My Pakistan Diary: The Feudal

Dost Mittar,

I don`t care if Nakhok gets convinced or not. He knows he is simply twisting information. It is not about smoking guns. It is about a simple fact that Suhrawardy travelled between India and Pakistan atleast 6 times between September-December. So the ``well known fact`` that nakhok is putting up is something only he knows about. This is to give Suhrawardy more importance than he actually has. I don`t have any esoteric points to prove about Suhrawardy. All I am saying is that between September-December H.S Suhrawardy was a go between between Gandhi and Jinnah. He travelled between Lahore, Karachi, Dehli and Calcutta on numerous occasions delivering their personal messages to each other. These letters are preserved in `US National Archives` ... I also quoted from the British High Commissioner of India of the time who clearly mentions the same. 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. The irony is that even his quotes don`t seem to suggest what Nakhok is saying. As for personal attacks, I have asked Nakhok where I have indulged in these questionable attacks. He has no answer. On the contrary all he has tried to do is discredit me by accusing me of racism against Bengalis which if anyone knows me knows that I am not capable of.


Sadly this is not the first time his `facts` have been rubbished. He routinely puts up such `truths` that are always without exception contrary to the known facts. I will now merely let him make a fool out of himself explaining how the US National Archives are on Pakistan`s Payroll, and how the American Government tampered Suhrawardy-Gandhi conversation to `associate` a lahore address with it.



-YLH

Dost Mittar,

I don`t care if Nakhok gets convinced or not. He knows he is simply twisting information. It is not about smoking guns. It is about a simple fact that Suhrawardy travelled between India and Pakistan atleast 6 times between September-December. So the ``well known fact`` that nakhok is putting up is something only he knows about. This is to give Suhrawardy more importance than he actually has. I don`t have any esoteric points to prove about Suhrawardy. All I am saying is that between September-December H.S Suhrawardy was a go between between Gandhi and Jinnah. He travelled between Lahore, Karachi, Dehli and Calcutta on numerous occasions delivering their personal messages to each other. These letters are preserved in `US National Archives` ... I also quoted from the British High Commissioner of India of the time who clearly mentions the same. 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. The irony is that even his quotes don`t seem to suggest what Nakhok is saying. As for personal attacks, I have asked Nakhok where I have indulged in these questionable attacks. He has no answer. On the contrary all he has tried to do is discredit me by accusing me of racism against Bengalis which if anyone knows me knows that I am not capable of.


Sadly this is not the first time his `facts` have been rubbished. He routinely puts up such `truths` that are always without exception contrary to the known facts. I will now merely let him make a fool out of himself explaining how the US National Archives are on Pakistan`s Payroll, and how the American Government tampered Suhrawardy-Gandhi conversation to `associate` a lahore address with it.



-YLH

Zamir1

Thanks for the info...

Arguing with Nakhok is futile as I realized, because to him only what he knows of or has thought out in his head is the truth.

nakhok (#107 )

Sheikh Mujib, while giving an interview to David Frost had claimed that he was working for Bangladesh since 1948. The quote I used (“he kept Mujib’s separatism in control”) was directly from Begum Ikramullah (who is a close relative of Mr. Suhrwardy). I don’t know a single Pakistani who is not ashamed of what our government did in East Pakistan and who is not willing to ask for forgiveness from Bengalis, that was one of the ugliest, darkest and shameful chapter of our history. However nakhok is not being honest when he squarely blames Pakistani government and army for the atrocities. Long before Pakistani army started its operation, the Indian supported and trained Muktibahini terrorists thugs were busy killing, murdering and looting innocent non-Bangalies. I was very young in March 1971 and we used to live in Chittagong, I clearly remember every incident, how in early march our house was attacked, we were saved by our Bengali neighbors, how we had to leave our house with only cloths on our backs, how I lost several close relatives – one of them was barely 4 or 5 years old. Every family that I knew from E. Pakistan has a story similar to mine – actually we were the lucky ones who lost only our material possessions, there were families which were completely wiped out.

As Dr. Kalim Siddiqui said in his book “Conflicts, Crisis and was in Pakistan”

``The Awami League`s greatest weakness was that while it had a vast following, it did not control the behaviour of its followers. To BENGALIS` ETERNAL SHAME THE FIRST BLOOD IN THE CIVIL WAR WAS DRWAN BY THEM. THEY KILLED, LOOTED, BURNT AND RAPED INNOCENT WEST PAKISTANI CIVILIANS AND NON-BENGALI MUSLIMS-THE BIHARIS- FOR THREE WEEKS BEFORE 25 MARCH, TAKING AN ESTIMATED 100,000 LIVES. Mujib failed to rise to the occasion to stop this carnage. Bhashani, the people`s man, was the only one to condemn the senseless killing of Bihari Muslims.``

+++++++++
``Zamir1 has it all backwards. It was the West Pakistan based ruling oligarchy (and not those that won the 1970 elections) that was into ``separatist ideology``.
++++++++

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.

+++++++++
The ordinary citizens of (West) Pakistan remain disenfranchised to this day.
+++++++++

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

Specially read this section:

Mirror, mirror
Secular, democratic India v sectarian, coup-prone Pakistan: no question, surely, which would win a political beauty contest? Set India’s $30 billion of foreign-exchange reserves against Pakistan’s near-bankruptcy, India’s world-class software engineers against Pakistan’s outdated cotton mills, and awarding the economic prize looks just as easy. Yet the comparison is not as lopsided as it seems at first. Travellers to Pakistan are often surprised to find its people looking more prosperous than Indians. Pakistan’s income per head is indeed higher than India’s, even leaving aside the giant black-market economy. Pakistan also appears to be a more equal society, …..

Montolives (147 )

+++++++++++++
…his son Robert Ashford (screen name) acted in Jinnah the movie.
+++++++++++++

Correction – his son’s name is Robert Ashby and he played the part of Pt. Nehru.

Manto:
I have frankly not been following every word of the exchange going on between Nakhok and you. To me, the two of you are hung over some details and have your own ``smoking guns``. Neither of you seems to be a great fan of Suhrawardy. By chowk standards, neither of you has been very uncivilized towards each other but, hey, I never accept the role of an umpire here, that position has not yet been vacated by that other chowky who has a list of hatemongers handy.
I am convinced that neither of you will be able to convince the other; as far others, they probably have long left this board to fight battles elsewhere.

# 140 Mantolives

+++++
Trained Historian (pray tell what this creature is) or not.... I can read English...Unlike you I am not basing my analysis on one`s own limited understanding of one op ed in Dawn. The truth as is clear by the aforementioned source is that your claim about Suhrawardy being restricted to move between Pakistan and India is nothing but hogwash. So instead of taking this personally, and resorting to personal attacks learn to be humble and tolerate the opposing point of view.
+++++

If anyone has resorted to personal attacks, it is Mantolives. And Mantolives has done so because he cannot stand the thought that his uneducated inferences have been shown to be at variance with published facts by reputed historians. Not content with expressing contempt for me, Mantolives has even taken to expressing contempt for Prof. Sirajul Islam and ``his prized Banglapedia``

Mantolives might be capable of reading English but obviously he hasn`t the training to draw inferences that only a competent historian can. This is compounded by Mantolives` contempt for Bangladesh and Bangladeshis alike which has led him to imply that Prof. Sirajul Islam (a professor of history at Dhaka University and the Chief Editor of the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh) is a liar because his writings in reference books do not agree with Mantolives` uneducated inferences!

It is rather presumptuous of Mantolives to assume that he is privy to publicly available information on Suhrawardy that a trained historian like Prof. Sirajul Islam hasn`t heard of. If Mantolives were a trained historian he wouldn`t have rushed to his unfounded inferences because he would have known that it makes no sense for the last Prime Minister of Bangladesh to park himself in the political backwater of Lahore on the morrow of partition. If he were indeed in Pakistan, he would have been either in Karachi or in Lahore.

If evidence exists that Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan or Afghanistan, a trained historian will not draw unwarranted inferences even if an Osama bin Laden message is unearthed that is purported to be from Iraq.

Mantolives could have thought of many a reason why it might be politically expedient to associate a Lahore address at a time Suhrawardy had been denied entry into Pakistan.
That Suhrawardy was prevented from entering into Pakistan is a well known fact. It is not based on just ``one op-ed in DAWN``. And, anyway, even that op-ed wasn`t contradicted by any other article or letter in the DAWN. Mantolives is dishonestly contesting the facts of the article.

If Mantolives were a trained historian, he wouldn`t have rushed into his uneducated inferences because he would have known only too well that:
(1) Surhawardy was prevented from entering into Pakistan on the plea that he was a traitor.
(2) Suhrawardy was stripped of his membership of the Constituent Assembly in 1949 by the Liaqat Ali Khan government on the plea that he was not a permanent resident of Pakistan.

It is Mantolives who has been caught red handed conjuring up unwarranted inferences that defy well known facts published by reputed researchers. His contempt for Prof. Sirajul Islam or the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh has more to do with his bigotry and prejudices than with any concern for the truth. His prejudices or his contempt notwithstanding, any objective reader would rather believe a respectable historian like Prof. Sirajul Islam or a respected reference work like the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh rather than the uneducated inferences of Mantolives.

Mantolives` naivety shows up all too often. For example, he has taken to quoting a British diplomat in an attempt to prove that Liaqat Ali Khan and Jinnah had always wanted Suhrawardy to be this and that of Pakistan. Mantolives chose to accept the words of a British diplomat as the gospel even though published correspondence and local researchers show that Suhrawardy was elbowed out by Nazimuddin with the blessings of Liaqat Ali Khan and Jinnah. And Mantolives does so even though his uneducated inferences are not in keeping with the facts that:
(1) Surhawardy was prevented from entering into Pakistan on the plea that he was a traitor.
(2) Suhrawardy was stripped of his membership of the Constituent Assembly by the Liaqat Ali Khan government on the plea that he was not a permanent resident of Pakistan.

Mantolives wants to eat the cake and have it too. I had tried to ignore Mantolives` rude and dishonest rantings. That led Mantolives to quickly declare ``victory``. And then when I refuted him with published facts, Mantolives complained of multiple postings from me! Somehow he seems to feel that bluster is an adequate substitute for his lack of logic and facts.

Anyway, in a sense he is right. I don`t want to waste my time stooping down to his level. And regardless of Mantolives` contempt for things Bangladeshi, I would consider Bangladeshi sources to be the more authentic sources on Suhrawardy than any other foreign source or of Mantolives` uneducated inferences.

# 144 by Mantolives

+++++
.....was the British High Commissioner in Dehli also lying?
+++++

This is the problem with inferences by a person who doesn`t have the training of a historian. A British diplomat isn`t the last word on whether Liaqat Ali Khan and Jinnah had this and that in mind for Suhrawardy.

Local historians have researched the topic. They have presented the evidence and they have presented their findings in published works. Liaqat Ali Khan and Jinnah were anything but neutral observers - Nazimuddin elbowed out Suhrawardy with the support of the Qaid-e-Azam and the Qaid-e-Millat. I have already presented the facts on that. Mantolives might want to read the following for a better understanding of what took place:


Inside Bengal Politics 1936-1947: Unpublished Correspondence of
Partition Leaders compiled by Harun-or-Rashid, pp-preface i-xiii+
biographical note 1-5 + Introduction 1-37 + summary of correspondence
38-56, Correspondence 57-158, Appendices 159-174, (University Press
Limited, Dhaka 2003), Price Tk 300.

I have presented enough evidence to show that the Muslim League created a situation in which it could claim that Suhrawardy was not a permanent resident of Pakistan and then had his membership to the first Constituent Assembly terminated on March 2, 1949.

More on the termination of Suhrawardy`s membership of the Constituent Assembly by the Liaqat Ali Khan government:

---

NFB
December 5, 1999

HUSEYN SHAEED SUHRAWARDY: AN APPRAISAL OF HIS FORMATIVE YEARS IN
POLITICS
By Prof. M. Waheeduzzaman

.....After Pakistan came into existence, H.S. Suhrawardy held the membership in the First Constituent Assembly of Pakistan even though his membership to that body was illegitimately rescinded with effect from March 2, 1949 by the then ruling coterie of Pakistan. He was elected in 1955 to the Second Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. He was the Minister of Law of Pakistan in the Cabinet of Mohammad Ali Bogra (1954-’55). In fact, he played a significant role in the formation of the second Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. .....

---

Another reference, the Banglapedia, very explicitly states that Suhrawardy`s membership to the first Constituent Assembly was rescinded by the Liaqat Ali Khan government in 1949 on the plea that he was not a permanent resident of Pakistan. Prof. Waheeduzzaman has more explicitly placed the date of termination at March 2, 1949.

Now, if Suhrawardy had actually maintained residence in Lahore, could he have been victimized under the plea that he is not a permanent resident? And, anyway, it would have alerted any trained historian that there might be more than meets the eye if the the postal address, Mamdot Villa, was actually someone else`s address. And under any circumstances, it makes no sense for the last Prime Minister of Bengal to park himself in the political backwater of Lahore on the morrow of partition instead of in Karachi or East Pakistan.

I have presented enough evidence to show that the Muslim League created a situation in which it could claim that Suhrawardy was not a permanent resident of Pakistan and then had his membership to the first Constituent Assembly terminated on March 2, 1949.

Dear Uncle Dost Mittar,

As the author of this article and a respected chowk elder, please point out where I have indulged in any `name calling` w.r.t Nakhok, because if I have I will like to apologize to him... ofcourse as far as I can see I really haven`t. On the contrary I am sure you will confirm that his posts are nothing but an attempt to prove that I am a uneducated, unbalanced, racist Pakistani, simply because he can`t take the argument on its merit.


I will, as per your advice, not retaliate.

-YLH

Nakhok 141

``+++++
..... No other position could be offered to Suhrawardy as in anticipation of his success as the leader of East Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah had filled his cabinet. .....
+++++

Above comment is not in keeping with actual facts. In fact, it doesn`t even explain why Suhrawardy was prevented from entering Pakistan on the plea that he was a traitor. This is a well known fact. I have already cited a DAWN article from 2003 in its support. ``

---

Dear Nakhok,


The author of the above-mentioned line was none other than Terence Shone, the British High Commissioner in India who wrote this in his note ``Record of meeting with Suhrawardy``


``Mr Jinnah and Mr Liaquat Ali Khan always assumed that Suhrawardy would become the Prime Minister of Eastern Pakistan. Nazimuddin’s success was a complete shock to the Pakistan Ministers and Suhrawardy…. On 26th August Suhrawardy received a message from Mr. Jinnah asking him to become Ambassador at large for the Governor General of Pakistan with the idea of telling the world about Pakistan. No other position could be offered to Suhrawardy as in anticipation of his success as the leader of East Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah had filled his cabinet.

When he went to Karachi towards end of September , the question of his appointment to the Pakistan Central Government was raised. From various quarters it was suggested that he should succeed Suhrawardy succeed Liaquat Ali Khan as the Prime Minister``


I don`t care about one Dawn Op-ed nor do I care much for any demigod of history from Dhaka University, JNU, or the University of Punjab.... I am quoting from the Primary Sources.



So was the British High Commissioner in Dehli also lying?


Somehow I have a sneaking feeling the British High Commissioner in Dehli at the time knew a little more than your superman professor from Dhaka...



-YLH

I have read Banglapedia`s article on H S Suhrawardy and even that article doesn`t claim that Suhrawardy was restricted to move between Pakistan and India.

PS: I believe Dost Mittar knows Shaista Ikramullah`s daughter who lives in Ottawa... she will confirm the points I am putting up here about her grand uncle. A detail of the whole issue especially Jinnah-Suhrawardy relations can be found in the works by the distinguished Shaista Suhrawardy Ikramullah, including her famous memoir `From Purdah to Parliament`.

Last word: Personally I don`t care either way .... Suhrawardy to me has no sacred cow status... he was the politician who made a mess in Calcutta, tainted the League with Violence, and as the Prime Minister he alienated the third world against us by bad mouthing Nasser.


Yet the facts are facts...

1) He was a go between Gandhi and Jinnah from Sept-Dec 1947 during which time he stayed in Lahore and Karachi on numerous occasions. His correspondence is available in the US National Archives. The interview with Terence Shone has already been quoted.

2) The party he founded and was part of was called `Jinnah-Awami Muslim League`

3) His family remained associated with Pakistan. Shaista Ikramullah was a Pakistani... his son Robert Ashford (screen name) acted in Jinnah the movie.


No amount of hogwash will change these facts.

-YLH

#136 by mantolives

+++++
..... No other position could be offered to Suhrawardy as in anticipation of his success as the leader of East Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah had filled his cabinet. .....
+++++

Above comment is not in keeping with actual facts. In fact, it doesn`t even explain why Suhrawardy was prevented from entering Pakistan on the plea that he was a traitor. This is a well known fact. I have already cited a DAWN article from 2003 in its support.

Suhrawardy had been used as the cat`s paw by the Muslim League establishment during the Great Calcutta Killings. And then he was discarded quite unceremoniously like the rind of a squeezed lemon - elbowed out quite deliberately by Nazimuddin with the support of Liaqat Ali Khan and Jinnah.

Those that are interested in the topic will find the following book to be as informative as it is revealing.

Inside Bengal Politics 1936-1947: Unpublished Correspondence of
Partition Leaders compiled by Harun-or-Rashid, pp-preface i-xiii+
biographical note 1-5 + Introduction 1-37 + summary of correspondence
38-56, Correspondence 57-158, Appendices 159-174, (University Press
Limited, Dhaka 2003), Price Tk 300.

The correspondence is very revealing. Jinnah and Liaqat ali Khan were never the ``neutral arbitrators`` of Mantolives posts. Commenting on the correspondence published in the above book, Prof. Sirajul Islam wrote:

---

..... Being unsuccessful in receiving any letter from Jinnah, Suhrawardy is seen to have tried his luck to reach his leader via Liaquat Ali Khan, the secretary general of the League. Even Liaquat was reticent in correspondence with him. To enthuse Liaquat, once Suhrawardy, then prime minister of Bengal, rather bewailed to him, ``I know that you never reply to a letter, but if you keep a stenographer around you, you may find time to do so.`` (p. 80).

The smart complaint indicates the absolute command and control that the High Command had established on Bengal leaders who were now simply reduced to their favour-hungry clients. Think again, Prime Minister of Bengal tries to reach Jinnah via Liaquat. It is by no means a natural reticence on the part of Jinnah or Liaquat. It is by no means a natural reticence on the part of Jinnah or Liaquat. It is politics, crude or refined. Bengal letters to High Command usually dealt with factionalism. Jinnah`s wisdom prompted him not to play the arbiter in the faction fights prematurely. A precipitate action was thought to make him controversial among the aspiring leaders, which he must avoid. As the Bengal leaders were becoming weaker and weaker through factionalism, Jinnah gained predominance over them progressively increasingly. From the remote centre, he played one faction against another and made them all prostrate before him eventually.

While Prime Minister AK Fazlul Huq tried to stand on his own feet politically, Jinnah set all other actions against him. He was forced to resign from his first ministry (1941) and then from his second ministry (1943). In the wake of Huq`s resignation from his second ministry, Jinnah remarked gleefully, ``...today Fazlul Huq is no more, and I hope for the rest of his life he will be no more.... He has met his Waterloo`` (p. 17). The statement was indeed a warning to other leaders to behave.

H S Suhrawardy aspired to be the sole caption of the Bengal ship after the fall of Fazlul Huq. But he had the Nazimuddin faction to obstruct him. Thus Suhrawardy tried to win Jinnah`s favour by demonstrating his ability as an organiser. But to the Great Leader, organising ability was the secondary consideration for bestowing his favour. His primary consideration was ensuring sustainable loyalty to the High Command, which he always suspected from Suhrawardy. Unwavering loyalty was sure to come from Khawaja Nazimuddin, who thus consistently received support from the leader. Though Suhrawardy never showed any disrespect or disloyalty to Jinnah, and though it was he who took the Muslim League to mass level, Jinnah never took him into confidence. He was never taken into the Central Working Committee of the League, even after he became the Prime Minister of Bengal by his own right.

---

In October again Suhrawardy personally delivered Gandhi`s letter to Jinnah in Karachi. This letter can be found in the US National Archives as quoted earlier. A reference to this can be found in numerous books. It rubbishes all of Nakhok`s claims. Sadly other than attacking the messenger, poor Nakhok hasn`t managed to put up anything that proves his point of view, not even from his prized Banglapedia.

Like I said this is not the first time Mr. Nakhok has been caught red handed trying to concoct `facts`.