Reasons and circumstances behind the
creation of Pakistan
The partition of India and creation of Pakistan have been debated by the
intellectuals and historians since 1947. Like other historic events there are
varied views and theories in this regard as well. This is kickoff note to start
debate on this topic @RSOP:
In my view every stakeholder of that time had very different reasons to
support or accept partition of India. Overall the partition of India was a part
of greater plan of British Empire’s new world order. They knew that Congress
party under Gandhi and Nehru were very close to socialist ideology and they
possibly will go towards socialist block but newly created nation on the basis
of religious divide would be their front line defence against communist bloc.
Furthermore divide and rule theory was unparalleled workable tool to keep India
under the thumb.
(Brief of our textbook versions (mostly revised in 1980s) is: Allama
Iqbal persuaded Quaid-e-Azam M. A. Jinnah to lead the demand of separate
homeland for Muslims of India to establish independent ‘Islamic’ State…..)
If we look at the politics of 1940s the demand for Pakistan was not
popular among Muslims. Even Mr Jinnah and his Muslim League were using this as
pressure tact, e.g. on 6th June 1946 Muslim League accepted Cabinet mission
proposals and they withdraw the demand of Pakistan, this tells you the
actuality of demand ……..
At that time the Muslims of subcontinent were divided in three major
political ideologies:
1- Secular (unionists and nationalists). 2- Muslim leaguers
with status-quo ideology and firm on the agenda to protect the economic
interests of elite class of Indian Muslims. 3- Religious
Muslim groups.
Majority of Muslims were a part of secular, unionists and nationalists
but when Muslims League under Mr. Jinnah start getting momentum then number of
British loyalists also went to strengthen Muslim League (e.g. Unionist Party of
Punjab), there are strong evidence that British establishment persuaded
pro-establishment political groups to support Mr. Jinnah. Khan
Abdul Wali Khan in his book ‘Facts are facts’ also carried out this theory with
very strong confirmations from the historic documents of British India Library.
Although religious political groups of Muslims were not significant
political force but interestingly they were strongly against the partition of
India. In other development Nehru and some other congress leaders also shows
somewhat rigidness towards the rights of Muslim minority in future independent
India and contributed for pushing Mr. Jinnah towards British Empire’s agenda of
‘divide and rule’.
I think anybody with nominal political sense can comprehend that if you
divide country along ethnic and religious lines then it is almost impossible to
avoid massive bloodshed between rival groups. In 20th century after World
War-II and holocaust, partition of India was great human tragedy. Immediate
effects of partition were 12.5 million people displaced and close to one
million people slaughtered and lot more other human tragedies during communal
riots relating to partition. Long term effects: three big regional wars and
billions of $ every year to maintain big war machines instead of spending on
the issues of majority like food, shelter, health and education.
Obviously British establishment and all of the top Indian political
leadership of that time was responsible for all of this and other than Mr.
Gandhi none of the stakeholders shows moment of guilt for the slaughter of
million even not Mr. Qauid-a-Azam shows his human side to accept his share of
responsibility.
To cut long story short, in my view two nation theory or the slogans like “Pakistan ka matlab kia - La-ilaha illalah” was a part of political narrative not the principle. From Mr Jinnah and his Muslim League’s
demand was to protect the political and economic rights of Indian Muslims from
Hindu dominance in united India, although that is another reality that big
chunk of Muslims remained Indian citizens. The people they argue that Pakistan
was created to establish Islamic (theocratic) state also bring some of the
quotes from Mr. Jinnah but being politician he said lot of things in his life
and some are contradictory to each other as well…
P.S. The reason for this debate is not
to debate the existence of Pakistan rather to understand the circumstances in
which it was created.
Comments
·
Wasim
Reddevil I agree with you 100% man about the creation of
Pakistan and the ideology behind it except for the British conspiracy theory
!!!
Manage
o
Like
·
RamanAl
BeruniSehgal These are hindsight views - the fact is that
Muslims mentality was that they have ruled Hindus for 800 years and now if
there is majority of Hindus then Hindus will rule Muslims - they could not
accept the fact of Hindu domination - rest everything followed. I would say
Jinnah did a tremendous favour to Hindus - as otherwise Hindu potential would
not have come out and they would have spent time pleasing muslim sentiments. In
one stroke Jinnah made muslims the culprit and divided muslims in 3 entities
all disadvantaged - whereas it gave time to Hindus to reform themselves and
exploit its potential. From Hindu point of view - it was a good riddance -
otherwise India would have been a hell with 50% of population adhering to evil
Islamic ideology. God bless Jinnah!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Sadeeq
Ullah Ihsan @Asjad Bukhari .... i find ur views as one
sided
creation of Pakistan was not a part of the greater plan of British Empire’s new world order ... it was Hindu prejudice , hate and efforts t absorb Islam within their culture, they were not even ready to accept Hindu with Persian script or urdu , so what to expect anything favorable from them ... urdu became the national language of india in 1837 & it was Hindu who made it national language by replacing Persian through their works, for example Ram Babu Saxena(who wrote first ever formal literary history of urdu), great fiction writers like ratan nath sarshaar(who wrote fasana e azad spreading over four thousand pages), Munshi prem chand, krishan chander, great critic like chakbast, translator like munshi teerath & great poets like sir kishan prasad, firaq gorakhpuri, tilok chand mahroom, pindit dya shankar and popular literary magazines by noubat roy, diyanarain nigram etc ....
but with the passage of time especially after war of independence, the revivalist(so called) hindu moments arouse & surprisingly enough the moderate hindu segment fell prey to their conspiracies also ... this was the time when muslims felt themselves helpless & Hindus took full advantage of this ...
Hindu & muslim, both participated in war of independence but hindus were succesful in proving themselves innocent, Britishers also felt that they captured india from muslims, so muslims should be doomed to such an extent that they never rise again, in that crucial time, hindus didnt even extended moral support to muslims, later hindus also accepted this and pandit nehru once also said that "Both muslims and Hindus were equally resposible for the war of independence but the heavy hands of british fell on muslims " , more than 150,000 muslims were hanged, their properties were confiscated etc ...
now it was the time when revivalist hindu moments rose to the main stream & they started to show hate against muslims ... so in 1867, a moment for replacing persian script of urdu with dew nagri script by hindus of banaras, and quite surprisingly the succeded in getting support of moderate hindus & hindu leaders also ... Gandhi also declared " Hindi Hindustani " & provided full support to the cause later ... it should be nated that it was in no way an intellectual or literary moment but a political putsch. its main objective was to strike at the roots of muslim culture and to completely eliminate all the vestiges of the muslim rule in india. dewscribing the fact, a renowned french orientalist, Garcine de tassi once wrote, "the hindus, because of their prejudice resist everything that may remind them of muslim rule " . paul brass also testifies that urdu-hindi controversy of 19th century was the critical factor in the development of muslim separatism, similarly k,k aziz also holds that linguistic conflict responsible for the indian disunity which helped in formation of more than one nationalism.
these were factors of 19th century which helped in developing muslm nationalism & their apprehensions ...
later the opposition in the way of partition of bengal(in 1905, although proposed in 1853) by hindus & their irrational behaviour was also a factor. the partition of bengal was an admnistrative matter. imagine at that time, the population of bengal was more than 700 million and area 189000 miles. the partiotion provided a little relief in disguise to muslims in the shape of socio-economic development due to chance of patronage& attention while having separate status as a province but it was unacceptable to hindus. did it meant that bengal will be cutt off from india ?? not at all but hindus opposed the partition tooth and nail,
this was the time when muslims of india started thinking seriously about their future in india & resulted in establishment of muslim league, a party that was not a brain child of any english man (like congress) and was never presided over by a an english.
in my personal opinion, moderate hindus failed to contain ultra conservative hindus and fell prey to their conspiracies & filthy designs, even started supporting them like hindu mahasabha that totally dominated congress till 1920's. this was the greatest mistake of hindus, however after partition, it seems that they have learned something if not much and now they dont patronize or energetically support conservative hindus ...
on the other hand pakistan is facing same situation which hindus faced before partition, in the form of emergence of talibans & ultra conservative(in fact irrational) muslims , now it is our choice, whether we want to see our country crushed like hindu saw at the eve of declaration of partition when it was too late,
similarly at that time there will be no use of crying over spilt milk or we want true islam(not confined to the unreasonable pseudonym of ISLAMIC REPUBLIC with Pakistan) ...
creation of Pakistan was not a part of the greater plan of British Empire’s new world order ... it was Hindu prejudice , hate and efforts t absorb Islam within their culture, they were not even ready to accept Hindu with Persian script or urdu , so what to expect anything favorable from them ... urdu became the national language of india in 1837 & it was Hindu who made it national language by replacing Persian through their works, for example Ram Babu Saxena(who wrote first ever formal literary history of urdu), great fiction writers like ratan nath sarshaar(who wrote fasana e azad spreading over four thousand pages), Munshi prem chand, krishan chander, great critic like chakbast, translator like munshi teerath & great poets like sir kishan prasad, firaq gorakhpuri, tilok chand mahroom, pindit dya shankar and popular literary magazines by noubat roy, diyanarain nigram etc ....
but with the passage of time especially after war of independence, the revivalist(so called) hindu moments arouse & surprisingly enough the moderate hindu segment fell prey to their conspiracies also ... this was the time when muslims felt themselves helpless & Hindus took full advantage of this ...
Hindu & muslim, both participated in war of independence but hindus were succesful in proving themselves innocent, Britishers also felt that they captured india from muslims, so muslims should be doomed to such an extent that they never rise again, in that crucial time, hindus didnt even extended moral support to muslims, later hindus also accepted this and pandit nehru once also said that "Both muslims and Hindus were equally resposible for the war of independence but the heavy hands of british fell on muslims " , more than 150,000 muslims were hanged, their properties were confiscated etc ...
now it was the time when revivalist hindu moments rose to the main stream & they started to show hate against muslims ... so in 1867, a moment for replacing persian script of urdu with dew nagri script by hindus of banaras, and quite surprisingly the succeded in getting support of moderate hindus & hindu leaders also ... Gandhi also declared " Hindi Hindustani " & provided full support to the cause later ... it should be nated that it was in no way an intellectual or literary moment but a political putsch. its main objective was to strike at the roots of muslim culture and to completely eliminate all the vestiges of the muslim rule in india. dewscribing the fact, a renowned french orientalist, Garcine de tassi once wrote, "the hindus, because of their prejudice resist everything that may remind them of muslim rule " . paul brass also testifies that urdu-hindi controversy of 19th century was the critical factor in the development of muslim separatism, similarly k,k aziz also holds that linguistic conflict responsible for the indian disunity which helped in formation of more than one nationalism.
these were factors of 19th century which helped in developing muslm nationalism & their apprehensions ...
later the opposition in the way of partition of bengal(in 1905, although proposed in 1853) by hindus & their irrational behaviour was also a factor. the partition of bengal was an admnistrative matter. imagine at that time, the population of bengal was more than 700 million and area 189000 miles. the partiotion provided a little relief in disguise to muslims in the shape of socio-economic development due to chance of patronage& attention while having separate status as a province but it was unacceptable to hindus. did it meant that bengal will be cutt off from india ?? not at all but hindus opposed the partition tooth and nail,
this was the time when muslims of india started thinking seriously about their future in india & resulted in establishment of muslim league, a party that was not a brain child of any english man (like congress) and was never presided over by a an english.
in my personal opinion, moderate hindus failed to contain ultra conservative hindus and fell prey to their conspiracies & filthy designs, even started supporting them like hindu mahasabha that totally dominated congress till 1920's. this was the greatest mistake of hindus, however after partition, it seems that they have learned something if not much and now they dont patronize or energetically support conservative hindus ...
on the other hand pakistan is facing same situation which hindus faced before partition, in the form of emergence of talibans & ultra conservative(in fact irrational) muslims , now it is our choice, whether we want to see our country crushed like hindu saw at the eve of declaration of partition when it was too late,
similarly at that time there will be no use of crying over spilt milk or we want true islam(not confined to the unreasonable pseudonym of ISLAMIC REPUBLIC with Pakistan) ...
Manage
o
Like
·
Haider
Shah One author writes that if Jinnah was the father of
Pakistan then Churchil was Uncle of Pakistan as he had thrown all his weight
behind Muslim League to frustrate Congress movement.
Manage
o
Like
·
Naveed
Ali Khan but Churchil was a fierce supporter of Raj and
against independence of India till his last, you know what I mean :) so his support against congress
makes sense. Jinnah had accepted cabinet mission plan and it was Nehru who
rejected it, this may imply that Muslim League was bargaining on the chips; I
agree what Mushirual Hasan wrote does make sense that Indian leaders were short
sighted and inexperienced, he gave example of Ameriacan leaders during civil
war like Lincoln and his comrades who opted for a war instead of agreeing on a
partition
Manage
o
Like
·
Asjad Bukhari Sadeeq Ullah Ihsan Tension among
different communities on the issues like language, manuscript, jobs etc is
obvious even in Pakistan from time to time it created tense situation e.g.
Bengali Urdu then Sindhi Urdu conflicts but the way you describe that is
our typical textbook approach. Things are not that simple….. looking at all
Hindus as single unit and all Muslims as rival single unit is not ground
reality…. there are and there were several different voices and groups among
both. For example Maulana Azad served as long term president of the Congress
party and first education minister of India…. Muslims were completely divided
on the issue of partition but it was British Empire who made ultimate decision
of partition in very messy way that kills close to one million and displaced
12.5 million and our short sighted ‘great’ leader also contributed negative...
Edit or delete this
o
Like
·
Naveed
Ali Khan text books are failed to convey the complexity
India was at that time. Country was a mix of states and raj administratively,
population was largely uneducated and under the yoke of feudalism, divided into
race, religion, caste, language, it was beginning of industrialization and
urban centers were growing and attracting work force from across country to
cities, middle class was growing and eying their prospects of jobs and better
life, with industry new powerful native capitalists were rising. Congress was not
just a political party, it was a true alma mater for Indians, it was educating
people, it was doing social work, it was creating awareness, it was doing mass
mobilization, it was attracting and supporting rebels, it was a platform of
radicals, anarchists and revolutionaries, it was a platform of conservatives,
it was regional, it was in villages and far reached places, it was national, it
was trying to fight against social evils, caste system and illiteracy, it was
trying to create religious harmony, it was much more than any text book or
historian in Pakistan in general has told its readers and much complex than a
Pakistani of today can understand and it was the biggest threat to Raj, it was
the real and only challenge Indians muster to put against British and true Raj
supporters and conservatives like Churchil, they hate congress the most.
Muslims might be everything to themselves but they were just a minority in
India and most leaders were from upper middle class whose problems were not the
problems of that country and that was the reason they were not easy with
congress which was representing the country and its people of all colors and
cadre and in itself a complex structure. We do not understand what people like
Tilak, Bose or Gandhi really achieved was mass support from all those colors
and cadres and Jinnah was one of those leaders who have understood India and
supported walk towards freedom, but as we can see due to all conflicts and
complexities and collisions of interests it was real hard task to understand
and represent all and as such these leaders made mistakes and misjudgments, it
is not really a problem if we consider them all as human beings and see them in
their contemporary time instead of through our own biases, same goes for the
history of freedom movement and partition, we have much to learn from it and
correct ourselves.
Manage
o
Like
·
Wasim
Reddevil @ Asjad Bukhari nicely put I wanted to contribute
but you make almost all of my points. And Sadeeq Ullah Ihsan man no offence but the
things you said are indeed from textbooks taught in Pakistan try to understand
things from your point of view !!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Parvaiz
Solangi “Pakistan ka matlab kia - La-ilaha illalah” habib
jalib rightly put the intreprtion of above slogan in saying.. PAKSITAN KA
MATILB KIYA,, LAATHI FOUJ OAR MARSHAL LAW...
Manage
o
Like
·
Sadeeq
Ullah Ihsan @Asjad & Wasim .... as i was not present at
that time so, in past i studied buks to understand all the scenario but i also
provided my own analysis in the end, but what u people want to say that as it
is in book so it is wrong ........... nice logic
the problem was, that hindus hated muslims right from the start, they didnt spared the people of their own religion (dallats & achooths), they were used to behave with muslims in same manner ... their aggressive attitude to dominate india by pushing the muslims to the wall was the reason that muslims became dishearted from hindus .... muslims were not desirous of partition but hindus compelled muslims to think in this way ... Quaid e Azam was not a conservative deobandi, wahabi or barelvi muslim, he was born in an ismaili family. and he was the fiercest opponent of parttition but hindu attitude (especially hindu attitude after 1926 when mahasabha & Nehru assumed powers in Congress) compelled him to become fearless, overwhelming and unequivocal advocate of partition.....
muslims were already under their rule from mughal era's court (except court of Aurangzeb Alamgir) which was nothing more than a court of hindu wazirs (plus harams of mughal emperors having number of hindu wives), muslims always treated & provided them equal rights & opportunties in india, even preferred them in many cases ...
o.k, if u dont rely on me ... go at diff pages on FB criticizing islam & add those critics openly abusing mohammad(pbuh) Quran etc on that page to your friend list like john mcgill, andrew hudson , flan flan flan ...... now after adding them start chatting with them, in your first chat u will came to know that they are not christians but indian hindus with changed names, u will be shocked to know about their ideas as they will be giving u totally different interpretations of islam, Rman segal is not the one or first person doing all this ... so how can u expect a common nationality to flourish with hindus ..
the problem was, that hindus hated muslims right from the start, they didnt spared the people of their own religion (dallats & achooths), they were used to behave with muslims in same manner ... their aggressive attitude to dominate india by pushing the muslims to the wall was the reason that muslims became dishearted from hindus .... muslims were not desirous of partition but hindus compelled muslims to think in this way ... Quaid e Azam was not a conservative deobandi, wahabi or barelvi muslim, he was born in an ismaili family. and he was the fiercest opponent of parttition but hindu attitude (especially hindu attitude after 1926 when mahasabha & Nehru assumed powers in Congress) compelled him to become fearless, overwhelming and unequivocal advocate of partition.....
muslims were already under their rule from mughal era's court (except court of Aurangzeb Alamgir) which was nothing more than a court of hindu wazirs (plus harams of mughal emperors having number of hindu wives), muslims always treated & provided them equal rights & opportunties in india, even preferred them in many cases ...
o.k, if u dont rely on me ... go at diff pages on FB criticizing islam & add those critics openly abusing mohammad(pbuh) Quran etc on that page to your friend list like john mcgill, andrew hudson , flan flan flan ...... now after adding them start chatting with them, in your first chat u will came to know that they are not christians but indian hindus with changed names, u will be shocked to know about their ideas as they will be giving u totally different interpretations of islam, Rman segal is not the one or first person doing all this ... so how can u expect a common nationality to flourish with hindus ..
Manage
o
Like
·
Sadeeq
Ullah Ihsan @asjad ... british made the final decision of
indian partition but they were not willing to do this but it was extreme
posture of hindus which compelled them to divide india, and they were not
willing to grant complete independence to muslims but in the form of
confederation and after partition they granted batala, gurdaspur, ferozepur,
pathan kot, nabha to india that was right of pakistan ... british prime
minister clement atlee literally said when he was going to announce cabinet
mission plan that "we are mindful to the rights of minorities but we would
not allow any minority to obstruct the advance of majority" .... on its
arrival, cabinet mission openly informed quaid e azam that muslim demand of
partition cant be entertained ... Quaid replied that "we still feel that
the only solution to communal problems of india is partition" , ... muslim
league still accepted the plan but hindu etremists were still not satisfied
.... congress especially assumed the role of a blackmailer rather than a party
after 1940, they rejected it ... britishers were stunned to see hindus, now it
was the right of muslim kegue to form interim govt as congress rejected plan,
but british gave this opportunity to congress but still nehru replied that
"we will be in the govt as long as we feel it suitable " ... the pro
congress english newspapers had to say that "congress has made the most
notrious examples of political black mail in the world" ... molana azad
was also not satisfied by nehru's behaviour in case if cabinet plan ... even according
to his political biographer Micheal Breacher, his statements regarding cabinet
mission plan were the most provocative and intimidating one in his 40 year long
political career ...
well u will be aware of the relations between nehru and mounbaten, i think i dont need to elaborate it anymore ...
well u will be aware of the relations between nehru and mounbaten, i think i dont need to elaborate it anymore ...
Manage
o
Like
·
RamanAl
BeruniSehgal Sadeeq : When we view history we see it
through different prisms - for the same action there can be two explanations -
one that is taught to you and the other taught to me. We can keep arguing it
till eternity and still not come to conclusion. The fact is that we got
divided and I as a Hindu thank God (if he is there) for such an act. Had we
remained with muslims - Hindu potential would have remained curtailed and there
would have been perennial problems without solution. Jinnah did a great service
to Hindus by separating muslims.
Manage
o
Like
·
Naveed
Ali Khan I think reading and listening to different
perspectives helps a person's own understanding and that is real benefit of
debate and research, it is not necessary that debates end in agreement, what is
necessary is one's willingness to keep on the quest of knowledge
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed bukhari shab i agree with most of the things
you say!!!.....but the thing u mentioned in the end "solgan of pakistan ,a
political stunt"...
the thing is most of the forces who were going in favour of Pakistan had economic reasons ..but this country was not founded to carter their needs...even if the some top guns in muslim league and other motives this country was not founded by them alone..if it was not for the People who voted in election of (1945-1946) this country could not have been founded and those people voted for the same very slogan u call a political stunt and those same very people are the majority of this country today!!
the thing is most of the forces who were going in favour of Pakistan had economic reasons ..but this country was not founded to carter their needs...even if the some top guns in muslim league and other motives this country was not founded by them alone..if it was not for the People who voted in election of (1945-1946) this country could not have been founded and those people voted for the same very slogan u call a political stunt and those same very people are the majority of this country today!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed one thing i do agree with that our TEXT books
do not tell the full story,only a concocted version!!... ...
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed one more thing
u said "I think anybody with nominal political sense can comprehend that if you divide country along ethnic and religious lines"
in my opinion this country was founded only and only along religious line , ethnicity had nothing to do with it!!
u said "I think anybody with nominal political sense can comprehend that if you divide country along ethnic and religious lines"
in my opinion this country was founded only and only along religious line , ethnicity had nothing to do with it!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed the new world order did play its part but
still if it was not for people who stood for independence under the slogan
""pakistan ka matlb kia la illaha illul la"" Pakistan would
not have been possible.NOW THOSE PEOPLE WANT THAT SYSTEM!.
once again what was told to the people is i think more important(what u term as a political stunt) than what was thought in Drawing rooms of muslim league!!
once again what was told to the people is i think more important(what u term as a political stunt) than what was thought in Drawing rooms of muslim league!!
Manage
o
Like
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed disagree naveed the slogan was formed in
independence movement..u should try stanely wolphert!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Naveed
Ali Khan and when?
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed naveed zia took islam to extremism which this
country was not founded for ,it was founded on religious grounds and that i
think we should not deny
Manage
o
Like
·
Naveed
Ali Khan http://pakteahouse.net/.../pakistan-army%E2%80%99s.../
"from Abdus Sattar Ghazzali’s book Islamic Pakistan; Illusions and Reality (http://ghazali.net/book1/Chapter2a/page_2.html)
“However, the fact is that this oft quoted statement (Pakistan ka matlab kiya, La Ilaha Illalah) is an election slogan coined by a Sialkot poet – Asghar Saudai. But it was never raised by the platform of the Muslim League. First and the last meeting of All Pakistan Muslim League was held under the chairmanship of the Quaid-i-Azam at Karachi’s Khaliqdina Hall. During the meeting a man, who called himself Bihari, put to the Quaid that “we have been telling the people Pakistan ka matlab kia, La Ilaha Illallah.” “Sit down, sit down,” the Quaid shouted back. “Neither I nor my working committee, nor the council of the All India Muslim League has ever passed such a resolution wherein I was committed to the people of Pakistan, Pakistan ka matlab….., you might have done so to catch a few votes.” This incident is quoted from Daghon ki Barat written by Malik Ghulam Nabi, who was a member of the Muslim League Council. The same incident is also quoted by the Raja of Mehmoudabad”
"from Abdus Sattar Ghazzali’s book Islamic Pakistan; Illusions and Reality (http://ghazali.net/book1/Chapter2a/page_2.html)
“However, the fact is that this oft quoted statement (Pakistan ka matlab kiya, La Ilaha Illalah) is an election slogan coined by a Sialkot poet – Asghar Saudai. But it was never raised by the platform of the Muslim League. First and the last meeting of All Pakistan Muslim League was held under the chairmanship of the Quaid-i-Azam at Karachi’s Khaliqdina Hall. During the meeting a man, who called himself Bihari, put to the Quaid that “we have been telling the people Pakistan ka matlab kia, La Ilaha Illallah.” “Sit down, sit down,” the Quaid shouted back. “Neither I nor my working committee, nor the council of the All India Muslim League has ever passed such a resolution wherein I was committed to the people of Pakistan, Pakistan ka matlab….., you might have done so to catch a few votes.” This incident is quoted from Daghon ki Barat written by Malik Ghulam Nabi, who was a member of the Muslim League Council. The same incident is also quoted by the Raja of Mehmoudabad”
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed hey i already said what people though and
were told is important because it is their country ....what Muslim league
nawabs and the leadership thought is not!!...
Manage
o
Like
·
Naveed
Ali Khan It does not mean that religious terms or slogans
were not used at all by Muslim League and its leaders and Wolpert is completely
wrong, rather my understanding is that Muslims of India had no clear idea of
what the new state would be and different interest groups had different
interpretations. That confusion may appear strange today but it was not at
those times.
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed u are right when u say people had no
idea....yes they were not aware what the newly born country had in store for
them..but one thing they were sure of when they sacrificed their land and left
behind loved ones is that that, this new land will carter their feeling and
rights,they will be allowed to practice freely their religion and allow nobody
to disrespect those sacred beliefs!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Naveed
Ali Khan This is not what you wrote earlier and probably
removed :) Yes
Muslims thought that it would be a country for the muslims and they will be
free without threats or competition from a majority; they surely were not that
insecure as we are about disrespect of sacred beliefs, I remember my grand
father and his generation, they sacrificed for Pakistan but it was not because
Islam was in danger but because they felt they were insecure and had no future
against a clear Hindu majority, they sacrificed for us. I have deep respect for
my grand father, he did sacrificed all his wealth and a very prosperous life so
that his children will have a free and prosperous life, for same reason I have
deep respect for Jinnah, Liaqat Ali and others, still I do not agree with what
they thought, nevertheless they were courageous, honest and brave but so were
their counterparts in congress who thought a united India would be a better
option; at the end they all played their part for the future, question is how
much do we learn from them and play our part to benefit our future generations
with same courage and zeal?
Manage
o
Like
·
RamanAl
BeruniSehgal Naveed - I agree with you - in case you want
to move forward to prosperity then spread awareness of danger of Islam - everything
will fall in place.
Manage
o
Like
·
Naveed
Ali Khan :) I am not against Islam or any religion and myself a Muslim, I
think caution must be made with people who promote their own interests in disguise
of religion or promote hatred and hence insecurity or close doors of debate and
do not accept difference of opinion, these are unhealthy attitudes. I do
not see and have not read of any solid proof that Islam was in danger or is in
danger in India; I have lived with Indian Muslims in Gulf and did not find them
insecure or afraid. We have so many perceptions because we are not ready to
think out side of box and every passing day we are loosing sight of the world
around us which is different, vast, colorful and just like us not ideal
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed naveed i think u are well familiar with the
case of ghazi ilm ud din.....we are as much sensitive to blasphemy as we were
then!!
ans this country was founded among others to cater those feelings!!
ans this country was founded among others to cater those feelings!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed those sensitive feelings!!
p.s: i delete msg again and again and repost it cause' of the typos!!..not very good in typing..especially when i am in a heted discussion!!
p.s: i delete msg again and again and repost it cause' of the typos!!..not very good in typing..especially when i am in a heted discussion!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Naveed
Ali Khan As I wrote earlier, people had different
expectations, but not necessarily those were the objectives. From past to
present to future, we need to chose the path by learning where mistakes were
made and not to repeat them, I know to point this out was the real purpose of
original post and I close this debate here from my side on same point.
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed no man pakistan ka matlab kia "la ilaha
illul laa" no debate is gonna change that,beacuse it lives in the heart of
those who saw the independence movement!!...so not just yet!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Parvaiz
Solangi it was becz of 2nd world war we got our Pakistan in
generosity from the hands of British..
Manage
o
Like
·
Haider
Shah Sadeeq;s unacceptable post deleted
Manage
o
Like
·
Sadeeq
Ullah Ihsan i m sorry... sometimes it runs out of endurance
and erupts as u felt in my last comment .... but i wish u would delete other
unacceptable post also ....i think u understood what i meant ... sorry again
Manage
o
Like
·
Wasim
Reddevil Syed Imtinan Ahmad I guess you're a
Muslim and as a one you believe that the words of the Prophet and Allah are the
supreme authority right correct me if I'm wrong. Similarly when it comes to
Pakistan the words of its founders are the supreme authority. Jinnah and Muslim
league never mentioned even the word Islam in all of their official meetings. I
challenge you produce such document. Mr. Jinnah was a secular leader and he
thought the same for Pakistan. I believe you're familiar with his speech to the
assembly and also with his selection of cabinet and the first national anthem
of the country. After his death people passed resolutions and impose their
ideas to subjugate the nation and it's still evident today !!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Wasim
Reddevil Sadeeq Ullah Ihsan man there were
differences and there are differences today but these all are superficial. And
there will be people who hold prejudice against particular community and the
congress was not immune to this. But Gandhi was not evil nor were his plans for
United India !!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Wasim
Reddevil Raman Sehgal man you're forgetting
something Muslims do live in India and they are as active as any other
community there. It's not about Hindus or Muslims it's about the state being as
a Nation and Indians are like that sadly we're not. Islam might be evil to
you and I'm not a big fan of "Islam" or any other religion either but
I think we should focus on the topic. The last thing we want is the debate
about religions and their evils !!!
Manage
o
Like
·
RamanAl
BeruniSehgal Wasim Reddevil : what is the difference
between Pakis and Indian (especially the northern indians) - it is just the
religion - everything is same - smae culture, language, history, genetic
make-up. The only difference is that u muslims believe in Koran and
mohammed and divide society in us verse them. So the reason for creation of Pak
is religion - now that Islam is sucking - so is Pak. Now you say muslims r
living in india and are as active as others - i differ - muslims r the road
block in development of india - what with their propensity to multiply like
rabbits, aversion to any modern laws, aversion to simple thing like
immunisation, lack of education, still harbouring the dreams of Khalifa,
protecting terrorists, etc.. You need to understand that the real cause is islam,
its regressive philosophy and vice like grip on muslim's mentality. You remove
Islam and we are one people.
Manage
o
Like
·
Wasim
Reddevil Raman Sehgal I do agree that we are one
people and you may be right in saying that Islam does hinder our union but it's
not the only side of the picture you see Mr. Jinnah wanted a progressive
secular country had we followed him we would've been one by now(secular
not atheist Pakistan) but Politicians and other power groups manipulated and
you have today's Pakistan. I would love the day when Pakistan and India unite
like European Union imagine the sheer size of the defense force, more funds for
Health and education will be used by both countries so on and it's totally
possible as Jinnah said and I'm paraphrasing Pakistan and India could be like
USA and Canada !!!
Manage
o
Like
·
RamanAl
BeruniSehgal Wasim Reddevil : I consider Jinnah to be
the real Father of Indian nation. He did a great service to India / Hindus
(maybe unknowingly) by creating pakistan. Hindus were under foreign rule for
100 years (800 under muslim and 200 under british) - it would have been
impossible to deal with the muslims had India been one - as muslim population
would have been almost 50%. Hindus are inherently divided lot and could not
have faced the united front of muslims - so in effect it would have been an
islamic state. Now Jinnah in a master stroke created Pak and thus divided
muslims into 3 entities. All 3 r getting weak day by day. We do not want Pak
and neither the muslims - the main reason y i am against muslims is that they
have mortgaged their intelligence to Allah and are averse to any new thought.
They see everything from the prisim of 7th centuary - now if anyone tries to
reason them out - they r killed - u would be knowing this better. My stand
always has been that u need to kill Islam in order to accepted in the community
of nations.
Manage
o
Like
·
Asjad Bukhari Imtinan wrote “in my
opinion this country was founded only and only along religious line , ethnicity
had nothing to do with it”
Let me correct myself – I meant ‘ethnic OR religious’ instead of ‘and’
Imtinan wrote “...but one thing they were sure of when they sacrificed their land and left behind loved ones is that that, this new land will carter their feeling and rights, they will……”
It was not Manto’s Toba Tek Singh’s character Bishan Singh who was confused that which city and town will stay in India and what will be a part of Pakistan - majority of people were in dark and all of a sudden they wake up with news that their home is not a part of the country they supposed to adopt…. In that chaotic situation nobody asked them for their options rather you want to stay at your home or want to move……. How can we call this forceful migration and killing as sacrifice, sacrifice is a scenario when you have given the choices to make decision… I am talking about Radcliffe Award especially the partition of Punjab where majority of bloodshed happened…
Let me correct myself – I meant ‘ethnic OR religious’ instead of ‘and’
Imtinan wrote “...but one thing they were sure of when they sacrificed their land and left behind loved ones is that that, this new land will carter their feeling and rights, they will……”
It was not Manto’s Toba Tek Singh’s character Bishan Singh who was confused that which city and town will stay in India and what will be a part of Pakistan - majority of people were in dark and all of a sudden they wake up with news that their home is not a part of the country they supposed to adopt…. In that chaotic situation nobody asked them for their options rather you want to stay at your home or want to move……. How can we call this forceful migration and killing as sacrifice, sacrifice is a scenario when you have given the choices to make decision… I am talking about Radcliffe Award especially the partition of Punjab where majority of bloodshed happened…
Edit or delete this
o
Like
·
Asjad Bukhari Sadeeq - I agreed
prejudice behavior was also one of the contributing factors of partition but it
was not limited to one sided, there were and there are people from both sides
hold that type of sick mentality….. I just want to remind you one another
recent post by you on Karachi violence in which there was clear Pashtuns tilt
and you use the word Pashtun genocide (too strong) …. I guess in this case all
sides are Muslims….. if we start dividing humanity …..then there is no end to
this madness ….
Edit or delete this
o
Like
·
Asjad Bukhari ’Pakistan ka matlab kia
- la ilaha illaha ilalhaa’
I have one generation gap with the folks they participated actively in 1940s politics and I discussed these issues with couple of elders from opposing sides who actively involved in politics. In my personal view the one I developed from oral history to documented history that majority of people and even top leadership of that time was not clear how the event of partition of India will unfold and like Naveed said different interest groups had different interpretations and reasons to support partition. The road map you can draw from their statements was very different then …’Pakistan ka matlab kia - la ilaha illaha ilalhaa’ .e.g. remember Mr. Jinnah’s famous speech just after 14 August something like this ‘….. now we are not Hindu, Christian or Muslims we all are Pakistanis…..’ and in reply his critics said if there was something like two nation theory now Mr. Jinnah buried that already. Couple of years back Khuswant Singh the author of “Train to Pakistan” did interview to VOA (I think I had the audio copy of that) and he mentioned that during his wedding Mr. Jinnah made request to his father not to leave Lahore after partition because Khuswant is perfect candidate as judge for Lahore High Court then Mr. Jinnah’s statement about foreign relation of Pakistan with India….. that India and Pakistan will be like USA and Canada (one not forget USA and Canada considered each other first cousins in foreign relations) Lailaha Ilalah and GawMata – frist cousins……. :)…… Personally I have no objection to this but ask somebody who is entitled to interpret Lailahha Ilalah about this…… I can going on and on with more examples but what I am trying to say is that ’Pakistan ka matlab kia - la ilaha illaha ilalhaa’ was slogan created by one political worker and Muslim League exploited that to some extent but the partition of India was the greater plan of British Empire and our leaders in one or other way trapped into that…
Raman wrote: “……You remove Islam and we are one people”. Raman I guess than you have to remove Mr. Gandhi also from India …..will u…..who said wonderful things not only about Muslims but also about the message of Islam...
I have one generation gap with the folks they participated actively in 1940s politics and I discussed these issues with couple of elders from opposing sides who actively involved in politics. In my personal view the one I developed from oral history to documented history that majority of people and even top leadership of that time was not clear how the event of partition of India will unfold and like Naveed said different interest groups had different interpretations and reasons to support partition. The road map you can draw from their statements was very different then …’Pakistan ka matlab kia - la ilaha illaha ilalhaa’ .e.g. remember Mr. Jinnah’s famous speech just after 14 August something like this ‘….. now we are not Hindu, Christian or Muslims we all are Pakistanis…..’ and in reply his critics said if there was something like two nation theory now Mr. Jinnah buried that already. Couple of years back Khuswant Singh the author of “Train to Pakistan” did interview to VOA (I think I had the audio copy of that) and he mentioned that during his wedding Mr. Jinnah made request to his father not to leave Lahore after partition because Khuswant is perfect candidate as judge for Lahore High Court then Mr. Jinnah’s statement about foreign relation of Pakistan with India….. that India and Pakistan will be like USA and Canada (one not forget USA and Canada considered each other first cousins in foreign relations) Lailaha Ilalah and GawMata – frist cousins……. :)…… Personally I have no objection to this but ask somebody who is entitled to interpret Lailahha Ilalah about this…… I can going on and on with more examples but what I am trying to say is that ’Pakistan ka matlab kia - la ilaha illaha ilalhaa’ was slogan created by one political worker and Muslim League exploited that to some extent but the partition of India was the greater plan of British Empire and our leaders in one or other way trapped into that…
Raman wrote: “……You remove Islam and we are one people”. Raman I guess than you have to remove Mr. Gandhi also from India …..will u…..who said wonderful things not only about Muslims but also about the message of Islam...
o
Like
·
RamanAl
BeruniSehgal Asjad : Gandhi is already removed from India -
he is just remembered on 2nd Oct. All his philosophy is in dustbin - that does
not mean he was not a great man - i think he was one of the greatest man ever
born - but who is now a history. Around 3-4 years back I was also of the
opinion that Islam is the best religion and it is the muslims who r the worst.
Moreover Gandhi was a political man who had to take muslims along with him - so
had to please them.
Manage
o
Like
·
Naveed
Ali Khan As I said that Islam was never a problem in
politics before partition, Jinnah clearly had distinction between Islam and
Musalman; he fought for Musalmans, those were likes of Maududi or Afghani who
were in favor of Pan Islamism. Unfortunately after Independence that group got
ideological lead as that ideology was favoring new strategic interests of
Pakistan's elite and establishment which was non democratic.
Manage
o
Like
·
Asjad Bukhari ‘Unfortunately after
Independence that group got ideological lead’ I think when you play or exploit
religious pitch then you can’t stop mullah ideology to dominate
Edit or delete this
o
Like
·
Asjad Bukhari 'Gandhi is already removed
from India' Raman - if I believe on you then I am really sad to see anther
wrong turn ... but I guess that is not the case...
Edit or delete this
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed ASJAB BHAI :hey i already said what people
though and were told is important because it is their country ....what Muslim
league nawabs and the leadership thought is not!!....
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed it was what they were promised is more
important and what they thought...do you really think they would have voted for
muslim league in 45 -45 elections if it was not for this slogan..would have
people voted if they were told that the newly born country will be
secular.....there will be no quarnic laws!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed wasim bhai ni i disagree;i think in a
democracy people get the right to choose not the leaders or even founders;just because
Ibrahim lincon supported slavery does not mean the people of usa have to today;
and being a muslim i think prophet and God are above leader and founders!!
and being a muslim i think prophet and God are above leader and founders!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Wasim
Reddevil Syed Imtinan Ahmad get your facts right
he ended slavery not supported it and even couldn't go the founders of the US.
And if that were the case, the slogan, then why didn't people appose Jinnah
when he addressed to the assembly or why they didn't stand up against his
cabinet or his national anthem for the country ??!
Manage
o
Like
·
Sadeeq
Ullah Ihsan Wasim Reddevil … Gandhi deserved removal,
coz he was a football politician …sometimes he pretended to be a congress’s
super leader and sometimes he declared that he is not a congress member .. we
cant find any particular stance & status of Gandhi in Indian politics … for
example in the dirty khilafat movement, he influenced congress & compelled
them to join movement and congress adhered him ….
and in later years he always told quaid e azam that he is not a congress member and he is ready to accept his 14 points in his personal capacity but he cant compel congressites to accept them, so what would be the benefit of his acceptance of 14 points without congress … nothing
again after his immature quit India movement, he prepared a formula and send it to quaid through Rajagopalacharia but still he was adamant that he is not doing this on the behalf of congress … that’s why quaid told him that if i accept R.C formula then what is the guarantee that congress would accept this & later his assertion proved true when congress started humiliating Gandhi. The president of hindu mahasabha V.D Savarkar replied to Gandhi that India is not his personal property so they should stop making any suggestions …
again in cabinet mission plan Gandhi was declaring that he is an indian only and doesn’t belong to congress but assisted congress simultaneously and suggested congressites to denounce the short term plan and congress did it according to his instructions … but later he again started blowing his trumpet that he in not a congressite till independence
I feel that, he was willing and ready to move forward taking Indian communities together but quaid e azam was well aware of his limitations … so Gandhi seems to me a very strange type of character who didn’t came out ever with what he really want and what is his stance …
Congress was a famous party not because of Gandhi or Nehru but they got this already established party with penetration deep inside India due to the britishers(although they created this party for their own convenience but later hindus dominated it and got full benefit of it) plus first mover advantage was also a factor which helped congress to establish its roots in India on sound footings without any opposition …
and in later years he always told quaid e azam that he is not a congress member and he is ready to accept his 14 points in his personal capacity but he cant compel congressites to accept them, so what would be the benefit of his acceptance of 14 points without congress … nothing
again after his immature quit India movement, he prepared a formula and send it to quaid through Rajagopalacharia but still he was adamant that he is not doing this on the behalf of congress … that’s why quaid told him that if i accept R.C formula then what is the guarantee that congress would accept this & later his assertion proved true when congress started humiliating Gandhi. The president of hindu mahasabha V.D Savarkar replied to Gandhi that India is not his personal property so they should stop making any suggestions …
again in cabinet mission plan Gandhi was declaring that he is an indian only and doesn’t belong to congress but assisted congress simultaneously and suggested congressites to denounce the short term plan and congress did it according to his instructions … but later he again started blowing his trumpet that he in not a congressite till independence
I feel that, he was willing and ready to move forward taking Indian communities together but quaid e azam was well aware of his limitations … so Gandhi seems to me a very strange type of character who didn’t came out ever with what he really want and what is his stance …
Congress was a famous party not because of Gandhi or Nehru but they got this already established party with penetration deep inside India due to the britishers(although they created this party for their own convenience but later hindus dominated it and got full benefit of it) plus first mover advantage was also a factor which helped congress to establish its roots in India on sound footings without any opposition …
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed dude they did not understand most of his
addresses .. remember he spoke English....the baboo culture..!!..but i am not
going to bring personality of quaid into discussion...he was great leader..but
there has always been a gap between the leaders and the people since the
inception!!
and my bad it was thomas jefferson..i totally mentioned the opposite guy!!
and my bad it was thomas jefferson..i totally mentioned the opposite guy!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Syed
Imtinan Ahmed AND BY THAT I MEAN..HIS PUBLIC
ADDRESSES!!..NOT THE ONES IN THE PARLIAMENT!!
Manage
o
Like
·
Nighat
Nighat Urpani The moment the state was created, it was
lawyers' and Politicians' job to draft rights and duties of the citizens of the
nation they so dearly created. That what defines a nation, not religions. If
anyone wants to live in nation-states based on religions then muslims should
migrate to Saudia Arabia, Christians to Vatican and Hindus perhaps to Nepal.
Other states should be left free to create decent legal systems of their own
and other institutions to run their countries sensibly.
Manage
o
Like
·
Asjad Bukhari Imtinah – The thing I am
emphasizing is there was no promise by ML or by Mr Jinnah for Islamic state.
Let’s say there was no British interest to divide India BUT even then all of
the Muslim League’s demands and struggle was to ensure the economic rights of
Muslim minority. Islam was not under question throughout, this is absolute
fact…. BUT in other side of the argument is when over 90% people are Muslim in
one country, obviously there is very good chance that they will not make law
against Quranic values and guidelines but that doesn’t mean that country would
establish as theocratic state. If by ‘Quranic law’ somebody mean ‘Shariah law’
or ‘Nizama Mustafa’ etc than I am strongly in an opinion that these vague terms
were not the intention of pioneers of Pakistan. Muslim League its leadership
and sensible masses understood clearly that Pakistan is not going to chase the
illusions of Islamic khilafah. I would like to remind again there were
religious political parties headed by renowned and respectable religious
scholars but people never follow them because they don’t like the idea of
theocratic Islamic state instead modern Muslim state….even until now PPP and
MPL-N type thug but secular flavored parties are more popular then Mulllah
parties….. why? Because majority of Pakistanis by- large are neutral people and
they don’t like any extremist ideas.
Once Mr. Jinnah said “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State” Does this sounds Islamic Republic of Pakistan (founded by Hazarat Zia-ul-Haq), where we asked people to declare not only their religion but also the sect?
Once Mr. Jinnah said “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State” Does this sounds Islamic Republic of Pakistan (founded by Hazarat Zia-ul-Haq), where we asked people to declare not only their religion but also the sect?
Edit or delete this
o
Like
·
Sadeeq
Ullah Ihsan @Asjad Bukhari ... yup economics was a key
stimulating agent behind most of the movements of 20th century , and muslim
league was not an exception but Congress's slogan of united india was also a
measure by hinduz to dominate economically on larger area of sub continent and
their attitude compelled muslims to think about their economic security. both
slogans of united india & pakistan had economic motives behind them. a
writer Hamza alvi writes in his book that some muslims (who received some
education after they got inspired from sirsyed's movement) & who were
appointed on low jobs as clerks, chaprasees and assistants were damm sure that
they will lose their jobs if hinduz dominated when they experienced hindu
revilvalist movements of 19th and 20th century. he calls this a "Salaried
class" and this "Salaried class" also contributed towards
Pakistan with economic motives behind it, this salaried class migrated to
karachi after partition. we dont mention economic motives behind any movement
coz it reminds people the dark aspect of human nature. sometimes i feel that
economics has assumed the status of only menifest religion in the world, all
others r latent & r witnessed occasionally or rarely in one's life.
M.A Jinnah always advocated for Secular Pakistan with dominant culture based on Islamic way of life as majority population was Muslim(with full freedom to minorities also to live their lives according to their religions) but he never declared Pakistan, a country with the absolute rule of Mullahs & Theocracy ..... in fact M.A Jinnah was continuously misunderstood & misinterpreted through out his life. further Hindus & many ignorant Muslims added fuel to fire by their filthy propaganda. The practice still continued after the partition ...
check this out also as i find it anteresting ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T50sHtbN9y0&feature=share
M.A Jinnah always advocated for Secular Pakistan with dominant culture based on Islamic way of life as majority population was Muslim(with full freedom to minorities also to live their lives according to their religions) but he never declared Pakistan, a country with the absolute rule of Mullahs & Theocracy ..... in fact M.A Jinnah was continuously misunderstood & misinterpreted through out his life. further Hindus & many ignorant Muslims added fuel to fire by their filthy propaganda. The practice still continued after the partition ...
check this out also as i find it anteresting ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T50sHtbN9y0&feature=share
Manage
o
Like
·
Asjad Bukhari There is valuable addition
on this subject “Pakistan kasay bana” link below will give you more info about
the book and very informative talk with learned compiler of this work Mr Hassan
Jaffer Zaidi:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/.../08/110813_hassan_jaffer_a.shtml…See more
http://www.bbc.co.uk/.../08/110813_hassan_jaffer_a.shtml…See more
o
Like
·
Asjad Bukhari Great news - Thanks
to Hassan Zaidi sahib for providing the link
to FREE download complete set of the work “Pakistan Kaisay Bana” (2nd ed) …… I
think this is great service to our misinformed nation to reveal the real face
of history and making this work available FREE on Internet:
http://tehqeeq.org/pakistan-history/download-all/
http://tehqeeq.org/pakistan-history/download-all/
TEHQEEQ.ORG
Download E-Books
