My Pakistan Diary: The Feudal

I can`t recall the last time I was so impressed by a piece of writing than the one I just read. Call it me being naive, but I can`t think of anyone capturing a Punjabi rural, heavily anglo-saxon influenced-yet very human and (trust me) real beautiful part of our culture in such a real way. Coming from a family described above, I can vouch for the fact that I, in my mind, I have alway considered myself the luckiest person knowing the fact that there are so many poeple (``subjects`` in ultra-liberal writing samples) that pray for my wellness every time they think of me and my family. They are the mochis, naais, lohars, and mirasis mentioned above......... all real people working in their own worlds trying to make each otehrs` lives better. Those are the placesand people you find selfless respect and care of people for each other. At least some of the very `feudals`, some writers on this portal claim to wonder how they keep coming back to the parliament, are the very poeple who have dedicated their lives to well being of their village people. The point being that, as primitive and inefficient the somwhat modified of version of `feudalism` people so claim to hate might sound to other readers, there are still so many areas in our country where it has still worked so beautifully over generations. And people are still happy in their daily lives. May be that is how life is......... part of me definitely believes that part of my culture to be beautiful and so intimate.

Thanks Dost-mittar for putting a real face to my culture that I still have fond memories of........and want to keep it that way.

Nakhok,


The link is there. Why don`t you stop denying reality and proving again and again that there isn`t an honest bone in your body. Shameless.....


Sincerely

YLH

# 216 by Mantolives

+++++
In his letter M P Bhandara clearly mentions that Suhrawardy spoke to the PCA on 6th March 1948
+++++

If I had believed that Mantolives was genuinely misled by an honest error in drawing inferences, I would have gladly tried to help him. But this is a case of deliberately insisting on misleading/unwarranted inferences for the sole purpose of obfuscating facts. Mantolives is wasting his time with his subterfuges. Try as he might, he cannot change the past. He is wasting his time. And he has wasted enough of my time. I have no time for his dishonest posts, nor for his silly games. Enough is enough!

In his letter M P Bhandara clearly mentions that Suhrawardy spoke to the PCA on 6th March 1948... My quotation and direct link is there. You are the only liar here and god save the world from people like you. Still no answers to direct questions...

Shameless... still facts will not change.

Dear Nakhok,

I suppose you missed this bit from M P Bhandara`s Article:


http://www.dawn.com/2002/01/19/letted.htm#9

Finally, let us hear Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy in his own words which are as valid today as on 6th March, 1948, when he first addressed the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan:-

`Sir, a person has not only loyalty, he has several loyalties to several causes which are not ``antagonistic to each other, and I feel, Sir, that the greatest loyalty which a person can possess, is a loyalty to humanity which transcends all parochial loyalties .... if this State is not founded on the cooperative goodwill of all the nationals, a time will come when this State will destroy itself. `

---

Nakhok I must add that your previous post is yet another additiion to your huge pile of lies.
Now have some shame and apologize...

-YLH

# 214 by Mantolives

+++++
Both of them (quoted posts 195-201) contradict your claim.
+++++

Outright lie. Neither M.P.Bhandara nor Shahida Jalal dispute the facts. Only Mantolives` false/misleading/unwarranted inferences do. The DAWN article that I quoted, elicited multiple letters to the editor - not one of them contradicted the facts that Mantolives
is so desperately trying to purge from recorded history!

Mantolives is in no position to offer an honest explanation about:

[1] why the DAWN article would make such false claims on Suhrawardy

[2] why none of the letters to the editor that were published in response to that article contradicted the facts that are bothering Mantolives so much.

Mantolives has wasted his time trying to weave out a dishonest contradiction with false/misleading/unwarranted inferences. Try as he might, Mantolives cannot change the past with subterfuge. Mantolives is just wasting his time and he has wasted enough of my time in the bargain with his subterfuge. Enough is enough!

Nakhok,

More personal attacks and Lies I see?


Instead of Obfuscating Answer the question... but ofcourse you don`t have the answer... except repeating the same `op-ed` article without any source.

Since you had a problem with primary sources I have given you the internet sources as well ...


If Suhrawardy wasn`t physically present in Pakistan then how did he
a) Address the Pakistan Constituent Assembly for the first time on 6th March 1948?
b) Vote against the dissolution of the AIML in December 1947 in Karachi?


``Verifiable Internet Sources``:

A G Noorani`s paper (page 4):

http://www.jamiahamdard.edu/PDF/Studies%20on%20Islam.pdf


MP Bhandara`s letter

http://www.dawn.com/2002/01/19/letted.htm#9



-YLH

PS

Like all newspapers in the world, Dawn does not take responsibility for OP-ED columns. If some one expresses an opinion it doesn`t become the gospel of the truth. From the same Dawn I have quoted much more reputable authors including Barrister Shahida Jalal who is the grand daughter of Suhrawardy and MP Bhandara A renowned parsi leader, acquaintance of Suhrawardy and Bapsi Sidhwa`s brother.

Both of them (quoted posts 195-201) contradict your claim. Now by your logic shouldn`t you be trying to extract an apology from dawn?

# 210 by Mantolives

+++++
You are not an ideal reflection of the global Bengali community... I have nothing but affection for them, despite people like you.
+++++

The challenge seems to be to reconcile Mantolives` ``affection`` ``for the global Bengali community`` with his contempt for ``Bengali historians`` and for ``your prized Banglapedia``.

Is it Mantolives` contention that ``Bengali historians`` don`t really belong to the ``global Bengali community``? And why does he get so livid with rage if someone quotes from the ``National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh``? More importantly, why does Mantolives deny his ``affection`` to any member of the ``global Bengali community`` if he/she fails to fall for Mantolives` skullduggery?

Mantolives reminds me of a line from Shaw`s ``Arms and the Man``. The heroine had pointed to herself incredulously to say ``I, Raina Petkoff, tell lies!``

Well, Mantolives has done a Raina Petkoff with his sanctimonious games. Like Captain Bluntschli, I have indulged Mantolives for his sanctimony. But enough is enough. I don`t really have time for his games.

# 210 by Mantolives

Well here`s a challenge. If Mantolives is so convinced that he can fool everybody with his obfuscations, why doesn`t he try his tricks on the DAWN? Let`s see Mantolives force a retaraction/apology from DAWN with his clever obfuscations.

To make it easier for Mantolives to try his tricks on the DAWN, I am once again posting the link as well as the quote:

---

http://www.dawn.com/2003/09/08/op.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
08 September 2003 Monday 10 Rajab 1424

A model of political rectitude
By Roquyya Jafri

..... When Pakistan came into being, Bengal was faced with extensive riots. 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. .....

---

Mantolives might pretend all he can that he doesn`t know of the externment order on Suhrawardy. Mantolives can pretend all he can that Suhrawardy was never denied entry into Pakistan. But his rantings would have as little effect on the DAWN editor as it has had on me. It is now up to Mantolives to prove me wrong by fooling and browbeating DAWN into issuing a retraction/apology.

Mantolives is wasting his time. And he has wasted enough of my time. If I had thought that he was truly interested in the facts, I would have gladly obliged. But he knows the facts. He is merely into obfuscation of well known and well documented facts by false/misleading/duplicitious/unwarranted inferences from ``primary sources``. I have no time for his games.

Mantolives, with his ``heads I win, tails you lose`` style of fraudulent arguments had first denied that Suhrawardy`s membership had ever been terminated and had then argued that the termination doesn`t count because the Federal Court had later restored Suhrawardy`s membership!! That about sums up Mantolives` duplicity. He can carry on with his games, but I see no reason to indulge him.

Even the DAWN in his own country will have no time for his dishonest games. Let him try his tricks with DAWN. If he succeeds, he can come back to Chowk and crow about his skullduggery. But in the mean time he already stands exposed in Chowk for his dishonesty.

Nakhok,

I will ignore your repetitive personal attacks and word twisting of which you are a master.
Still no answer to the questions I asked. You asked for `verifiable internet sources` as well as primary sources (195-201) ... I obliged...

Don`t confuse the issue.... I am not interested in your victim mentality... my point of interest was only one issue... and in consonance with that issue I ask you once again:

If Suhrawardy wasn`t physically present in Pakistan then how did he
a) Address the Pakistan Constituent Assembly for the first time on 6th March 1948?
b) Vote against the dissolution of the AIML in December 1947 in Karachi?


``Verifiable Internet Sources``:

A G Noorani`s paper (page 4):

http://www.jamiahamdard.edu/PDF/Studies%20on%20Islam.pdf


MP Bhandara`s letter

http://www.dawn.com/2002/01/19/letted.htm#9



Suhrawardy travelled between Pakistan and India from 1947-1948 atleast 8 or 9 times ... awaiting Cabinet appointment and chalking out a peace plan in September, carrying Gandhi`s messages to Jinnah, attending the AIML`s dissolution in December 1947 in Karachi, and speaking to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly in March...


By indulging in another invective against me you will just prove your dishonesty further. Except for accusing me of all people of racism against Bengalis, you have no argument...


If you look up the definition of `obfuscation` .... every single one of your post is a glaring example of it. You are not an ideal reflection of the global Bengali community... I have nothing but affection for them, despite people like you.


-YLH

# 206 by Mantolives

+++++
If Suhrawardy wasn`t physically present in Pakistan then how did he
a) Address the Pakistan Constituent Assembly for the first time on 6th March 1948?
b) Vote against the dissolution of the AIML in December 1947 in Karachi?
+++++

If Mantolives were really interested in the facts and not in sweeping them under the rug, he wouldn`t have been trying to draw false/misleading/duplicitious inferences with such questions.

Mantolives knows the truth, he is merely engaged in obfuscation of facts:

[1] Mantolives knows about the externment order on Suhrawardy.

[2] Mantolives knows when, why and how Suhrawardy was sent back to Kolkata.

[3] Mantolives knows how Liaqat Ali Khan had initially 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.``

[4] Mantolives knows that 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.``

[5] Mantolives knows that 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!

[6] Mantolives, with his ``heads I win, tails you lose`` style of fraudulent arguments had first denied that Suhrawardy`s memebership had ever been terminated and had then argued that the termination doesn`t count because the Federal Court had later restored Suhrawardy`s membership!! That about sums up Mantolives` duplicity. He can carry on with his games, but I see no reason to indulge him.

Mantolives knows the facts. But his only interest is in obfuscating facts. To that end he has been drawing false/misleading/duplicitious inferences from ``primary sources``. He is wasting his time. And he has wasted enough of my time.

Dear Nakhok,


Instead of personal attacks and lies... why don`t you answer a simple question?


If Suhrawardy wasn`t physically present in Pakistan then how did he

a) Address the Pakistan Constituent Assembly for the first time on 6th March 1948?

b) Vote against the dissolution of the AIML in December 1947 in Karachi?

The links to internet sources have been provided 195-201


The truth is that you are the only one here engaging in dishonest obfuscation and outright lies.

Have a nice day....

Zameer,

you were right... the way he is twisting your words now is amazing. It is a total waste of time even arguing with Nakhok.

# 204 by Mantolives

+++++
Bengalis are our brothers... and I am sure you join me in wishing them all the best in their effort to become a modern democratic state.... dair aye durust aye.
+++++

If Mantolives really feels that way, he can give teeth to his wishes by urging Pakistan`s ruling elite to make amends for the following lapses since the 1971 partition of Pakistan:

1) Pakistan`s ruling elite has steadfastly refused an equitable division of assets with Bangladesh for the last 33 years.

(2) Pakistan`s ruling elite has refused to repatriate the stranded Pakistanis (``Biharis``) for the last 33 years.

(3) Pakistan`s ruling elite has refused to pay war reparations.

(4) Pakistan`s ruling elite has refused to compensate Bangladesh for the colonial exploitation from 1947 to 1971.

(5) Pakistan`s ruling elite has refused to try those that were accused of crimes against humanity. Even those criminals who had been specifically singled out by Hamoodur
Rehman Commission Report for court martial not only managed to escape scott free, but continued to strut around in Pakistan for the last 33 years (or till their death) as members in good standing of the ruling elite.

It is perhaps too much to expect General Pervez Musharraf and his merry band of Kakul kleptocrats to make amends - they won`t even make amends for the crimes against their current compatriots.

But if Mantolives is serious about his regard for his Bengali brothers, he shouldn`t have any qualms about urging Pakistan`s ruling elite to do the needful. There cannot be a better way of truly putting 1971 behind the people of both Bangladesh and Pakistan.

# 203 by zamir1

+++++
I agree with you, arguing with this guy is a waste of time.
+++++

Well, mantolives is indeed wasting his time. He has been dishonestly trying to obfuscate well known and well documented facts with false/misleading/duplicitious inferences from ``primary sources``. Unfortunately for him, obfuscations cannot change the facts. He has wasted enough of his own time and enough of my time in the bargain.

+++++
“… what percent of Bengalis really wanted to separate, and weather they were in a majority or not?
+++++

Even to ask, what percent of Bengalis or what percent of Sindhis, Mohajirs, Balochis, Pakhtoons, Punjabis wanted to separate, amounts to blatantly skirting the real issue . Such a question betrays a lamentable lack of understanding that Pakistan broke up not because of ordinary citizens but because the ruling elite in West Pakistan had made up its mind to break up Pakistan if it ever faced a situation in which its writ played second fiddle to the wishes of the ordinary people.

To understand the 1971 partition, one must probe the mindset of the West Pakistan based ruling elite. This ruling elite had made up its mind a long time ago that it would rather risk the breakup of the country than let power slip from its hands into the hands of elected representatives. This elite was for a united Pakistan only as long as united Pakistan remained under its rule. It was determined not to cede power to the representatives of the people in a united Pakistan because that would threaten its powers, perks and privileges. ``Parity``, ``One Unit`` and the likes were just the opening salvos in its secessionist schemes.

+++++
However, Tikka Khan is not a national hero in Pakistan
+++++

One would have never guessed that from his fate in post-1971 Pakistan. After the emergence Bangladesh in 1971, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto elevated him to the rank of General and made him the army chief on 3 March 1972. General Khan`s first task was to crack down on the people of Baluchistan. General Tikka Khan had earned infamy as the Butcher of Bangladesh in 1971. He went on to earn infamy as the `Butcher of Baluchistan`.

Following his retirement from the army in 1974, Tikka Khan joined the Pakistan People`s Party in 1976 and became Special Assistant on national security to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Afterwards he was made Defence Minister. During her first tenure as Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto made Tikka Khan the governor of the Punjab province in 1988. General Tikka Khan died on 28 March 2002, regrettably in his bed rather than on the gallows.

+++++
If you visit any upper, or upper middle class household in Karachi chances are that you will run into a Bangladeshi working as a domestic servant.
+++++

What`s the point of this assertion? Is this an attempt by zamir1 to echo the thinking of the West Pakistan based ruling elite that the 1971 partition was for the best because West Pakistan had already extracted what it could out of East Pakistan and that the latter would have proved to be a drag on West Pakistan if Pakistan had remained united?

Regardless of how rich the upper or upper middle class households in Karachi might be, the HDI index (introduced by famous Pakistani economist, Mahbubul Haq) is a dead give away that that human development in Bangladesh has outstripped that in Pakistan. And Bangladesh has achieved this despite starting from behind Pakistan, despite the genocide of 1971, and despite the upheaval.

Be it in population control, eradication of illiteracy or women empowerment, Pakistan does rank below Bangladesh in 2004. As zamir1, himself, has acknowledged, ``What Bangladesh has achieved in last few decades is really remarkable``. It is a misplaced sign of priority to gloat that Dhaka`s upper or upper middle class compares unfavorably with Karachi`s upper or upper middle class in conspicuous consumption. UNDP obviously didn`t think much of ``Karachi Shining`` when it computed the HDI for Pakistan to be below that of Bangladesh.

# 204 by Mantolives

+++++
I am sure you join me in wishing [Bangladeshis] all the best in their effort to become a modern democratic state
+++++

With or without Mantolives` gratutious posturing, Bangladesh is well on its way ``to become a modern democratic state.`` The question mark is actually on Pakistan`s future. Ordinary Pakistanis remain disenfranchised to this day. Pakistan has become synonymous with military dictators and vicious terrorists with both doing their utmost to make a mockery of the yearnings of the common Pakistani for democracy.

# 202 by Mantolives

+++++
he will launch personal attacks against me, call me racist , anti-Bengali, and a bigot
+++++

I didn`t have to do do anything. Mantolives did it all to himself in his posts as he poured scorn over ``Bengali historians``, ``National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh``, ``Awami League court``, ``one Bangladeshi historian`` etc. etc.

Zamir...


After 2 weeks of arguing with this guy Nakhok... I am surprised that he hasn`t uttered a word of apology for accusing me of everything under the sun... nor has he answered the questions I asked him.

What our army did in Bangladesh was shameless and utterly wrong ... and so was the indiscriminate killing of innocent West Pakistanis.. What happened with Bangladesh was the result of 12 years of Military rule... and lack of democracy...

Bengalis are our brothers... and I am sure you join me in wishing them all the best in their effort to become a modern democratic state.... dair aye durust aye.

-YLH

Montolives #154

I agree with you, arguing with this guy is a waste of time. Look at #164 – He has got the question right, but a question which could have been answered in simple Yes or No and a two digit number was turn into a long speech with nothing worth reading.

AlephNull #164
I am aware of the facts regarding the current status of Pakistan’s economy as well as the economies of other south Asian countries. You have missed the point. The purpose of referring to a five year old article was show what most outsiders think and what they see. Besides the numbers you refer to are also questionable – we have to remember that at least 70% of Pakistan’s economy is underground. If foreign exchange is your criteria then Pakistan’s foreign exchange is also about $12 billion and the per capita income is expected to reach $600 by the end of the year.

Nakhok #164
You haven’t given me a straight answer. Let me repeat the question “… what percent of Bengalis really wanted to separate, and weather they were in a majority or not?

As I said earlier, I don’t know any Pakistani who does not blame our own wrong policies for the events of 1971. However, Tikka Khan is not a national hero in Pakistan, but the murderers, rapists, thugs of Indian trained Mukti-Bahini terrorist army are national heros in Bangladesh.


nakhok #165
What Bangladesh has achieved in last few decades is really remarkable. The programs started by Greeman Bank are being studied all over the world and are being copied in several countries including Pakistan. I am not going to argue with you about the numbers you refer to from UNDP either.

If these numbers make you feel better than that is fine with me. However, the ground realities are different. There is a reason why hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis are living illegally in both India and in Pakistan. It is estimated that there are over a million Bangladeshis living illegally in Karachi alone. If you visit any upper, or upper middle class household in Karachi chances are that you will run into a Bangladeshi working as a domestic servant. Most of them make about $100 - $125 per month, but they prefer to work illegally in Pakistan than to stay in Bangladesh. Before you jump on my case – I would like to point out that most of them are not living in Pakistan from before 1971 – but most have come after 1971.


Risking their lives, thousands of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh cross the India-Pakistan border in a desperate attempt to find food and shelter…
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2005/stories/20030314006612300.htm

There are an estimated 16 lakh illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in Karachi.
(http://www.blonnet.com/2003/02/26/stories/2003022600110800.htm)


Over the years, some parts of Pakistan, including the city of Karachi in Sindh province, the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Balochistan Province, have become practically ungovernable because of large-scale illegal migration from Bangladesh and Afghanistan
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EB06Df03.html

Pakistan. A study by Shirkatgah, a non-governmental organization, found that an influx of over a million migrant workers in the fishing industry is the main reason for a decline in wages of local men and women in the Korangi coast area. …. Illegal immigrants from Bengal and Burma have taken over the task of shrimp cleaning, displacing local women.
(http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=2056_0_5_0)

Ofcourse we can expect the repetition of same lies from Nakhok.... he will launch personal attacks against me, call me racist , anti-Bengali, and a bigot... but he will not accept that his lies have been caught yet again.

Nakhok,


Fine... I am a liar, untrained, obfuscator and racist against Bengalis etc...


But for the 100th time ... How do you account for Suhrawardy`s letters as archived by the US NATIONAL ARCHIVES 845.00/11-2847

How are `RETURN ADDRESSES` merely `INFERENCES` ? Gandhi also wrote to these addresses... maybe Gandhi was also part of this grand anti-Bengali conspiracy hatched by those Punjabi and Mohajir politicians?


These letters are there archived in many document collections and confirmed by A G Noorani who is an Indian writer... (see posts 190-191)


Similarly your claims about Nazimuddin being the henchman of Jinnah are contradicted by A K Azad who describes Nazimuddin as a man of great organizational ability sidelined because Suhrawardy was a henchman of Jinnah? Is the famous Maulana Azad a Pakistani agent too? By not answering direct question and calling me names you`ve lowered yourself in the eyes of those who you are trying to convince, not that you can convince by making up nonfacts.


Learn a lesson from this exchange.... grow up and accept the facts. And stop lying about me... and my posts. I haven`t accepted any of your lies. The fact that you can lie so blatantly about my posts goes to show that you are without any sense of integrity or shame.

PS:

`` like Joseph Goebbels, believes that a falsehood, repeated a myriad times, will get to be accepted as the truth.``


You`ve indeed described your style of argument very eloquently. This is what you`ve done. Shameless... thats all I have to say for you.

A good book on Suhrawardy`s life :

Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy : a biography
By: Shaista Suhrawardy Ikramullah
Publisher: Karachi ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1991.
ISBN: 0195774140


Thank God ... there are enough books out there to rebutt the goebellian lies of people like Nakhok.

MORE INFO:

On 6th March 1948.... Hossein Shaheed Suhrawardy addressed the Pakistan Constituent Assembly for the first time.... he said:


`Sir, a person has not only loyalty, he has several loyalties to several causes which are not ``antagonistic to each other, and I feel, Sir, that the greatest loyalty which a person can possess, is a loyalty to humanity which transcends all parochial loyalties .... if this State is not founded on the cooperative goodwill of all the nationals, a time will come when this State will destroy itself. `



Where does Nakhok think the Pakistan Constituent Assembly was? Calcutta...


The PCA was located in Karachi, the present building of the Sindh Assembly.... records can be checked for the PCA debates....

For verification online... here is a letter by M P Bhandara, Parsi leader, Pakistani MP, and Bapsi Sidhwa`s brother :


http://www.dawn.com/2002/01/19/letted.htm#9


Now .... I wonder if M P Bhandara is lying too?

And here is the view of Barrister Shahida Jamil who is the granddaughter of Suhrawardy.... Maybe she is lying too...




http://www.dawn.com/2001/12/16/letted.htm#2

In his article (Dec 5), Mr M. P. Bhandhara has paid kind tributes to the memory of my late grandfather, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, 38 years after his death, but has also made some unfortunate comments, probably due to the ``random readings`` he did on my grandfather. It is always dangerous to attempt assessments after ``random readings``. I am, therefore, constrained to write to set the record straight, lest some student of history gets confused.

Mr Bhandara has wrongly stated that late Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy was a ``Bengali nationalist``. In fact, he was a strong Pakistani nationalist before Partition and after Partition. His famous speech delivered in 1946 at the Muslim League Legislators Convention, presided over by the Quaid-i-Azam at Delhi, when he moved the formal Delhi Resolution on Pakistan as the Premier-elect of Bengal of the only Muslim League Ministry formed by virtue of its elected majority, was titled, ``Pakistan is my life``. In 1962, in his famous letter to the late President Ayub Khan, he says, ``Pakistan is one and indivisible. It is for this we risked our lives and have grown old``.

He was also not of ``Iranian extraction``. His lineage is derived from the great Sufi scholar, Sheikh Shahbuddin Suhrawardy of Baghdad, who was of Arab descent.

Mr Bhandara has also referred to ``his efforts leading towards a nonfederal type of state``, which he claims, ``made sense to the sensible`` and which he goes on to describe as,`` ... confederation``.

I knew my grandfather`s political views well, as I was fortunate enough to have had several discussions with him while studying political science for my B.A Degree. He opposed ``confederation``. In his own words on the subject, written in his unfinished memories, just before his death, published by University Press Ltd., he records: ``The idea of confederation was then mooted as the only possible solution that would avoid separation. I had been approached by those who were thinking on the above line, as well as by students and others amongst the younger generation, and I had put my foot down on all talk which might loosen the ties between East and West Pakistan``.

So let there be no doubt, Suhrawardy`s struggle for a fair disbursement of powers between the Centre and the provinces was, as he says, ``for the sake of an integrated Pakistan`` and was based in his firm conviction that ``Pakistan is one and indivisible``. This makes more sense to the sensible.

BARRISTER SHAHIDA JAMIL

Federal Minister for Law, Justice Human Rights and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad

---

http://www.dawn.com/2001/12/05/op.htm#2



Remembering Suhrawardy




By Mr M.P. Bhandara


This is a personal memoir of a fabulous man whom I had the good fortune of being fairly closely acquainted with for a short period, some forty years ago. I met him in adverse circumstances. What follows are a few remembered vignettes and some random readings on him, much later.

My father was recalled to the Mercy of the Lord in March 1961. Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy was his legal counsel in an on-going litigation before the Lahore High Court. I was a green 21 years old and HSS was in his 70th year. It appeared intimidating to me to deal with so senior a person as my distinguished lawyer, who had rubbed shoulders on equal terms with Gandhi, Jinnah and Nehru, who had been a prime minister of Pakistan and was at the time one of the great legal luminaries of the Pakistan bar.

We had a common Oxford bond, which helped. He was one of the first Indians to win the prestigious Bachelor of Civil Law degree from Oxford (he kept up with his Latin to his last days), and me, with a most undistinguished record of a sojourn there. From our first meeting, HSS put me at ease as one accustomed to switching effortlessly to the wavelength of the interlocutor. There was nothing avuncular, patronizing or condescending in this wavelength adjustment. Chronological age never mattered to HSS; he counted himself among the young at heart and mind.

I suggested that he stay with us at our Warris Road residence instead of the once famous Faletti`s Hotel, an offer that was accepted immediately. We gave him a bedroom upstairs, which soon became a legal chamber, teahouse, and political meeting place. The bedroom next door was for Menezes, a stuttering hero-worshipping amanuensis who was wont to hark back to the `Mid-Mid-Mid-napore` antecedents of his hero. A bit of a Sancho Panza.

A typical scene could be described as follows: HSS sprawled on a bed receiving a massage, which might last for an hour or more, with books, letters, papers lying all over, simultaneously listening to junior lawyer(s) reading relevant law texts with closed eyes in preparation for a court appearance the following day; HSS dictating notes to Menezes.

A room that could barely hold ten persons would soon be overflowing with about thirty as the evening shadows lengthen; politico-lawyer types and other adulators crowd in throwing questions and HSS answering in his impeccable melodious crisp Queen`s English with a relish of civilized humour and bits of Ghalib and other Urdu poetry thrown in. Quite often HSS would recite the first line or two and the caucus in the room would make an impromptu chorus and complete the stanza.

HSS was short, rotund, quick of wit, word and movement. Had he been less diminutive than he was, a parody might have suggested comparison with the rubber man of Michelin. And indeed on the ballroom floor - and remember in those good old days Saturday night fever enveloped the nocturnal hours every evening at the Faletti`s - HSS would be bouncing in his carefully attired DJ on the floor like a yoyo ball for the best part of the evening.

My recall is that his favourite drink was a plain soda; I was surprised that he did not drink alcohol. Yet, as the evening wore on his spirits rose with the ambience of the gathering of which he was the centre invariably.

He believed in living life to the full with seldom a dull moment. Once after a Faletti`s evening, he suggested that we call on the Watsons. I protested it was already I a.m. in the morning, but the protest was dismissed and under a cold December moon we headed in my trusty non-heated Opel for the Canal Bank residence of the Watsons.

Watson, an American academic of sorts, with his Russo-Japanese wife, a former ballerina, were a popular couple. Later it was discovered during the Nixon Watergate hearings that he was a CIA undercover man. Watsons had an open house. On an earlier occasion I noticed HSS and political friends were being entertained in one part of the house and in another was lodged Faiz Ahmad Faiz and assorted literary types.

Two great constellations almost under one roof. But back to the Watson house, HSS suggested that I toot the horn hard to wake up the household. A perplexed Watson emerged in his dressing gown. What followed was a hilarious interlude which lasted till the wee hours of the morning with peals of laugher and Mrs Watson refusing to do a bit of ballet for us.

People often refer to HSS as a `ladies man`. This is but a vulgarization. HSS adored the company of cultured and intelligent women, who were a foil to his quick wit and charm.

But, what made this man fabulous? His generosity, humanity and bravery. He seemed not to care a Tinker`s cuss for money. His wealth was himself; it was his bank. Money had value only in the hands of a needy. He was incapable of holding money - a compulsion to give it away the moment it came into his hands to poor political friends or servants so that he would soon be reduced to the `pennyless state` he preferred to be in. In this sense he was a `fakir.` Most of the great houses of Pakistan were open to him and he had enough meal invitations to last more than one lifetime. Politics, law, socializing were strands that wove into one another to promise him a brimful of life.

Apart from this fakir-like quality, he was as brave as a lion. He often narrated how he and Gandhi literally avoided a massacre of Muslims by going unarmed to live in the midst of a violent Hindu upsurge during the Calcutta Riots of 1947. He was then no longer chief minister of Bengal. The Hindus were after his blood, holding him responsible for the carnage done earlier by the Muslims. Instead of relying on the British Indian army force, Suhrawardy and Gandhi decided to jointly enter the maelstrom, preaching nonviolence and offering their lives to save Muslim lives.

What mattered for HSS was living the day, not yesterday. He was considerably upset with Ayub Khan`s rule. He was sure a cataclysmic event would soon overtake the country. One of his remarks I do remember well: ``You people sit comfortably in West Pakistan and have no idea of the seething alienation in the East. If only I had one tenth of the power of Ayub Khan, as prime minister, I would have made Pakistan a going concern. East Pakistan simply won`t carry on this way. Talking to you Punjabis is like a dialogue between the deaf and the dumb.``

Whenever Ayub Khan was discussed, it seemed to distress him. He clearly saw Ayub moving on a false tack. If only Ayub Khan had made a partnership with the Big Daddy of Bengal, instead of throwing him into prison; but that, alas, was not to be.

My strong impression is that he believed in Pakistan and all his efforts leading towards a nonfederal type of state made sense to the sensible but not to an influential Lahore newspaper and its middle class readership to whom the word confederation itself was treason. He saw himself as the last link. One of his favourite quips: ``Apart from the English language and PIA, I am the only link between East and West Pakistan.``

HSS, no doubt, was a Bengali nationalist. But he was not strictly speaking a son of the soil, being of Iranian extraction. He would certainly have preferred a tripartite partition of India, as was envisaged in the original Pakistan resolution of 1940. But after an initial spell in India following partition in deference to his great concern for Indian Muslims left behind - an interlude played up by his enemies in Pakistan no end - he returned to East Pakistan and played a distinguished role in Pakistan politics. He was founder of the Awami League; one of his acolytes was Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who ultimately became the `father of Bangladesh.` The `tripartite solution` of the subcontinent did finally come about in ways that did little credit to us.

HSS did not wear his patriotism on his sleeve. He would have heartily agreed with Samuel Johnson`s dictum: `patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.` He was a humanist, a renaissance man of the widest culture; he had no time for the pettiness of pelf and power. He was a big enough man to suffer the insults heaped on his integrity and could forgive his accusers for they knew not in their ignorance and blind prejudice where the nation was heading.

The goodness of a good man permeates all his actions. It penetrates through the heavy foliage that blocks the beneficial rays of the sun. Not only does it enhance the quality of life of those exposed to it but also is a lighthouse for generations to come.

The writer is a former member of the National Assembly.

Here is another interesting piece of information.... AIML was dissolved in the Karachi session of December 1947.... 2 Members voted against the dissolution of the All India Musim League: 1) Iftikharruddin 2) Suhrawardy...

Here is an `internet` proof of this: Page 4/145 of A G Noorani`s research work:

http://www.jamiahamdard.edu/PDF/Studies%20on%20Islam.pdf


How could Suhrawardy vote against the resolution to dissolve the AIML if he wasn`t physically present in Karachi in Mid December?? Unless ofcourse they had video conferencing or something... amazing man this Suhrawardy... according to Nakhok he was banned from Pakistan, but he was giving Lahore and Karachi addresses on his letters, addressing the PCA for the first time on 6th March 1948... and voting against the Resolution to dissolve the AIML in December of 1947 in Karachi.


Simply amazing...


Ofcourse... Nakhok will not take up this in his repetitive post.

# 193 mantolives

+++++
Suhrawardy`s staying back in Kolkata is not the issue. Your claim was that he was not allowed into Pakistan. His letters archived in US National Archives, the citation of which I have already given in a number of posts proves otherwise...
+++++

Deliberate and false inferences. Typical obfuscations. Downright lies.

Mantolives is deliberately drawing errorneous inferences from ``letters archived in US National Archives`` to prove what he knows to be false. This is indeed the height of dishonesty

Mantolives has finally admitted that Suhrawardy had initially stayed back in Kolkata. And regardless of whether Mantolives likes to acknowledge it or not, it is a quite well known fact that when Suhrawardy tried to enter Pakistan, he was dubbed a traitor and an Indian agent and then sent back to Kolkata. I have given two references readily accessible by the internet (one from Pakistan and one from Bangladesh). Anyway this is a very well known fact - and certainly not a closely guarded secret. I shouldn`t have to quote chapter and verse from a thousand different sources to prove it. Two are more than enough.

And Mantolives knows the facts as well, but he is deliberately making false inferences from ``letters archived in US National Archives`` to prove otherwise.

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!

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`` and poured scorn over the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh in the bargain.

Mantolives is deliberately drawing errorneous inferences from ``letters archived in US National Archives`` to prove what he knows to be false. This is indeed the height of dishonesty. If dissembling is his delight, then he can continue to wallow in his falsehoods. What do I care.

Perhaps Mantolives, like Joseph Goebbels, believes that a falsehood, repeated a myriad times, will get to be accepted as the truth. Fortified by this Goebbelsian believe, Mantolive can continue to lie and dissemble. But the past won`t change just because Mantolives chooses to lie and lie and lie.

Whether Mantolives can accept it or not, it will remain a fact 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.

Welcome awaits India`s PM in Pakistani birthplace

By Tahir Ikram

GAH, Pakistan (Reuters) - The people of Gah in Pakistan have a good feeling about Manmohan Singh.

He may have left more than 60 years ago, but this native son has become India`s prime minister-elect.

``I am very happy a son of our village is going to be the prime minister of India,`` said Raja Gulsher, a farmer who served in the medical corp during the 1965 war, one of three fought with India since Partition in 1947.

``If any of the air and water in this place has had an effect on him, he will strike a friendship with Pakistan.``

In a quirky happenstance, both leaders of the nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan were born in what is now enemy territory.

Pakistan`s President Pervez Musharraf was born in Delhi.

Both men carry memories of those tumultuous times when the subcontinent was divided, millions of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus were killed, and Pakistan was created.

Singh has pledged to work with Musharraf to put decades of enmity between their now nuclear-armed nations behind them.

Gulsher said he knows it won`t be easy for Singh.

``We know his constraints. Even then I am sure he will maintain friendship with us. If he comes to our village I`ll be the first to welcome him.``

The pace of life in this rural backwater some 80 km southwest of Islamabad hasn`t changed much since Singh was raised here in the 1930s.

Traffic races over the nearby motorway, but there is no road from it to Gah. Women still draw water by hand from the wells, where Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs of a bygone era once filled their pitchers from separate pools.

They have electricity these days, and some have televisions.

But the modern world makes few intrusions among the mud walled homes or down the narrow uneven lanes of this community of less than two thousand people and their cattle, sheep and goats.

What has changed now is that everyone is a Muslim.

PRIMARY SCHOOL

When Singh attended the government primary school in the late 1930s, Hindus and Sikhs accounted for about half of Gah`s population.

``We used to live without any problem. We used to help each other,`` said Mohammad Khan about relations between Muslims and Hindus. ``They were half of the population. We used to play together, we used to fight together, we used to study together.``

Khan was serving with the British Indian Army in Malaysia in August, 1947 when independence came, and recalls raising a Pakistan flag, while a Christian soldier hoisted India`s tricolour.

Memories of Partition in Gah were less proud.

Baz Khan was 12 years old.

``I was grazing cattle when people came running towards me saying the village has been attacked. I could see smoke and fire coming out of the village.``

Muslims from other villages had attacked Hindu and Sikh households. Some Muslims from Gah, Khan says, gave shelter to their Hindu and Sikh neighbours.

Manmohan Singh`s father moved his family from Gah some years earlier and and during the upheaval of Partition, the dried fruit merchant moved to Amritsar.

Memories in Gah have faded.

Ahmed Khan can`t remember attending class with the young Manmohan Singh, though the school register shows they were contemporaries.

But Khan, while tilling his field under the scorching sun with temperatures soaring above 40 Celsius, said he was proud of the fact today.

``It`s a matter of great happiness. I would want him to be prime minister of India and he should come and visit his village,`` Ahmed Khan told Reuters.

Farmer Mohammad Ashraf at first didn`t remember any Manmohan Singh either.

But asked if he knew a son of Gurmukh Singh Kohli, Ashraf`s seventy-year-old wrinkled face broke into a grin.

``Oh, you mean little Mohna.``

He has no idea what happened to little Mohna after 1941.

``I failed class four, and he passed, after that I don`t know where he went.``

Singh`s new address is 7, Racecourse Road, New Delhi, official residence of the Prime Minister of India. It`s a long way from Gah.

Nakhok,

Now that you know that you deliberately misrepresented facts and got caught you are trying to confuse the entire issue in esoteric issues and by lying about me. You are attributing statements I never made and you deliberately detracking the argument. Merely repeating the same garbage 100 times will not make it true. Unlike you I have the satisfaction of knowing that I am not a liar. My posts and citations are there and so are yours... your citations don`t even back up your claims. I have no personal interest or axe to grind. Let this be a lesson to you. If you can`t argue on facts, don`t concoct lies and try to claim them as facts. Suhrawardy`s staying back in Kolkata is not the issue. Your claim was that he was not allowed into Pakistan. His letters archived in US National Archives, the citation of which I have already given in a number of posts proves otherwise... there is no misinterpreting them... Suhrawardy wrote the return address himself, and Gandhi addressed letters to him on the same address. Similarly I never disputed the fact that Suhrawardy`s membership was rescinded in 1949... I challenge you to show where I disputed it.


In any event I have tried my level best not to stoop to your level of personal insults but let me state very honestly that my final conclusion is that you are not ok psychologically and should seek help in the matter ASAP. Either that or you are a very sinister sort of a liar.

-YLH

# 191 by mantolives

+++++
I am disputing your lie that he was not allowed in Pakistan which is such a stupid and idiotic claim even for someone like you.
+++++

Mantolives is disputing facts, and he is doing so knowingly and dishonestly.

Suhrawardy had stayed back in Calcutta after the 1947 partition. Mantolives knows damn well that Suhrawardy was dubbed a traitor and an Indian agent and then sent back to Calcutta when he first tried to enter Pakistan. I have cited articles from DAWN in Pakistan and New Age in Dhaka in support of my claim. But Mantolives already knew the facts - he was acting dishonestly when he disputed the facts and and when he loftily advised me not to get hung up over one op ed or one Bangladeshi historian. Mantolives took to quoting ``primary sources`` and misinterpreting them to dispute facts he knew to be true.

Mantolives wasn`t interested in facts, only in obfuscating them. He was dissembling.

Likewise, Mantolives took to dishonestly disputing the fact that Suhrawardy`s membership to the first Constituent Assembly had been terminated by the Liaqat Ali Khan government on the ground that Suhrawardy was not a permanent resident of Pakistan. To that end, Mantolives took to pouring scorn on the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh and on what he referred to as revisionist historians at the Awami League Court.

Mantolives initially disputed that Suhrawardy`s memebership in the Constituent Assembly had been terminated, and then, when his lies became unsustainable, Mantolives blurted that the termination had been eventually overturned by the Federal Court. That`s the height of dishonesty. If Mantolives believes that the termination was eventually overturned, why then had he claimed that Suhrawardy`s membership hadn`t been terminated?

Mantolives wasn`t interested in the facts if they were disagreeable to him, only in sweeping the disagreeable facts under the rug by whatever means it took to do so. To that end he made dishonest claims - quoting ``primary sources`` to disprove facts that he knew to be true. And in the bargain, he poured scorn over Bangladeshi historians and the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh.

Anyway, my citations and quotations were only for those Chowkies who were interested in the facts - not for educating Mantolives who knew the facts but had taken to disputing them dishonestly. I couldn`t care less if Mantolives continues to wallow in willful lies and denial of facts.

Nakhok,

Your lies never stop do they.

Once again... Suhrawardy was the middle man between Jinnah and Gandhi after partition... he travelled between Pakistan and India on several occasions. He stayed at Nawab Mamdot`s villa and Karachi`s palace hotel. I am not claiming anything else... you are deconstructing your own demons.
Gandhi`s famous offer of coming to Pakistan was carried to Jinnah by Suhrawardy himself. Nobody is disputing that Suhrawardy was in Kolkatta .... I am disputing your lie that he was not allowed in Pakistan which is such a stupid and idiotic claim even for someone like you.


In the US National Archives Suhrawardy`s correspondence is filed under Suhrawardy`s Peace Plan .... the citation is : US NATIONAL ARCHIVES 845.00/11-2847 .... the return address on several letters is Mamdot Villa Lahore and Palace Hotel Karachi... on atleast on occasion it is `on plane from Lahore to Karachi`.


Unlike you I am not in the business of concocting facts. You lied. I merely showed you the fact. Instead of accusing me of racism show some humility and humanity that seems to be totally lacking in you. Once again you have completely exposed yourself... pathetic and shameless.


-YLH

PS: None of your tedious citations prove a word of what you are claiming.

FROM Frontline the Indian Newspaper


``The only real disclosure and one of truly historical significance is the little known correspondence between Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru and Suhrawardy in October 1947 on the question of the minorities. It is not drawn from Jinnah`s papers but from the U.S. National Archives.``


http://www.flonnet.com/fl1924/stories/20021206001107400.htm




These are the letters I am referring to.... they prove conclusively that Suhrawardy was travelling back and forth between Lahore-Karachi-Dehli-Calcutta...



The US National Archives Citation is: US NATIONAL ARCHIVES 845.00/11-2847

# 187 by Mantolives

+++++
facts quoted directly from primary source
+++++

Mantolives quoted ``directly from primary sources`` to deny well known facts with his dishonest interpretations of them. I had initially assumed that Mantolives was merely misinterpreting ``primary sources``. But it pretty soon became apparent that he was indulging in dishonest obfuscation.

Suhrawardy had stayed back in Kolkata after the partition. When finally he tried to go to Pakistan, he was dubbed a traitor and sent back to Kolkata. Suhrawardy`s membership to the First Constituent Assembly was subsequently terminated by the Liaqat Ali Khan government under the plea that Suhrawardy was not a permanent resident of Pakistan. These are well known facts.

Mantolives knew all that but pretended not to. Mantolives dishonestly disputed facts that he knew to be true to the point of expressing contempt for the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh and for Prof. Sirajul Islam. An honest discourse was never in the minds of Mantolives.

Mantolives was initially hoping that I wouldn`t have access to electronic data to post it with ease in support my contention. He had also hoped that I wouldn`t bother to manually transcribe from hardcopies. And when I ignored his rude and dishonest rantings, he promptly declared ``victory``. And then when I gave citations in support of the two assertions, Mantolives loftily advised me not to be hung up by ``one op ed``, ``a Bangladeshi professor``, the ``prized Banglapedia`` and ``Bengali historians``. This is the height of dishonesty. Mantolives isn`t into any honest discourse, he is merely into ``disproving`` well known facts by bluster. He has done it before and he is doing it again.

Facts from the past won`t change merely because Mantolives makes it his mission to try to sweep them under the rug by dishonestly dissembling or thru bluster. In fact, it is a mistake to dignify Mantolives` dishonesty with any attempt to educating him.

Whatever citations and quotations I have provided are for people who are interested in an honest discourse. Mantolives is not. He is not interested in facts, only in sweeping them under the rug whenever he finds them disagreeable. And to that end, he will dishonestly dissemble to no end.

My dear Nakhok

I must respectfuly bring to your attention for the nth time: You are the one who is ignoring the facts quoted directly from primary sources.... like Suhrawardy`s own letters as archived in the US National archives which you described as Pakistani propaganda. Only you will describe your own misinterpretation of your selective citation as `facts`.

Why is Mantolives continuing with his dishonest prattle? Is this his way of having the ``last say``?! He can have it.

My citations were for the benefit of only those who are interested in facts.Mantolives is not interested in facts, but only in sweeping them under the carpet.

Nakhok

Unlike you I have quoted from primary sources such as Suhrawardy`s own letters.
I can see how utter and complete destruction of your mythology is painful. So go on reading revisionist history... the primary sources don`t lie. Facts will be facts whether you like it or not.

PS: I am yet to see how the `citations` you are quoting actually back up your claims. Sigalph tried to talk some sense into you... he is as Bengali as anyone... he doesn`t seem to think I am racist. The fact that you continue to attack me with this shameless argument is ample evidence of the fact that you don`t have anything worthwhile to say. You are the one who is showing disdain... you dismissed Suhrawardy`s letters archived in the US National Archives under his peace plan as Pakistani propaganda... needless to say you live with a very skewed sense of reality. I wish you luck in passing off your outright lies as facts... you are fooling no one here.

#175 By Mantolives

+++++
As for Suhrawardy`s seat... it was reinstated by the federal court.
+++++

A typical example of Mantolives` dishonesty. If Mantolives now asserts that Suhrawardy`s seat was reinstated by the federal court, he must have, at the least, been aware of the fact that the Liaqat Ali Khan government had terminated Suhrawardy`s membership in the first Constituent Assembly on the round that he was not a permanent society. Why, then, did Mantolives dispute that fact over and over agian?

Mantolives dishonestly disputed facts that he knew to be true to the point of expressing contempt for the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh and for Prof. Sirajul Islam. An honest discourse was never in the minds of Mantolives. He was initially hoping that I wouldn`t have access to electronic data to post it in support my contention. He had also hoped that I wouldn`t bother to manually transcribe from hardcopies. And when I ignored his rude and dishonest rantings, he promptly declared ``victory``. And then when I gave citations in support of the two assertions, Mantolives loftily advised me not to be hung up by ``one op ed``, ``a Bangladeshi professor``, the ``prized Banglapedia`` and ``Bengali historians``. This is the height of dishonesty. Mantolives isn`t into any honest discourse, he is merely into ``disproving`` well known facts by bluster. He has done it before and he is doing it again.

I would consider my efforts wasted if I had nothing more in mind than pointing out Mantolives` dishonesty. But it matters little to anyone if Mantolives chooses to be dishonest. My citations are not for Mantolives, they are for those who are interested in the facts rather in sweeping them under the carpet. I couldn`t care less if Mantolives declares at the top of his voice that he`ll not accept the facts.

For all his bluster, Mantolives will never be able to change the past. Regardless of whether Mantolives can accept it or not, Suhrawardy was indeed turned back from Pakistan when he tried to enter it after the partition. Likewise, regardless of whether Mantolives can accept it or not, Suhrawardy`s membership to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan was indeed terminated by the Liaqat Ali Khan government on the ground that Suhrawardy was not a permanent resident of Pakistan!

+++++
Frankly... my conscience is clear...
+++++

Yes, as clear as the sewage in his sewer!

Anyone who can take to disputing facts he knows to be true to the point of dishonestly expressing disdain for the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, ``Bengali professors`` and ``one op ed`` from DAWN does not have a conscience, period. It is an oxymoron to declare clarity of a non-existent conscience.

Nakhok,

You are the only one being dishonest as usual. I quoted from Suhrawardy-Gandhi correspondence and the British high commisioner`s note to prove that indeed Suhrawardy was moving freely across borders and was staying in Lahore and then in Karachi. The article you provided does not say what you claim... your point is rather sketchy. I have no reason to be dishonest... the only reason I am involved in this exchange is because you are concocting facts and then trying to prove them by multiple posts and misinterpreting article. Frankly... my conscience is clear... I am speaking the truth... clearly you don`t have the same luxury which is why you continue to try and cloud the whole issue with load of garbage.

The point is that once again your non-facts have been exposed.

PS: You still didn`t explain why Maulana Azad has a diametrically opposite point of view of the whole issue as well ? For quote consult one of my earlier posts.

Is he a PAKISTANI agent and a henchman of Jinnah?

More on Sher-e-Bangla`s fall from power in 1943:

Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq had agreed on the floor of the Bengal Assembly that ``an enquiry is desirable`` on the excesses of the British Raj in Midnapore. Enraged, Governor Herbert immeditaely asked Fazlul Huq for `` an explanation tomorrow morning of your conduct.`` Huq wrote back that while he owed ``no explanation whatever`` he did ``owe a duty to administer a mild warning that indecorous language such has been used in your letter under reply should in future be avoided.``

Governor Herbert engineered a censure motion against Huq. The Governor, then, presented Fazul Huq with the following letter for signing:

---

Dear Sir John:
Understanding that there is a probability of the formation of a Ministry representative of most of the parties in the event of my resignation, I hereby tender my resignation ..... in the sincere hope that this will prove to be in the best interests of the people of Bengal.
Yours sincerely
A.K.Fazlul Huq

---

Governor Herbert then ruled Bengal by himself for a month to allow his favored politician, Nazimuddin, to gather sufficient support - an exercise in which Nazimuddin received the Governor`s assistance. The Governor, who had refused Huq permission to expand his team of ten ministers and one parliamentary secretary, allowed Nazimuddin 14 ministers, 13 parliamentary secreataries and 4 whips to make it easier for Nazimuddin to gather the required support.

Governor Herbert received full support from Viceroy Linlithgow who saw ``great advantage in being rid of Huq``.

sigalph235 wrote (# 173): ``It was well said about the Sher-e-Bangla that when the `sher` of Bangla roared, even the mighty British lion listened in uneasy respect.``

Well, the plain-speaking Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq certainly made the British lion uneasy. It wasn`t at all surprising that the British lion, in the form of Viceroy Linlithgow, would see ``great advantage in being rid of Huq``.

# 173 by sigalph235

+++++
It was well said about the Sher-e-Bangla that when the `sher` of Bangla roared, even the mighty British lion listened in uneasy respect.
+++++

Well, the ``British lion`` was the ruler. And it was not its wont to listen in respect to any of its subjects. The Sher-e-Bangla was no exception. However, unlike many a subservient native politician, the Sher-e-Bangla had the gumption to speak his mind even in the face of reprisals.

In 1943, at the time of his fall from power, Fazlul Huq was the Premier of Bengal as the head of a non-Muslim League coalition. The Muslim League was the main opposition in the Bengal Legislature. It was in February of 1943 that Fazlul Huq promised an enquiry into the excesses of the British Raj during the suppression of the Quit India Movement in Midnapore. He did so on the floor of the Legislature. Bengal Governor, Herbert, was livid with rage. He forced Fazlul Huq`s resignation. And finally in April of 1943 he had Khwaja Nazimuddin of Muslim League sworn in as the Premier of Bengal.

Governor Herbert, an agent of the ``British lion``, could oust Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq from power but he could not silence the Sher-e-Bangla. Speaking bitterly of Governor Hebert on the floor of the Bengal Assembly, Sher-e-Bangla said:

---

..... We felt [Governor Herbert`s] interference and obstruction so keenly that I addressed a letter. On August 2, 1942 I wrote: `I am convinced that the time has come when I must speak to you quite openly ..... You are acting as if your Ministers did not exist ..... In Cabinet meetings you monopolize all the discussions and practically force decision on your ministers, decisions which are in many cases the outcome of advice tendered to you by permanent officials.`

In the meantime, the disastrous consequences of the mistaken rice policy began to manifest themselves .....

After [Governor Herbert] had once managed to secure my so-called letter of resignation, the only end Sir John Herbert had in view was somehow to smuggle Sir Nazimuddin into power. He forgot his solemn promise to me that he would ..... try to form a national cabinet. Even the so-called letter of resignation drafted and kept ready by the Governor himself emphasized this point.

Of all the points of which a Governor can be guilty, the fault of partisanship is most reprehensible ..... A partisan Governor is no more fit for high office than a partisan judge.

It is not the vote of the opposition that (the new ministers) should dread, but the tormented cries of the famine-stricken people of Bengal. ..... The ministers will not be saved, unless Providence in His Mercy deems it fit to forgive their sins ..... Some day, sooner or later, they will be humbled to the dust.

---

It is indeed ironical that in independent Pakistan, Sher-e-Bangla would be so humiliated by the ruling establishment that he would be forced to complain that even the Britsh Governor, Herbert, had treated him with more dignity in 1943!

1954 saw the first elections (only for the provinicial government) in East Pakistan. Muslim League was comprehensively beaten by a coalition (Jukto Front) headed by Fazlul Huq. Fazlul Huq`s Krishak Praja SHRAMIK Party was an important constituent of the Jukto Front. The word SHRAMIK had been added to the old name of Fazlul Huq`s party to broaden its appeal to the labor in the industrial sector.

The Muslim League of Nazimuddin, Nuril Amin and Monem Khan bit the dust in that election. But Fazlul Huq`s days in power didn`t extend beyond a couple of months in spite of his landslide election victory. He was accused of being an Indian agent (much as Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would be a decade later at the infamous Agartala Conspiracy Case). He was accused of treason and unceremoniously kicked out by the Muslim League establishment. Sher-e-Bangla complained bitterly, after that humiliation, that even the Britsh Governor, Herbert, had treated him with more dignity in 1943.

``Field Mrashal`` Ayub Khan had openly written of his disdain for Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq in his ghost-written autobiography, ``Friends Not Masters``. The ``Field Marshal`` would later have him ``EBDO``ed that not only barred him from running for office but even took away his voting rights. Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq died a broken-hearted man in Ayub Khan`s Pakistan.

# 173 by sigalph235

+++++
what little criticism you have of him (Suez crisis)
+++++

I consider the Great Calcutta Killings as well Pakistan`s official stance on the Suez crisis to be serious blunders which, with a little more forethought, could have been avoided.

Among Suhrawardy`s miscalculations during the Constituional debate are:
(1) His acquiescence to ``Parity`` which, in violation of the one-man one-vote principle, rendered an East Pakistani`s vote to be worth less than a West Pakistan`s vote.
(2) His acquiescence to the ``One Unit`` demand which left Sind, Balochistan adn NWFP unhappy.

#175 by Mantolives

+++++
Liaqat Ali Khan`s hatred for Suhrawardy is not an unknown and the feeling was mutual ... yet it is not that I am disputing but your claim that he was not allowed into Pakistan, which is clearly wrong.
+++++

Clearly wrong?! Mantolives is being less than honest.

I have provided two references (DAWN of Pakistan & New Age of Bangladesh) in support of my claim that Suhrawardy was not allowed into Pakistan on the plea that he was a traitor.

+++++
In response you started attacking me with horrible accusations.... instead of showing some dignity.
+++++

This too is less than honest. It is Mantolives who could not accept the facts that:

(1) When Suhrawardy tried to come to Pakistan from Calcutta after the partition, 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``.

And when I initially refused to respond, he promptly declared ``victory`` on the ground that I hadn`t responded.

Anyway, it is a waste of time to respond to Mantolives rude and dishonest rantings. I have cited references in support of the above two facts. That should be enough for anyone interested in facts (dost-mittar, for example).

Facts from the past cannot be wished away with temper tantrums. Furthermore, it doesn`t really matter to anyone whether Mantolives chooses to accept them as facts or not. And if he chooses to gain satisfaction with his rude and dishonets outbursts, that too is his prerogative.

Nakhok,

My dear friend once again... you didn`t put up any facts for me to get upset about. I merely showed you that Suhrawardy was the middle man carrying messages of Jinnah and Gandhi to each other and therefore was in Pakistan several times unlike what your revisionist history claims. I backed that up by Suhrawardy`s own letters which are well documented and preserved in many places including the US National Archives. I have already quoted the reference several times.

In response you started attacking me with horrible accusations.... instead of showing some dignity. This is not the first time you`ve been caught red handed concocting `facts`.

-YLH

PS: None of the articles you are putting up support the outrageous claim you had made earlier. As for Suhrawardy`s seat... it was reinstated by the federal court. Liaqat Ali Khan`s hatred for Suhrawardy is not an unknown and the feeling was mutual ... yet it is not that I am disputing but your claim that he was not allowed into Pakistan, which is clearly wrong.

#165 by sigalph235

+++++
Pakistan never had a better Prime Minister.
+++++

Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq, Khwaja Nazimuddin and HS Suhrawardy were all Prime Minister of United Bengal. The last two, but not Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq, were also Prime Minister of Pakistan. If I were to rank them in order of their determination to stand by the have-nots and to rid the land of feudalism, I would rank them as follows:

1. Fazlul Huq
2. HS Suhrawardy
3. Khwaja Nazimuddin

In fact, it is a joke to include the last named in the rankings because Khwaja Nazimuddin was feudalism personified.

Speaking of the three, it has been written, ``All three are buried, side by side, in the grounds of Dhaka High Court. For a while two of them were called Prime Minister of Pakistan. Fazlul Huq was not. But only he was spoken of as the royal Bengal tiger.``

re nakhok and Bengali leaders

My friend we both like Suhrawardy though it seems what little criticism you have of him (Suez crisis) is precisely one of the many reasons I like him more. Perhaps the only South Asian politician, an elected one at that, who openly defied the Arab-loving subservience of our ruler class.

Of course I did not mean to belittle Sher-e-Bangla. In his own way his greatness is no less than Suhrawardy sahib`s. Long before I was born, we had the honor of hosting him at our family residence both in Calcutta and, after partition, in Dhaka.

It was well said about the Sher-e-Bangla that when the `sher` of Bangla roared, even the mighty British lion listened in uneasy respect.

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 g