into East Pakistan on the plea that Suhrawardy was a traitor and an Indian agent. And then it went on to rescind Suhrawardy`s membership to the First Constituent Assembly on March 2, 1949 on the ground that he wasn`t a permanent resident of Pakistan!

I had cited a DAWN article and also the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh. The DAWN article had explicitly alluded to the incident where Suhrawardy was barred from entering Pakistan. And the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh had explicitly alluded to the fact that Suhrawardy`s membership to the First Constituent Assembly was terminated by the Liaqat Ali Khan government under the pretext that Suhrawardy was not a permanent resident of Pakistan.

Mantolives, of course, would have none of it. He declared that one op ed article in the DAWN was not enough to authenticate Suhrawardy`s externment from Pakistan. But, of course, he never volunteered why, if the article was indeed wrong, DAWN hadn`t been forced to retract or why there were no letters to the editor disputing this fact. In fact, there were indeed letters to the editor as follow up to this article but they all commented on other facts in that article. Essentially, Mantolives is relying on the ``Great Conspiracy Theory`` to explain away why DAWN would publish such an article and why no one would dispute this fact even in a letter to the editor.

And when it comes to the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, Mantolives` reaction is even more visceral. He didn`t even try to hide his contempt for Bangladexsh and Bangladeshis as he inveighed against ``Bengali historians``, ``prized Banglapedia`` ``Awami League Court historians`` etc. etc.

But the facts are all there. If Mantolives is so much into archives, he must be knowing or at least in a position to verify for himself that Suhrawardy`s membership in the First Constituent Assembly was terminated by the Liaqat Ali Khan government on the plea that he was not a permanent resident of Pakistan. And if Mantolives tries to trace back from that action in the First Constituent Assembly, he should be able to find out for himself why Suhrawardy was deemed not to be a permanent resiident of Pakistan. It shouldn`t take him long to find out about the incident in which Suhrawardy was denied entry into Pakistan on the plea that he was a traitor and an Indian agent.

But, of course, Mantolives has his own agenda - he has little time to verify facts and all the time to deny them if they don`t quite fit with his agenda.

# 152 by zamir1

+++++
I hope I am reading it correctly and you are saying that Bengalis did not want to separate from Pakistan - but our wrong policies and bad governance caused the separation. Again I don’t know any Pakistani who would not agree with this, the only thing I am not sure is what percent of Bengalis really wanted to separate, and weather they were in a majority or not.
+++++

It must be remembered that 1971 wasn`t the first time that East Pakistanis had been blamed as traitors and as Indian agents. Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq, Suhrawardy, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had all been tarred with the same brush at one time or the other by those that insisted that people like ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan and General Yahya Khan were the true repositories of Pakistani patriotism.

The West Pakistan based ruling oligarchy did want a united Pakistan but only if it could lord over the united country. ``Parity``, ``Separate Electorates`` etc. were all mere shibboleths to deny due representation in the government to the East pakistanis. And even when East Pakistan agreed to ``Parity`` that devalued the vote of an East Pakistani vis-a-vis of a West Pakistani, the 1956 Constitution was quickly abrogated by the ``October Revolution`` of 1958 even before it could come into effect.

And when the unexpected results of the 1970 elections threatened the ruling oligarchy`s vested interests, it decided that it would stick with a United Pakistan only if the Parliament agreed to terms and conditions that would protect the ruling oligarchy`s vested interests. Genocide wasn`t too small a price to pay for enforcing this goal.

In other words, it was the West pakistan based ruling oligarchy that was acting in accordance with its long held ``separatist ideology`` which held that if the representatives elected on the basis of one-man one-vote cannot be held at bay, it had everything to gain and nothing to lose by resorting to genocide to maintain the staus quo. If the genocide succeeded, it would have had a united Pakistan under the Pakistan Army`s boots. And if it failed (which is what happened), then it would be good riddance because the last thing this ruling cabal wanted was a democratic Pakistan led by people`s representatives elected on the basis of one-man one-vote.

More Ironies....

According to these revisionist Awami League court historians, Kh. Nazimuddin became the Premier of East Pakistan because he was Jinnah`s henchman... whereas Suhrawardy was not.

It is surprising because the exact opposite view is taken by Maulana Azad... on Page 176 of his book India wins Freedom Vanguard edition (with respect to 5 appointments of the League at Dehli Center a few months before partition):

``Nevertheless there were experienced administrators like Khawaja Nazimuddin and Nawab Ismail Khan. They were all discarded in favor of Mr. Jinnah`s three henchmen.``



Now who were these ``henchmen`` of Jinnah?

According to Azad it was Suhrawardy and his men especially Jogindranath Mandal whose nomination was resented by the Bengali Muslims. Nazimuddin was an able man of the people.

According to these Awami League ``historians`` the ``henchmen`` of Jinnah were Khawaja Nazimuddin and M.A. Isphahani. So who is right? Azad or is these Bengali historians?

Ofcourse neither Suhrawardy nor Nazimuddin ever levelled such allegations against Jinnah. Both held Jinnah in the greatest of esteem even on their deathbed.

-YLH

A good book on H.S. Suhrawardy`s life


Hossein Shaheed Suhrawardy: a biography by Shaista Suhrawardy Ikramullah


... oh but I forgot... Begum Ikramullah is as untrained a historian as the US National Archives and the British High Commissioner of the time in Dehli ...

Dear Nakhok,

One last time I am going to try and make sense to you...

I am not privy to any information that others are not. Once again... Suhrawardy had arrived in late August in Pakistan. He was offered the position of `Ambassador at Large` because he had lost the power in Bengal for whatever reason. Suhrawardy himself doesn`t share your view about Jinnah being pro-Nazimuddin. In any event Suhrawardy travelled between Lahore Karachi and Dehli on several occasion carrying messages from Gandhi to Jinnah and Jinnah to Gandhi. It was through Suhrawardy that Gandhi first expressed his desire to come to Pakistan. The places that Suhrawardy stayed in were Nawab Mamdot`s Mamdot Villa in Lahore, Palace Hotel in Karachi, and Birla House in Dehli.

I don`t care about the politics... it is a well known fact that Liaqat Ali Khan didn`t like Suhrawardy and Suhrawardy didn`t like him either. But that is besides the point here. The point was simply that your claim that Suhrawardy was restricted somehow does not hold up against the facts.



A complete record of Suhrawardy`s `Peace Initiative` correspondence with Jinnah, Gandhi, and Mountbatten... US NATIONAL ARCHIVES 845.00/11-2847 ....

PS: Suhrawardy had not maintained residence in Lahore or Karachi. He was staying there with Nawab Mamdot and later at a Hotel in Karachi.


The way this guy twists words is phenomenal....

155,

I agree with you on that one. The standard of living in Pakistan has fallen way below what it used to be... The gap between Pakistan and India is growing every day and the military Government doesn`t seem to understand this. It is busy in its own little frauds and deportations.

zamir #152

{{This is a matter of perception. Life of an ordinary person is still better in Pakistan than probably any other south Asian country. Here is an interesting article.

http://www.economist.com/surveys/showsurvey.cfm?issue=19990522}}

It is interesting that you have to rely on a 5-year old article from the Economist, which uses statistics from 1997, to support your highly questionable claim. More recent figures have Pakistan`s figures trailing India`s by a wide and growing margin. I doubt it`s a matter of perception any longer. India`s foreign-exchange reserves are well over $100 billion at this point, and the per capita GDP is over $600. Pakistan is not the country to beat; the less attention Indians have to pay to Pakistan the better.