Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity Tahmed,

The insurgency of Fakir of Ipi in question is not the one against the British.. But against the Pakistan government for being "irreligious" and "bastion of Qadiyaniism". It was supported by the Frontier Congress as well as Bacha Khan.


As for Gandhi's link to Taliban, I have established three clear links ...

1. Mufti Mahmood and ANP's role in the Nizam-e-mustafa movement which led to Zia's rise to power.

2. Fazlurrahman, who is the ideologue of taliban and also the only mullah politician who proudly says that his family sided with Gandhi and opposed Jinnah...and his role in the creation of taliban.


3. Bacha Khan's support of Fakir of Ipi's Islamist insurgency against the Pakistan govt.

Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity Stukay,

You should ask Adam Khan why he stands against Talibanof today but not the ones who stood up against Ranjit Singh, Curzon and the Dominion of Pakistan ...they were the same Taliban and in Mullah Pawindah's time they were called Taliban as well. He calls them Pushtun heroes.

This game of the "kind of Muslim" that you fellas play is disgusting. I have standing up the taliban longer than other people on this website...so your point is neither here nor there. I oppose talibanism, Gandhiism and witchdoctorism in all its forms and manifestations.


Dear Adam,

First thing is first: Zalmay Pakhtoon was a violent organization which was involved in violence till the late 1990s.

Secondly as I have shown you Gandhi's friends and allies were involved in both 1977 and 1995-96 blunders ... 1977 where Mufti Mahmood and ANP were part of PNA's impose "nizam-e-mustafa" campaign which brought to power General Zia. In 1996 Fazlu mian was part of the government and played a pivotal role in the creation of taliban as a political force. I think it is quite clear that whatever the TNTists did, there is a direct link between Zia, Taliban and Gandhi's deobandi boys. Gandhi is the enabler and the grand daddy of the taliban and so far you haven't responded to a single one of my questions...


Third if we accept your contention that Pawindah did not want to impose his narrow minded version of Islam, it only weakens your case ...because Bacha Khan's Fakir of Ipi rallied people around himself by saying that the government of Pakistan was too irreligious to impose Sharia in NWFP ...it basically means that you are accepting a logical continuity between Ipi and Mehsud ... By taking Pawindah out you've already admitted that Fakir of Ipi started the Islamic insurgency. Now given that we've already established the unbroken continuity between Zia and Gandhi's erstwhile allies as well as taliban and Gandhi's erstwhile allies, this is the third part of the puzzle...which adequately proves a link between Gandhi and the Islamist insurgency in NWFP.


.Ironic that you c laim that Fakir of Ipi was barelvi as defence but when Jinnah counters propaganda from the Congress which sought to rile up Pushtuns through out by saying that Jinnah could not even pray and therefore would be against sharia, by telling Manki a true barelvi leader that Pakistan's laws shall not be in conflict with Sharia (and Jinnah did not think just laws and fair secular laws were in conflict with sharia) y ou wish to hold it against him? Similarly the story about that Muslim convert/sikh woman is partisan .. NWFP Muslim Leaguers claimed that the woman was a Muslim convert and Sikhs were trying to abduct her. And ofcourse it became one of the many rallying points but do you forget that the Jan 1947 movement had muslim women out of the Purdah for the first time in NWFP's history campaigning for Muslim League without a veil...so to take one incident, make it controversial and try to whitewash the facts might work for Sadna ...but why don't you show some honesty and integrity Bacha Khan/Jinnah style and stick to the topic.

It is certainly not Jinnah who has imposed Sharia in Malakand it is ANP. Let us not make this discussion about Jinnah. All these half-baked claims and allegations against him have already been made. Defend Gandhi on his own merit ... But then again the fascist crook Gandhi was indefensible. Also Pir of Manki was Bacha Khan's good friend ... Bacha Khan even lowered Pir of Manki in the grave upon the latter's death. So this is a double-edged sword.

2. Personally, I did not accuse Bacha Khan financial dishonesty, Azad claimed that Khan bros appropriated Congress funds according to their own sweet will. Frankly Maulana Azad's book is out there ... I merely quoted it.

Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity And one last thing before I turn in:

The only thing I'll give you is that despite all his flaws, failures and horrendous mistakes etc, Bacha Khan was, like Jinnah, an honest and upright man of integrity.

This alone is the reason why I don't denigrate him like Gandhi despite the fact that I have no love lost for ANP and Bacha Khan's progeny.

Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity

The alliance my friend went beyond merely an alliance of convenience.

But PPP's opportunistic alliance with JUI-F was equally bad and let us not forget that Benazir Bhutto's govt which was allied JUI-F (once again Gandhi's old boys) ended up supporting the Taliban ...and making them a force. In this respect even BB is guilty.

Similarly Asghar Khan (and also Nasim Wali Khan and ANP) did the same thing with Mufti Mahmood ...all these raggle taggle lot raised the flag of Nizam-e-Mustafa leading to Zia's dictatorship.

In both cases you had Gandhi's ertswhile allies part and parcel... Mufti Mahmood and Bacha Khan's family in 1977 and mufti's son Fazlu in 1996. This is all I am saying - there is an unbroken continuity between Gandhi the enabler's enabling of darul uloom deoband and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in South Asia and especially Pakistan.

As for your point about Leaguers bringing Islam in the objectives resolution ...true but my friend objectives resolution happened after Jinnah's death, Gandhi made alliances with Deobandi fundamentalists in his lifetime.

Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity Dear Adam,

Well neither Majumdar nor I can be termed as islamic or Hindu fundos. And Sanatani is caustic but more honest than other crazies who are supporting you not out of any love for your cause but their hatred for me. Harish mian, mohar etc are case in point.

Anyway good that you've atleast admitted that Zalmay Pakhtoon was not non-violent but was in fact a violent and militant (I daresay terrorist) organization. Infact Zalmay Pakhtoon carried out assassinations and organized violence for the first 30 years after independence and remnants of this organization still exist. Then you ask why Qayyum Khan the old comrade of Bacha Khan turned so violently against him.


1. Zalmay Pakhtoon showed that KK's non-violence was of convenience. This was a response to your claim about there being no badal. Zalmay Pakhtoon was supplied weapons by Dr. Khan sb and the Frontier Congress and to say that it was created in response is merely a partisan point of view. The police reports from the time show indiscriminate violence by KK activists long before frontier leaguers. In any event it showed that KK was neither non-violent nor defensive.

2. Bacha Khan's support (and his son's meeting on Bacha khan's behest with the fakir) for Fakir of Ipi has been documented already in my article on Fakir of Ipi which you've read. Bacha Khan's famous "Pakhtoonistan based on Islamic ideals and Pakhtoon nationalism" coincided with Fakir of Ipi's declaration of jehad against Pakistan, the British and Qadiyani-infested Muslim League ... I am glad you've mentioned the British newspapers that tried to pain Bacha Khan as a jehadi. If you read Howard Donovan's dispatches to George Marshall which I have quoted with archive numbers in the NWFP series ... they all viewed Bacha Khan's activities with concern ...so it wasn't just those damn brits my friend.

3. The similarity between Mehsud and Faqir of Ipi is that both declared war on Pakistan, both wanted to enforce their extremist brand of sharia by force and both resorted to violence.


4. Of those who supported Gandhi and Congress against the Muslim League (the third jamaat e islami opposed ML but did not support the Congress) there are only two left in Pakistan... ie Bacha Khan's progeny ... and Mufti Mahmood's progeny. Both have never made any bones about their hatred for Pakistan, Jinnah etc etc ... Historically Bacha Khan supported Faqir of Ipi and his islamist insurgency. Mufti Mahmood's progeny support Faqir of Ipi's ideological successors and deobandi Islamists.

I therefore firmly believe that Gandhi was the grand daddy of the Taliban.

Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
PS.

And even if we ignore for the sake of argument inconsistencies of Bacha Khan and KK for a second and forget their support of Faqir of Ipi (or the fact that the frontier Congress was active in the tribal areas) and that the KKK are somehow banned from the tribal areas ... despite which Bacha Khan took Nehru on that fateful trip of the frontier ... other bachas in NWFP consisted of Jamiat-e-ulema hind faction led by Mufti Mahmood which was quite active in the tribal areas on behalf of the Congress party all throughout the 1940s. This faction became JUI-F ...the biggest pro-taliban faction of the party.

Infact Jamiat-e-ulema Hind remained a stauncher ally of Gandhi than even Bacha Khan. With the exception of the six months that UP faction of JUH was part of the Muslim Unity board in 1937 before ditching it at Congress' command, JUH's history for the last 84 years has been of complete loyalty to Congress and Gandhi's ideals. JUI-F alone openly and proudly states that "it never participated in the 'sin' of Pakistan" and that Jinnah was not a hero ...Gandhi was. The same JUI-F is an ideological support base for the Taliban.

Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity Tahmed,

What I said is significantly different from what has been attacked by Adam Khan. I have explained it below...and no one can deny Gandhi's crucial role in the rise of Deobandi fundamentalists as a political force ...whether one wants to call it "enabling" or as we call it spawning ;).

I hope I have made myself clear.

Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity Adam,

That was a significantly better post though I don't know if your assessment of Pawinda is accurate. I'd like to read more about this. Maybe you can refer me to something.
Fakir of Ipi wanted to establish Sharia. His entire angle against Pakistan was that its rulers were too secular and westernized to allow Islamic Sharia. He was supported by the Frontier Congress, Bacha Khan and the Khudai Khidmatgars. I think the lineage to Gandhi becomes clearer ...no? Behtullah Mehsud and Faqir of Ipi then belong to the same genealogy, same region and had the same kin and clansmen.

As for Gandhi's influence on taliban ... You call him the enabler ...we call him grand daddy. It is merely a difference of vocabulary. The contention is that Gandhi was actually one of the ancestors of the taliban and since we didn't mean actually blood ancestor, there is room for semantics ...

And while Taliban don't get influenced by such historic continuity, the views of taliban and Gandhi are identical when it comes to Western civilization (satanic rule and ravana raj), modernity, modern medicine, the role of women in society, lying naked with 12 year olds etc.

Ofcourse the taliban are two or three steps ahead but that is exactly what grand children do.

Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity Majumdar bhai,

I am your biggest fan. The way you've lit a big one in many metaphorical chaddiz with nothing but facts and facts alone...is something I couldn't do in nine years. Our hero - the greatest Indian of the last century- Mr Jinnah (PBUH) would be proud.

I raise my glass albeit a lemon twist wali cranberry absolut vodka ie sex on the beach- to a great and prosperous subcontinent free of Gandhiism, witch-doctorism of the kind that celebrates Gandhiism, Islamic and other fundamentalisms and
communism type crap.

Pakistan Zindabad, Jai Hind.

Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity Mohar mian,

Nice try but Adam khan has done no such thing. He has merely argued against something completely different than Majumdar and me.

My contention was that there is an unbroken connection between Gandhi "enabled" Islamists and the Islamists of NWFP than TNTists that some people here want to blame desperately.

Contrary to your claim here Adam Khan has admitted as much. His "gandhi is not wholly to blame" is not much of an argument as neither Majumdar nor I ever claimed that Gandhi was wholly to blame ...it is merely a strawman fallacy.

I think it is a great improvement from Adam Khan's outright denial of the facts earlier.

We called Gandhi "a granddaddy of the taliban" others being the Faqir of Ipi. Adam Khan has admitted that Gandhi was at the very least an enabler of the taliban. I think he is beginning to see the light.


Adam bhai,

If you recall I have written an entire series on NWFP's history ... in which I have exposed the true ugly face of the Khudai Khidmatgars and their militant terrorist wing the Zalmai Pakhtoon.
The cycle of assassination and violence NWFP's nationalist circles have been involved in for the last 60 years shows that non-violence of KK is in name only. You may revisit parts 2, 3 and 4 to see it for yourself. Or you may read old ANP comrade Juma Khan Sufi's writings and confessions (oh wait you had some story about his personal vendetta against ANP...but that only explains why Sufi chose to tell the truth about Bacha Khan and his family).

Anyway this repetitive. I see why you wish to argue on chowk. Enough crazies from across the border are ready to prop you up .. instead of calling a spade a spade. Good for you ... But I hope you know deep down that you are being utterly dishonest.

Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity What is this with name-changing ... Some idiot has changed the name of Dadabhoy Naoroji Road (one of the roads which pass by Jinnah's mazar) according to Cowasjee. Jinnah's burial there was both symbolic and appropriate given that Jinnah's earliest mentor was Dadabhoy.


Lord Curzon was one of the finest viceroys ...and Maharaja Ranjit Singh one of the greatest kings of this subcontinent.

I would pick the Maharaja over the Mahatma anyday.

Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity Also Behtullah is not ideologically closer to Syed Qutb because Syed Qutb's Islamism was urban ...like Maududi. There are I am sure within the ranks of the tribal warriors Qutbites from the Islamic world as a whole.

Behtullah is the continuation of the insurgency of Syed Ahmad, Mullah Pawinda and Faqir of Ipi ... with the added teeth of Deobandi Islam.
And just to be clear ...my comment about Asfandyar didn't have anything to do with Gandhi's support of Islamic fundamentalists from Deoband but Bacha Khan's own eleventh hour attempt to find a third option to India and Pakistan in 1947 through the Afghan govt and Faqir of Ipi.

Like I pointed out ...my only contention vis a vis Gandhi is that there is more unbroken continuity between Deobandi militants and the Deobandi Islamic fundamentalists Gandhi supported as opposed to the tenuous artificial link people like jayp and bj want to fool the world with.

Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity Adam,

The Chaikhana has picked up due to the efforts of yours truly here.

I have already given my reasons for why Majumdar is right and why I can't agree with you. So I'll now to retire to the chai khana with an open invitation to you to join us for spot of tea or garam garam chai...with either biscuits or baqarkhani ;).

Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity Masanamuthu,

Gandhi's offer of premiership was a masterly PR move ... By offering Jinnah and the ML something that they would reject (a toothless minority PMship) Gandhi was merely playing to the global gallery where he had to maintain his saintliness...


Adam My friend, I suggest you revisit your own barbs that elicited those responses before you accuse me of anything. I have always been civil with you despite my utter disagreement with you. But still good to see rational sense return to whoever.

Ali brothers are not the issue. I suggest you read in detail Gandhi's close cooperation with the Darul uloom deoband, his encouragement of the establishment of their own political party. I think no one would disagree that Gandhi's encouragement of the mullahs within the khilafat cause (which I have documented in detail in an earlier post and in my ilog "gandhi the progressive" I think) despite being told by many Congressmen but especially Jinnah who called it "false religious frenzy" that by bringing the Mullahs they would destroy not just the khilafat cause but the Congress' move for self rule... Khilafat movement, as carried out by Gandhi, was what gave the Islamists teeth. It was this movement that ultimately made communal identities non-negotiable for at the heart of the movement was not the desire for freedom but an pan-islamist cause. The failure of the movement thanks to Ataturk mainly discredited the khilafat leadership though the only good thing that came out of it.

Secondly as I wrote in my NWFP series ... the about turn by Bacha Khan at the eleventh hour, the encouragement of Gandhi along the lines of Pakhtoonistan and the encouragement of Fakir of Ipi's Islamist insurgency by the Frontier Congress forever put the Durand line in dispute. It created conditions in NWFP/pakhtoonkhwa which have now come to bite everyone in the ass...and by no means are the ISI, Americans and Saudis blameless.

Still..I have always felt that Bacha Khan was perhaps much more committed to the ideals that are associated to Gandhi world wide ... But not only is ANP (and NAP and pakhtoon nationalists) itself dubious ...but you also have to contend with people like Mufti Mahmood ... Mufti Mahmood you must be aware was a lifelong ally of the Congress as well as NAP and Bacha Khan...he was also the chief of PNA's "nizam-e-mustafa" campaign which brought down Bhutto. Mufti Mahmood's opposition to Pakistan is legendary ...as Jamiat-e-ulema hind's main guy in NWFP. He was also the strongest ally of the Congress in NWFP's religious classes and a Deobandi. And he considered Gandhi his political guru. His son - Maulana Fazlur rahman - is widely hailed as the father of the taliban in west ...and today their own faction of JUI is part of the coalition ironically. Philosophically and morally, barring the small Usmani faction as well the short lived Jamiat-e-ulama allaince with ML for six months in 1937 in UP as part of the Muslim unity board, the Deobandi school has always consistently sided with the Congress party for the last 80 odd years ... In return Deoband has claimed its pound of flesh ... You should read Darul-itfa website of Darululoom Deoband ...these people are the most reactionary and bigoted people anywhere in the world... It is our misfortune in Pakistan however that Zia saw these guys as the only doctinairre jehadis who could be used to indoctrinate Afghan mujahideen and this gave Deobandi Islam a militant wing which is now creating problems for all and sundry. But to answer your question ...without the khilafat movement and Gandhi's encouragement, I am sure there would be no JUI-F today at the very least. As for Jamaat e islami (and Muslim brotherhood) even though Maududi was originally a congressman I don't blame Maududiism on Gandhi. Maududi and Qutb are middle class reaction to modernity and represent revival and indigenization trend of Muslim bourgeoisie.

It just so happened that Maududi opposed the Pakistan movement, otherwise this could have happened anywhere. Maududi however doesnot represent the forces that are at war in the tribal areas though Maududians are clearly sympathizers of the taliban.

In my view you yourself answered your question and I have quoted your answer. I am afraid it is not useful to assume that only an answer acceptable to you will amount to an answer because that is a dangerous assumption not conducive to dialogue and leads to kind of talking at each other that is so prevalent on this website.

Finally I don't ascribe to this "angrez kuta hai hai" sentiment. Mughals, Turks, Arabs, Huns, Greeks, Aryans were all colonists ...so to me this is merely a reaction. As for Ranjit Singh...he was one of the greatest men to ever rule Punjab and Pakhtoonkhwa and many many many Pakhtoons fought and died for him. I suggest you reconsider your view of the great Ranjit Singh by reading more about him.


On Gandhi let us agree to disagree ...the more I read about him the more my view of him gets fortified. Still Gandhi should be no reason for otherwise likeminded Pakistanis.

Now come back to Pakteahouse because I find people here insufferable.

-YLH

Dueling Partners: Pakistan and America I met him a few years ago and asked him a simple question: what is wrong with American Empire?

He didn't give me a straight answer.


Jayp,

Most of the people does not mean all of the people. Sorry to disappoint you but Tariq Ali's view is not specific to Jinnah who he sees an exception to the rule. Had you read his books you would know. There were other exceptions as well but Tariq Ali didn't see Jinnah as being in control or even part of the Pakistani elite.

As a general rule, he is right that Pakistan's political elite consisted in the large part of the pro-British loyalists. I just don't see what is so wrong with that though ... The British were the best thing that happened to South Asia. Much of what makes you proud of India is due to the British.

Nor is there anything wrong with being the American camp. It was certainly better than hobnobbing with the expansionist and totalitarian Soviet Union.

And Pakistan did pursue the Americans from day 1 ... but Jinnah was of the firm view that America needed Pakistan more than Pakistan America. That is true but this is precisely why Americans prefer military rulers in Pakistan because civilian leaders like Jinnah and the Bhuttos drove a hard bargain (Jinnah had asked for US $ 10 bn in 1947 in return for help from Pakistan...and Bhutto's support in the 1970s meant putting up with his unique brand of populist anti-american rhetoric) ...

What I don't get is what is so wrong with making alliances with the Americans? It was a very good idea and I am still waiting on what Tariq Ali could say that would make me change my view of the Americans.

Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity Than not then.