My Pakistan Diary: The Feudal
Dost Mittar May 3, 2004
#124 Posted by harimau on May 9, 2004 10:37:28 am
Ref Mantolives #117
[Suhrawardy wanted an independent and sovereign United Bengal... he had Jinnah`s blessing for such a solution who said that East Pakistan without Calcutta would be like a man without his heart and that he would prefer an independent but United Bengal which would he had no doubt be on good terms with Pakistan. When Mountbatten put this proposal to Nehru, his view was that this would mean the Balkanization of India.]
Well, it is not a question of what Suhrawardy wanted his personal fiefdom to be or what Jinnah wanted the Partition of India to be.
It is a question of whst the people wanted.
The Bengal Legislative Assembly decided on the partition of Bengal with the Hindu members opting for union with India. Perhaps they took Jinnah`s speeches about how the Muslims cannot live with Hindus in the same country to be true.... after all, they had proof in the form of Direct Action Day.
Suhrawardy could still have asked for Bangladesh in 1947 and thumbed his nose at Jinnah. But he knew that he didn`t want to spend the rest of his life in a backwater such as Dacca. He much preferred the charms of cosmopolitan Calcutta -- of 1947, not the hash that the Marxists have made of it since 1967.
[Ofcourse recent world events have shown this view to be quite naive.]
You are right. It is not India that was Balkanized but the Pakistan of 1971.
[Suhrawardy wanted an independent and sovereign United Bengal... he had Jinnah`s blessing for such a solution who said that East Pakistan without Calcutta would be like a man without his heart and that he would prefer an independent but United Bengal which would he had no doubt be on good terms with Pakistan. When Mountbatten put this proposal to Nehru, his view was that this would mean the Balkanization of India.]
Well, it is not a question of what Suhrawardy wanted his personal fiefdom to be or what Jinnah wanted the Partition of India to be.
It is a question of whst the people wanted.
The Bengal Legislative Assembly decided on the partition of Bengal with the Hindu members opting for union with India. Perhaps they took Jinnah`s speeches about how the Muslims cannot live with Hindus in the same country to be true.... after all, they had proof in the form of Direct Action Day.
Suhrawardy could still have asked for Bangladesh in 1947 and thumbed his nose at Jinnah. But he knew that he didn`t want to spend the rest of his life in a backwater such as Dacca. He much preferred the charms of cosmopolitan Calcutta -- of 1947, not the hash that the Marxists have made of it since 1967.
[Ofcourse recent world events have shown this view to be quite naive.]
You are right. It is not India that was Balkanized but the Pakistan of 1971.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#123 Posted by harimau on May 9, 2004 10:37:28 am
Ref HP #116
[I just don’t see any thing wrong with Jinnah wishing to live in India in his retirement. That just goes to show that like Jogander, he also considered India his own country.]
It is just that you don`t find any Indian political leader wanting to live out his days in Pakistan... unless of course you count Lal Kishan Advani, but then you may not like his conditions for returning to Karachi... such as leading a victory parade down Bunder Road.
[I just don’t see any thing wrong with Jinnah wishing to live in India in his retirement. That just goes to show that like Jogander, he also considered India his own country.]
It is just that you don`t find any Indian political leader wanting to live out his days in Pakistan... unless of course you count Lal Kishan Advani, but then you may not like his conditions for returning to Karachi... such as leading a victory parade down Bunder Road.
#122 Posted by dost_mittar on May 9, 2004 9:22:26 am
HP#116
That quote was not from me. The only thing that I added to Harimou`s post was an observation -and you didn`t contradict it- that none of the Pakistani rulers left office gracefully; they were either kicked out or carried out.
Manto:
I think that it was more than Nehru`s opposition. Suhrawardy did not get much support from many Hindus for his idea. I had read somewhere that Jagdish Bose, the brother of Subhash Bose- was one of the few who was sympathetic. He had lost all credibility with Bengali Hindus after the August 1946 events in Calcutta.
That quote was not from me. The only thing that I added to Harimou`s post was an observation -and you didn`t contradict it- that none of the Pakistani rulers left office gracefully; they were either kicked out or carried out.
Manto:
I think that it was more than Nehru`s opposition. Suhrawardy did not get much support from many Hindus for his idea. I had read somewhere that Jagdish Bose, the brother of Subhash Bose- was one of the few who was sympathetic. He had lost all credibility with Bengali Hindus after the August 1946 events in Calcutta.
#121 Posted by HP on May 9, 2004 8:43:22 am
#119 by harimau
#118 by Mantolives
Okay! I realized that soon after but was not in a position to post the correction. I admit my error. I have actually seen a picture of his grave in Cambridge.
harimau-
Thanks for all that info but believe me it was a waste of bandwidth. His contribution to Pakistan was merely coining the name and that too incorrect. There is no province in Pakistan named Afghanistan to represent the “A” in the word Pakistan. There was nothing in name “PAKISTAN” to represent Bengal. That guy knew Bengal wouldn’t stay with Pakistan for long.
Though, I agree with the contents of the article you posted somewhat. I think he was a nutcase like many “pan Islamist” we had before and right after the partition. The first generation of Pakistanis, mostly people that moved from India, were full of screwball ideas.
#120 Posted by MantoLives on May 9, 2004 7:56:10 am
Harimau,
Re: Ch. Rahmat Ali aka the Muslim imperialist
I actually didn`t want to bring this up but that was precisely the article that I was thinking of. Thank God Rahmat Ali`s contribution to Pakistan is nothing more than the mnemonic device that he invented. His vision of Pakistan, Siddiqistan, Osmanistan, etc etc would have been nothing but disaster. When he approached Jinnah for his fantastic scheme, Jinnah laughed it out calling it impracticable, and a student`s pipe dream. He hated Jinnah for not delivering Hindu India as hostage to a confederation of Muslim states joined together ruling over subservient Hindu republics.... Rehmat Ali`s vision of what he called `Dinia` was by the far the most ludicrous scheme imaginable.
He is only one name in the long list of delusional nonsensical self proclaimed visionaries who it is to Pakistan`s discredit to have the misfortune of inheriting. One other self proclaimed pioneer of Pakistan was Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi who belonged to the Rehmat Ali`s Cambridge group the Pakistan National Movement.
-YLH
Re: Ch. Rahmat Ali aka the Muslim imperialist
I actually didn`t want to bring this up but that was precisely the article that I was thinking of. Thank God Rahmat Ali`s contribution to Pakistan is nothing more than the mnemonic device that he invented. His vision of Pakistan, Siddiqistan, Osmanistan, etc etc would have been nothing but disaster. When he approached Jinnah for his fantastic scheme, Jinnah laughed it out calling it impracticable, and a student`s pipe dream. He hated Jinnah for not delivering Hindu India as hostage to a confederation of Muslim states joined together ruling over subservient Hindu republics.... Rehmat Ali`s vision of what he called `Dinia` was by the far the most ludicrous scheme imaginable.
He is only one name in the long list of delusional nonsensical self proclaimed visionaries who it is to Pakistan`s discredit to have the misfortune of inheriting. One other self proclaimed pioneer of Pakistan was Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi who belonged to the Rehmat Ali`s Cambridge group the Pakistan National Movement.
-YLH
#119 Posted by harimau on May 9, 2004 6:43:21 am
Ref HP #116
[“Ch. Rehmat Ali died in exile.
Suhrawardy died in exile.
Jogendra Mandal exiled himself to India and died there.
Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated before he could be exiled.
According to Yasser, Mohammad Ali Jinnah wanted to live out his life in Simla and Bombay.
Even Quarratulain Hyder lives in exile in India.
Does anyone else see a pattern here or is it just my imagination? ``
Dost-mittar Sahib, The first time I saw this I ignored it, but it seems that this quote is picking up steam.
FYI.
Chaudry Rehmat Ali lived in England way before Pakistan came into being. His idea of Pakistan was developed in England in 1932-33. He did die in Pakistan and his grave is in Lahore. He never took part in Pakistani politics and returned to Pakistan I believe after the partition.]
Well, reality is sometimes too hard to handle. As a wag put it, you can always use the crutch of alcohol to blur reality.
Even Chaudhry Rehmat Ali`s bones aren`t interred in Pakistan.
Here is the story.
http://www.dawn.com/2002/10/16/op.htm
A Muslim imperialist OF MICE AND MEN
By Hafizur Rahman
Long ago, when I was a junior officer in Punjab Information, I asked the central (now federal) Interior Secretary whom I knew, what was being done about bringing home the remains of Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, the man who coined the word ``Pakistan`` as was being vociferously demanded by some people in the country.
``Nothing``, he said, and added, ``By the way, are you sure he himself would have approved? You see, he never came to live in Pakistan for he heartily disapproved of it for being contrary to his concept of a Muslim homeland in India, and preferred to pass his days in England. I wonder what he did for a living there.``
This last, more a thought than a question, remained unanswered, for some of us too used to make conjectures in the days when Pakistan was still an idea as to what Rehmat Ali did in Cambridge. But since it was Cambridge, we all thought he was studying for some kind of a doctorate. It is strange that all those who count him among the founders of Pakistan still can`t throw light on what he did there.
I owe it to former columnist Khalid Hasan for reminding me of those days through a newspaper article called ``The Quaid`s Detractor.`` Actually detractor is a small word, for Rehmat Ali had nothing but contempt for Mr Jinnah whom he took as an agent of the devil himself for not conforming to his (Rehmat Ali`s) idea of Pakistan.
The difference between the two was that one was a practical, democratic, down-to-earth politician, wedded to truth and exactitude, the other, sitting in Cambridge, was a visionary without any sense of reality or sense of history, and if I May add on my own, without any common sense. His only contribution to the making of Pakistan was the name, whereas Pakistan with any other name, would have been equally - whatever it is.
Chaudhry Rehmat Ali has been discussed threadbare by votaries of Pakistan and those who take it upon themselves to determine its heroes, but this aura of heroship has been built up around him as if he had snatched Pakistan from the jaws of the British and the talons of the Hindus. Whereas all that he did was to coin a name, and nothing more. Repeat, nothing more. As for his actual concept of a homeland for Indian Muslims, it was the most hare-brained scheme one could ever come across.
I have called him a Muslim imperialist. If he were alive in 1965 during the September war with India, he would have been one of those who wanted to fly the star and crescent on the Red Fort in Delhi, probably by landing on it by helicopter, for otherwise it was hardly possible. He was a firm believer in the slogan. ``Crush India,`` and if he could crush Hindu India from Cambridge he would have readily done so.
The dictionary defines imperialism as ``Principle or spirit of empire, advocacy of what are held to be imperial interests.`` When, in his mind, Rehmat Ali appropriated for the Muslims nearly two-thirds of India, he forgot one important detail: how the new Muslim empire was to be brought about? By force of arms or by persuading the non-Muslims to make-do with a small part of the vast subcontinent to be called Hanoodia? Apparently even this was done in a spirit of generosity, for, in his opinion, the Hindus did not deserve anything better than a ghetto.
Apart from what is today Pakistan (with of course Kashmir and much more added to it) in the west, and Bang-e-Islam comprising Bengal and Assam in the east, the Muslim Indian empire was also to have Osmanistan (Hyderabad Deccan) and Moplahistan on the western coast of south India, and numerous other bits and pieces. Apparently, any area, big or small, that had any connection with Muslim history and culture, had been arbitrarily included, with Rehmat Ali secure in the supreme self-confidence that the Hindus wouldn`t mind despite their overwhelmingly majority.
This was the ``great visionary`` who, in school textbooks and the country`s postage stamps, is counted among the heroes whose tireless efforts before 1947 led the establishment of Pakistan. As his admirers would have us believe, a crazy notion, howsoever nebulous and impracticable, is preferable as an ideal to the real Pakistan (moth-eaten, in Mr Jinnah`s words) which is too small and too pragmatic to evoke the Mahmud Ghaznavi-style Muslim spirit of imperialism.
What his admirers want in the 20th-21st centuries is empire builders like Muhammad bin Qasim and Salahuddin Ayubi. By the way, the Rehmat Ali Society is very much active in Gujrat, his home town. Left to it, the Quaid`s bones would probably be disinterred from his mausoleum and replaced by its hero`s remains imported from Cambridge which he loved more than Pakistan.
Most of us Muslims are sentimental dreamers and not particularly interested in facts and history, preferring to live with myths or our own making, or half-truths, or even pure fantasy. While Jinnah, with his bad health but millions of Muslims at his beck and call, was labouring day and night to create a homeland for them, Rehmat Ali, ensconced in Cambridge, was spinning grandiose dreams of conquering Hindustan without a single follower to his name. And when the former had achieved his objective, look what the Chaudhry had to say about it.
He said the Quaid had dealt six deadly blows to the millat. I need not recount the six blows; they are too deadly for this column to take. If you are interested you can read the book ``Pakistan, Fatherland of the Pak Nation,`` published by Book Traders of Lahore, which also contains Rehmat Ali`s original pamphlet ``Now or Never`` on what Pakistan, the name coined by him, was supposed to consist of as a resuscitated Muslim empire.
Before I close, let me repeat what the Interior Secretary of those days had said in conclusion: ``If it were generally known what Rehmat Ali thought of Quaid-e-Azam and what he wrote about him, the box bringing his bones from England might not get an exactly red carpet welcome. So, as we bureaucrats say about matters that don`t need further attention: Please file.``
[“Ch. Rehmat Ali died in exile.
Suhrawardy died in exile.
Jogendra Mandal exiled himself to India and died there.
Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated before he could be exiled.
According to Yasser, Mohammad Ali Jinnah wanted to live out his life in Simla and Bombay.
Even Quarratulain Hyder lives in exile in India.
Does anyone else see a pattern here or is it just my imagination? ``
Dost-mittar Sahib, The first time I saw this I ignored it, but it seems that this quote is picking up steam.
FYI.
Chaudry Rehmat Ali lived in England way before Pakistan came into being. His idea of Pakistan was developed in England in 1932-33. He did die in Pakistan and his grave is in Lahore. He never took part in Pakistani politics and returned to Pakistan I believe after the partition.]
Well, reality is sometimes too hard to handle. As a wag put it, you can always use the crutch of alcohol to blur reality.
Even Chaudhry Rehmat Ali`s bones aren`t interred in Pakistan.
Here is the story.
http://www.dawn.com/2002/10/16/op.htm
A Muslim imperialist OF MICE AND MEN
By Hafizur Rahman
Long ago, when I was a junior officer in Punjab Information, I asked the central (now federal) Interior Secretary whom I knew, what was being done about bringing home the remains of Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, the man who coined the word ``Pakistan`` as was being vociferously demanded by some people in the country.
``Nothing``, he said, and added, ``By the way, are you sure he himself would have approved? You see, he never came to live in Pakistan for he heartily disapproved of it for being contrary to his concept of a Muslim homeland in India, and preferred to pass his days in England. I wonder what he did for a living there.``
This last, more a thought than a question, remained unanswered, for some of us too used to make conjectures in the days when Pakistan was still an idea as to what Rehmat Ali did in Cambridge. But since it was Cambridge, we all thought he was studying for some kind of a doctorate. It is strange that all those who count him among the founders of Pakistan still can`t throw light on what he did there.
I owe it to former columnist Khalid Hasan for reminding me of those days through a newspaper article called ``The Quaid`s Detractor.`` Actually detractor is a small word, for Rehmat Ali had nothing but contempt for Mr Jinnah whom he took as an agent of the devil himself for not conforming to his (Rehmat Ali`s) idea of Pakistan.
The difference between the two was that one was a practical, democratic, down-to-earth politician, wedded to truth and exactitude, the other, sitting in Cambridge, was a visionary without any sense of reality or sense of history, and if I May add on my own, without any common sense. His only contribution to the making of Pakistan was the name, whereas Pakistan with any other name, would have been equally - whatever it is.
Chaudhry Rehmat Ali has been discussed threadbare by votaries of Pakistan and those who take it upon themselves to determine its heroes, but this aura of heroship has been built up around him as if he had snatched Pakistan from the jaws of the British and the talons of the Hindus. Whereas all that he did was to coin a name, and nothing more. Repeat, nothing more. As for his actual concept of a homeland for Indian Muslims, it was the most hare-brained scheme one could ever come across.
I have called him a Muslim imperialist. If he were alive in 1965 during the September war with India, he would have been one of those who wanted to fly the star and crescent on the Red Fort in Delhi, probably by landing on it by helicopter, for otherwise it was hardly possible. He was a firm believer in the slogan. ``Crush India,`` and if he could crush Hindu India from Cambridge he would have readily done so.
The dictionary defines imperialism as ``Principle or spirit of empire, advocacy of what are held to be imperial interests.`` When, in his mind, Rehmat Ali appropriated for the Muslims nearly two-thirds of India, he forgot one important detail: how the new Muslim empire was to be brought about? By force of arms or by persuading the non-Muslims to make-do with a small part of the vast subcontinent to be called Hanoodia? Apparently even this was done in a spirit of generosity, for, in his opinion, the Hindus did not deserve anything better than a ghetto.
Apart from what is today Pakistan (with of course Kashmir and much more added to it) in the west, and Bang-e-Islam comprising Bengal and Assam in the east, the Muslim Indian empire was also to have Osmanistan (Hyderabad Deccan) and Moplahistan on the western coast of south India, and numerous other bits and pieces. Apparently, any area, big or small, that had any connection with Muslim history and culture, had been arbitrarily included, with Rehmat Ali secure in the supreme self-confidence that the Hindus wouldn`t mind despite their overwhelmingly majority.
This was the ``great visionary`` who, in school textbooks and the country`s postage stamps, is counted among the heroes whose tireless efforts before 1947 led the establishment of Pakistan. As his admirers would have us believe, a crazy notion, howsoever nebulous and impracticable, is preferable as an ideal to the real Pakistan (moth-eaten, in Mr Jinnah`s words) which is too small and too pragmatic to evoke the Mahmud Ghaznavi-style Muslim spirit of imperialism.
What his admirers want in the 20th-21st centuries is empire builders like Muhammad bin Qasim and Salahuddin Ayubi. By the way, the Rehmat Ali Society is very much active in Gujrat, his home town. Left to it, the Quaid`s bones would probably be disinterred from his mausoleum and replaced by its hero`s remains imported from Cambridge which he loved more than Pakistan.
Most of us Muslims are sentimental dreamers and not particularly interested in facts and history, preferring to live with myths or our own making, or half-truths, or even pure fantasy. While Jinnah, with his bad health but millions of Muslims at his beck and call, was labouring day and night to create a homeland for them, Rehmat Ali, ensconced in Cambridge, was spinning grandiose dreams of conquering Hindustan without a single follower to his name. And when the former had achieved his objective, look what the Chaudhry had to say about it.
He said the Quaid had dealt six deadly blows to the millat. I need not recount the six blows; they are too deadly for this column to take. If you are interested you can read the book ``Pakistan, Fatherland of the Pak Nation,`` published by Book Traders of Lahore, which also contains Rehmat Ali`s original pamphlet ``Now or Never`` on what Pakistan, the name coined by him, was supposed to consist of as a resuscitated Muslim empire.
Before I close, let me repeat what the Interior Secretary of those days had said in conclusion: ``If it were generally known what Rehmat Ali thought of Quaid-e-Azam and what he wrote about him, the box bringing his bones from England might not get an exactly red carpet welcome. So, as we bureaucrats say about matters that don`t need further attention: Please file.``
#118 Posted by MantoLives on May 9, 2004 6:18:07 am
HP,
I agree with your post.
However there is one discrepency... Chaudhry Rehmat Ali did die in England... his grave is at Cambridge.
#117 Posted by MantoLives on May 8, 2004 11:24:46 pm
Dear Uncle Dost Mittar,
Please refer to the British High commissioner Terrence Shone`s statement I quoted in my last post. It has the answer to your question. Jinnah and Liaqat expected Suhrawardy to be the Premier of East Pakistan. This didn`t happen because Nazimuddin outwitted him. It is quite clear that Suhrawardy was the preferred candidate from the high command, despite what Nakhok might want to put here. Suhrawardy wanted an independent and sovereign United Bengal... he had Jinnah`s blessing for such a solution who said that East Pakistan without Calcutta would be like a man without his heart and that he would prefer an independent but United Bengal which would he had no doubt be on good terms with Pakistan. When Mountbatten put this proposal to Nehru, his view was that this would mean the Balkanization of India. Ofcourse recent world events have shown this view to be quite naive.
In any event my point is not to discuss the merits or demerits of Suhrawardy`s personality, but simply to refute the non-facts that Nakhok is putting up as the absolute truths. Please observe his absence now that I have quoted from the US National Archives.
-YLH
#116 Posted by HP on May 8, 2004 6:09:33 pm
#85 by dost-mittar
“Ch. Rehmat Ali died in exile.
Suhrawardy died in exile.
Jogendra Mandal exiled himself to India and died there.
Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated before he could be exiled.
According to Yasser, Mohammad Ali Jinnah wanted to live out his life in Simla and Bombay.
Even Quarratulain Hyder lives in exile in India.
Does anyone else see a pattern here or is it just my imagination? ``
Dost-mittar Sahib, The first time I saw this I ignored it, but it seems that this quote is picking up steam.
FYI.
Chaudry Rehmat Ali lived in England way before Pakistan came into being. His idea of Pakistan was developed in England in 1932-33. He did die in Pakistan and his grave is in Lahore. He never took part in Pakistani politics and returned to Pakistan I believe after the partition.
Suhrawardy was not officially exiled, he left on his own. In fact, when he died in Beirut he was on his way to Pakistan.
Jogendar Mandal’s family had left for India when he was still a minister. He was never forced to leave Pakistan by anybody.
Liaqat Ali was assassinated and so were Indra and Rajiv.
I just don’t see any thing wrong with Jinnah wishing to live in India in his retirement. That just goes to show that like Jogander, he also considered India his own country.
“...Wonder if anyone is willing to insure Musharraf?”
See the problem is that there is no issue with Mushy. No army general ever had to leave Pakistan.
Ayub Khan died in Hazara. Yahya Khan died in Abbotabad. He was playing football at that time. Zia was the only one who died violently and as per Richard Clarke in his book “Against All Enemies” it was a KGB job. People in Pakistan always thought it was the CIA.
“Ch. Rehmat Ali died in exile.
Suhrawardy died in exile.
Jogendra Mandal exiled himself to India and died there.
Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated before he could be exiled.
According to Yasser, Mohammad Ali Jinnah wanted to live out his life in Simla and Bombay.
Even Quarratulain Hyder lives in exile in India.
Does anyone else see a pattern here or is it just my imagination? ``
Dost-mittar Sahib, The first time I saw this I ignored it, but it seems that this quote is picking up steam.
FYI.
Chaudry Rehmat Ali lived in England way before Pakistan came into being. His idea of Pakistan was developed in England in 1932-33. He did die in Pakistan and his grave is in Lahore. He never took part in Pakistani politics and returned to Pakistan I believe after the partition.
Suhrawardy was not officially exiled, he left on his own. In fact, when he died in Beirut he was on his way to Pakistan.
Jogendar Mandal’s family had left for India when he was still a minister. He was never forced to leave Pakistan by anybody.
Liaqat Ali was assassinated and so were Indra and Rajiv.
I just don’t see any thing wrong with Jinnah wishing to live in India in his retirement. That just goes to show that like Jogander, he also considered India his own country.
“...Wonder if anyone is willing to insure Musharraf?”
See the problem is that there is no issue with Mushy. No army general ever had to leave Pakistan.
Ayub Khan died in Hazara. Yahya Khan died in Abbotabad. He was playing football at that time. Zia was the only one who died violently and as per Richard Clarke in his book “Against All Enemies” it was a KGB job. People in Pakistan always thought it was the CIA.
#115 Posted by stuka on May 8, 2004 2:26:00 pm
HP:
``A long time ago I traveled by road from Karachi to Gilgat/Hunza via the Kora karm Highway. Even at that time all the highways were far ahead of what India had at that time. I visited India soon after. This is not meant for any thing else other than info. ``
haha. At least amongst Indians on this site, your credibility is such that you do not have to put disclaimers while criticizing India.
HE:
You are right about the feudal mindset. I have read similar comparisons between the Protestant work ethic of North America and the Hacienda mentality of Latin America.
``A long time ago I traveled by road from Karachi to Gilgat/Hunza via the Kora karm Highway. Even at that time all the highways were far ahead of what India had at that time. I visited India soon after. This is not meant for any thing else other than info. ``
haha. At least amongst Indians on this site, your credibility is such that you do not have to put disclaimers while criticizing India.
HE:
You are right about the feudal mindset. I have read similar comparisons between the Protestant work ethic of North America and the Hacienda mentality of Latin America.
#114 Posted by dost_mittar on May 8, 2004 6:18:20 am
Manto, Nakhok:
Both of you seem to be quite knowledgeable about Suhrawardy, more than I am, and so I am reluctant to enter this debate. However, based on my memory of what I read long ago -no references- this is what happened:
Suhrawardy was playing games. He was negotiating with some hindu bengalis to seek an independent Bengal and wanted to be the Prime Minister of that Bengal. At the same time he was also keeping a foot in the Jinnah boat. But when India became independent, Suhrawardy stayed on in India and, with Gandhi, tried to restore calm in Calcutta.
-This happened in August 1947 and he probably left for Pakistan after the calm was restored in Septemeber or October to try his luck there.
Both of you seem to be quite knowledgeable about Suhrawardy, more than I am, and so I am reluctant to enter this debate. However, based on my memory of what I read long ago -no references- this is what happened:
Suhrawardy was playing games. He was negotiating with some hindu bengalis to seek an independent Bengal and wanted to be the Prime Minister of that Bengal. At the same time he was also keeping a foot in the Jinnah boat. But when India became independent, Suhrawardy stayed on in India and, with Gandhi, tried to restore calm in Calcutta.
-This happened in August 1947 and he probably left for Pakistan after the calm was restored in Septemeber or October to try his luck there.
#113 Posted by MantoLives on May 8, 2004 5:07:41 am
Nakhok,
Personally I have never come across someone like you. Just because you read one article you are calling me a liar. Have you no shame?
Suhrawardy`s letters to Jinnah, Gandhi, Mountbatten, Nehru, K S Thammiya, are saved by the US National Archives
The number is: US National Archives 845.00/11-2847
These are the letters for period of September-December 1947...
Suhrawardy`s address is : Mamdot Villa Davis Road Lahore
At another point his address is : Palace Hotel Karachi
These things can be easily verified from the US National Archives... There are close to 40 letters .... out of which some 30 or so have the Mamdot Villa Address...
Now are the US National Archives lying as well?
#112 Posted by MantoLives on May 8, 2004 5:07:41 am
PS: Nakhok`s posts prove abundantly why `little knowledge is dangerous`. This is not the first time he has been caught red handed concocting `facts`.
#111 Posted by MantoLives on May 8, 2004 5:07:41 am
US NATIONAL ARCHIVES 845.00/11-2847
More on Suhrawardy’s correspondence
On 21st September 1947 Suhrawardy wrote 6 letters 5 to Gandhi and 1 to Mountbatten. (Address was Mamdot Villa Davis Road Lahore
On 22nd September 1947 he wrote 2 letters 1 to Jinnah , 1 to Gandhi
(The address for the letter to Gandhi was On Plane Lahore to Karachi and for the letter to Jinnah Palace Hotel Karachi )
In these letters he wrote down his plan for peace initiative which then resulted in his voluntary departure to Calcutta where he launched his peace initiative. The letters also speak of his deep seated loyalty to Pakistan and the Quaid-e-Azam as well as his desire for peace. Quite contrary to the view being put up here by Nakhok.
I also quote from the notes of Terence Shone the British High Commissioner dated 10th October 1947 (P.R.O, D.O 142/420) :
The note’s subject is : Record of a Meeting with H.S 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.”
These were the views of Suhrawardy as explained by Terrence Shone…
Now for Nakhok’s blighted version of history to be true, the US National Archives, the British High Commission and Suhrawardy himself should be lying. Only something called Banglapedia is telling the truth…. God save us from such distortion of history.
#110 Posted by Romair on May 7, 2004 11:57:53 am
whippinnzed #109: I fail to see the difference between your story and the one I presented. Both say a landlord raped girls. Were you attempting to make a point, or just supplement what I was saying?
dost-mittar #108: ``Who elects/selects the village council?``
There are supposed to be local councils that get elected, through local elections, held under the Constitution and legal system of Pakistan. However, in the below-described cases, one would assume, the councils and panchayats are local to the landowner and the feudal, on his/her land. They have no legal right. So they must be set up with the approval of the feudal.
You need to keep in mind that in real feudal areas, the feudals are the judiciary, the legislative and the executive. They are kings. In many cases, they are Pirs also. And they have bonded haris and even Armies. The law of the land does not apply to their constituents, in their lands. Hence the constituents cannot think of not voting for them in elections.
It is thus a vicious circle. The constituent voters (peasants) out of fear, have to vote for the feudal in elections, because it is his law, and not the state law, that applies on there land. The feudal gets elected, and makes sure the National Assemblies never pass a legislation that directly threatens his power in his own lands.
This is why, all feudals are into politics. Literally every single large feudal and his family is on the forefront of promoting, ``democracy`` in Pakistan. While they are also on the forefront of ensuring there is no democracy in their own land. Both are interconnected.
Under normal circumstances, with a purely PPP or PML govt., this guy would not get prosecuted. Because the legislative would consist of similar individuals. It is only getting prosecuted, now, because Musharraf has taken personal interest in such issues. And has put a large number of women into the Assemblies, at all levels.
It is impossible to get a resolution agaisnt honor killings passed through Pakistan`s assemblies, because it dominated by feudals of PPP and PML who sit as jirga heads, in their own lands, specifically authorizing such honor killings. Every now and then, some member of PPP or PML will try to pass one, perhaps to make the ruling party look bad, knowing fully well it will not pass.
The hold of feudals on their parties is so tight, that even urbanites and big-time lawyers of their parties are under their control. Wasim Sajjad is a Chairman of Senate, Rhodes Scholar and top members of PML:
``Once a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, on February 8, 2002, he was sternly censured by the Oxford University Student Union and a motion was passed against him unanimously ``condemning the irresponsible behaviour of former chairman of the Pakistan Senate, Mr Wasim Sajjad, for not allowing debate on `Honour Killing` on the 2nd August, 1999.`` (http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20030216.htm)
What good is a democracy that will not even allow such debates? Obviously it is not a democracy. Hence my opposition to Pakistani-styled democracy.
Take a trip to where the top-shot PPP and PML feudal MNAs/Chief Ministers live, and you will see them specifically authorizing such acts against women. There was one recently, I believe, in the land of the Sind Chief Minister. I saw an interview on BBC, where a feudal MPA, point blank stated to the interviewer that honor killings are justifiable. Khar was the Chief Minister of Punjab under PPP. His son, is accused of, allegedly throwing acid on a girl(his daughter, of course, herself, is a top fashion model of Pakistan, and he has eight or so wives). And Khar has been the pride and joy of democratic and secular PPP.
Anyways, I guess you get the point I am making, and perhaps now understand that this move towards Islamic parties, and subsequent rejection of secularism, in Pakistan`s poor areas, has more to do with the evilness of feudals, and less to do with any admiration of maulvi politics.
Think about it. If you were the woman who was raped, whom would you consider the lesser evil: the local mosque imam, who curses you if you don`t veil yourself, but does live right next to you in a similar house. Or the landowner, who lives in a haveli and rapes you, or authorizes your rape?
dost-mittar #108: ``Who elects/selects the village council?``
There are supposed to be local councils that get elected, through local elections, held under the Constitution and legal system of Pakistan. However, in the below-described cases, one would assume, the councils and panchayats are local to the landowner and the feudal, on his/her land. They have no legal right. So they must be set up with the approval of the feudal.
You need to keep in mind that in real feudal areas, the feudals are the judiciary, the legislative and the executive. They are kings. In many cases, they are Pirs also. And they have bonded haris and even Armies. The law of the land does not apply to their constituents, in their lands. Hence the constituents cannot think of not voting for them in elections.
It is thus a vicious circle. The constituent voters (peasants) out of fear, have to vote for the feudal in elections, because it is his law, and not the state law, that applies on there land. The feudal gets elected, and makes sure the National Assemblies never pass a legislation that directly threatens his power in his own lands.
This is why, all feudals are into politics. Literally every single large feudal and his family is on the forefront of promoting, ``democracy`` in Pakistan. While they are also on the forefront of ensuring there is no democracy in their own land. Both are interconnected.
Under normal circumstances, with a purely PPP or PML govt., this guy would not get prosecuted. Because the legislative would consist of similar individuals. It is only getting prosecuted, now, because Musharraf has taken personal interest in such issues. And has put a large number of women into the Assemblies, at all levels.
It is impossible to get a resolution agaisnt honor killings passed through Pakistan`s assemblies, because it dominated by feudals of PPP and PML who sit as jirga heads, in their own lands, specifically authorizing such honor killings. Every now and then, some member of PPP or PML will try to pass one, perhaps to make the ruling party look bad, knowing fully well it will not pass.
The hold of feudals on their parties is so tight, that even urbanites and big-time lawyers of their parties are under their control. Wasim Sajjad is a Chairman of Senate, Rhodes Scholar and top members of PML:
``Once a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, on February 8, 2002, he was sternly censured by the Oxford University Student Union and a motion was passed against him unanimously ``condemning the irresponsible behaviour of former chairman of the Pakistan Senate, Mr Wasim Sajjad, for not allowing debate on `Honour Killing` on the 2nd August, 1999.`` (http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20030216.htm)
What good is a democracy that will not even allow such debates? Obviously it is not a democracy. Hence my opposition to Pakistani-styled democracy.
Take a trip to where the top-shot PPP and PML feudal MNAs/Chief Ministers live, and you will see them specifically authorizing such acts against women. There was one recently, I believe, in the land of the Sind Chief Minister. I saw an interview on BBC, where a feudal MPA, point blank stated to the interviewer that honor killings are justifiable. Khar was the Chief Minister of Punjab under PPP. His son, is accused of, allegedly throwing acid on a girl(his daughter, of course, herself, is a top fashion model of Pakistan, and he has eight or so wives). And Khar has been the pride and joy of democratic and secular PPP.
Anyways, I guess you get the point I am making, and perhaps now understand that this move towards Islamic parties, and subsequent rejection of secularism, in Pakistan`s poor areas, has more to do with the evilness of feudals, and less to do with any admiration of maulvi politics.
Think about it. If you were the woman who was raped, whom would you consider the lesser evil: the local mosque imam, who curses you if you don`t veil yourself, but does live right next to you in a similar house. Or the landowner, who lives in a haveli and rapes you, or authorizes your rape?
#109 Posted by whippinzed on May 7, 2004 9:34:58 am
Field marshall Romair #106 here is the full sroty (as appeared in ANI, Dailytimes etc)
Islamabad: A local village body in Pakistan`s Punjab Province recently ordered the rape of two village women, both related to each other by marriage, as retribution for the alleged illicit relations of a landlord`s daughter with the brother of one of the girls.
The incident, which took place in Multan`s Dinga Kabirwala village on April 30, has sent shock waves across the country and through the ruling political establishment.
Even Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has taken strong exception to it, saying that such incidents contravene the basic social tenets of Islam.
Musharraf has directed the Interior Minister, Makhdoom Faisal Saleh Hayat, the Punjab Governor and its Chief Minister Chaudhary Pervez Elahi to order an investigation into the incident and to present the report to him.
``When a proper legal system exists in the country then who allows such decisions to prosper that not only destroyed the life of two girls, but has ruined an entire family,`` the Daily Times and Online News quoted Musharraf as saying about the rape of the two women in Dinga Kabirwala village on the orders of a local jury.
According to the local dailies, a landlord with full knowledge and cognizance of the local jury raped a young girl and her sister-in-law on April 30 in Basti Danga Naich, a suburb of Kabirwala.
The order to rape the girls was given after the brother of one them was accused of having illicit relations with the rapist`s daughter.
Muhammad Saeed of Kabeerwala police station told Daily Times that a case had been registered against the alleged rapist and members of the jury. One of the accused has been arrested and the other five are at large.
Police said Ghaffar Jeer and Tajamal Naich of Basti Danga Naich had tried to rape Mumtaz, 16, on previous occasions and been told off by villagers.
On April 30, Ghaffar allegedly sent his daughter Shahina, alias Sanee, to Mumtaz`s house while her brother Muhammad Riaz was inside. Ghaffar reportedly then locked the main door of the house and called the other villagers around, accusing Riaz of having an affair with Shahina.
Ghaffar then arranged for a panchayat of 50 people in his house. The jury, headed by Haji Muhammad Sultan, Haji Afzal Jeer and Ahmad Nawaz called Mumtaz and Riaz`s sister-in-law Mudasan and ordered Ghaffar to rape them. Ghaffar allegedly took them to an outhouse and raped them.
Kabeerwala police registered a case against Ghaffar Jeer, Zahoor Jeer, Bashir, Haji Tajamal, Amir Nawaz and Haji Sultan on the complaint of Mumtaz`s father Muhammad Nawaz.
Meanwhile, a human rights committee led by lawyer Sikandar Javed has visited the village and assured free legal aid to the victims. ANI
Islamabad: A local village body in Pakistan`s Punjab Province recently ordered the rape of two village women, both related to each other by marriage, as retribution for the alleged illicit relations of a landlord`s daughter with the brother of one of the girls.
The incident, which took place in Multan`s Dinga Kabirwala village on April 30, has sent shock waves across the country and through the ruling political establishment.
Even Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has taken strong exception to it, saying that such incidents contravene the basic social tenets of Islam.
Musharraf has directed the Interior Minister, Makhdoom Faisal Saleh Hayat, the Punjab Governor and its Chief Minister Chaudhary Pervez Elahi to order an investigation into the incident and to present the report to him.
``When a proper legal system exists in the country then who allows such decisions to prosper that not only destroyed the life of two girls, but has ruined an entire family,`` the Daily Times and Online News quoted Musharraf as saying about the rape of the two women in Dinga Kabirwala village on the orders of a local jury.
According to the local dailies, a landlord with full knowledge and cognizance of the local jury raped a young girl and her sister-in-law on April 30 in Basti Danga Naich, a suburb of Kabirwala.
The order to rape the girls was given after the brother of one them was accused of having illicit relations with the rapist`s daughter.
Muhammad Saeed of Kabeerwala police station told Daily Times that a case had been registered against the alleged rapist and members of the jury. One of the accused has been arrested and the other five are at large.
Police said Ghaffar Jeer and Tajamal Naich of Basti Danga Naich had tried to rape Mumtaz, 16, on previous occasions and been told off by villagers.
On April 30, Ghaffar allegedly sent his daughter Shahina, alias Sanee, to Mumtaz`s house while her brother Muhammad Riaz was inside. Ghaffar reportedly then locked the main door of the house and called the other villagers around, accusing Riaz of having an affair with Shahina.
Ghaffar then arranged for a panchayat of 50 people in his house. The jury, headed by Haji Muhammad Sultan, Haji Afzal Jeer and Ahmad Nawaz called Mumtaz and Riaz`s sister-in-law Mudasan and ordered Ghaffar to rape them. Ghaffar allegedly took them to an outhouse and raped them.
Kabeerwala police registered a case against Ghaffar Jeer, Zahoor Jeer, Bashir, Haji Tajamal, Amir Nawaz and Haji Sultan on the complaint of Mumtaz`s father Muhammad Nawaz.
Meanwhile, a human rights committee led by lawyer Sikandar Javed has visited the village and assured free legal aid to the victims. ANI
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- ajeya: I came across an... Pleas For Sanity as
- MaheshG: Re: # 307 GT Sahib,... Pleas For Sanity as
- MaheshG: HP Sahib, if you... Pleas For Sanity as
- GT: #305 tahmed: Seriously, you and... Pleas For Sanity as
- GT: HP: he he .... this... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: HP #304 Actually Pakistan... Pleas For Sanity as
- HP: Tahmed, I just read that.... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: HP #302: any thoughts... Pleas For Sanity as
