Pak Tea House » History » Partition of India: Pakistan and Islam
Partition of India: Pakistan and Islam
Filed under: History · Tags: Congress, Gandhi, India, Iran, Islamic state, Israel, Jinnah, K K Aziz, Khilafat Movement, Majlis-e-Ahrar, Marxism, Murder of History, Muslim League, Muslim religious establishment, Muslim state, partition of India, Salariat, secular, Zia regime
19 Responses to "Partition of India: Pakistan and Islam"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- Rex Minor
said NDelhi,
Acquiring white skin has a simple recipe;... - Rex Minor said Sunny,
You still did not get the message about ...
- NDelhi
said Oh so you were just copy pasting with no contribut... - sunny
said to G. Ali………..
“Hindu̶... - Rex Minor said G Ali,
Let me try to explain somewhat differently,...
- tajender
said Are you sure you are not an RSS agent trying to sp... - tajender said Shyam Chand, a Dalit scholar and activist
dalit m...
- Maggu said Tajendar: How do you get access to these “se...
- ルイビトン 財布
said これら女の子べきではないするは良い取引の製品ものですか？ルイ ・ ヴィトン作成クリーン革はクラッチブ... - tajender said lurker everything is from your upanishads and veda...
[...] Read more: Partition of India: Pakistan and Islam [...]
Excelent article.
In 1947, centuries-long stresses came to an end when India was partitioned into India and Pakistan at the moment of its independence from Great Britain. Mahatma Gandhi strongly resisted the creation of Pakistan. But the President of the Muslim League, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, argued that Muslims needed a separate State to be true to Islam, since Islam does not distinguish between religious and political law.
The partition of India, however, did not end Hindu-Muslim hostilities. Tensions between India and Pakistan are extremely high as they continue a long standing dispute over the region of Jammu and Kashmir. Within India itself, Hindu-Muslim frictions often erupt in violence.
Hinduism,
Have you actually tried to read the article?
“argued that Muslims needed a separate State to be true to Islam, since Islam does not distinguish between religious and political law.”
This is precisely what the article is saying did not happen. Jinnah’s arguments pertaining to personal law notwithstanding, he did not argue that this is why Pakistan was needed… his vision of Pakistan was secular where state would be separate from religion.
Furthermore your understanding is a horrific simplification which does not take into account the complex politics that led to partition. Jinnah was a staunch Indian nationalist and secularist who turned to Pakistan demand only at the very last.
Why don’t you atleast make an effort to read instead of re-stating the same ghissy pitty line that has become an article of faith with Indian and Pakistani nationalist ideologues.
This makes startling reading. Every nuance, every last quibble that we have pursued elsewhere has been neatly and conclusively addressed in this paper. The phased nature of the development of expression of will to govern of the dominant classes has been given a clear and lucid exposition. At this moment, after a feverish first reading, it is utterly convincing. So many myths that have been force-fed to us by ‘court historians’, including the homogenous and agglutinative character of the Muslim inhabitants of South Asia, have been punctured and it may be hoped put away.
Perhaps more of the nuances will become apparent after further study.
Humungous article and I presume historically 100% accurate. But my question is:
The true heirs in today’s Pakistan of what the Pakistan ideology really was, are the secularists.
Should Pakistan be a secular nation just because its founder had intended it to be one? Do today’s Pakistani citizens want it to be a secular state? And what if they dont want it to be one? Can Pakistan be forced to have a secular nation in spite of the will of the people?
(Btw, my personal opinion is that all nations, irrespective of the religious composition or diversity of the population shud be secular, provided of course the citizens agree on it)
Regards
@Majumdar
The position that seems to be emerging, going partially by election results cited by posters, is that Pakistan is a country of individually religious people who want a secular state, but one whose legal system is consistent with the broad thrust of Islamic traditional jurisprudence.
I put to you what seems to be a reasonable proposition: this fits four square with the situation in Italy, Spain or Portugal (substituting Roman Catholic for Islamic). And I am aware as I write this that a Hollander, or Scandinavian, would be mildly surprised at seeing those three countries described as secular.
Now I know you are too much of a gentleman to pin me to the mat with Ireland, and you are perfectly aware why citing that instance would amount to trolling.
Bonobashi
There is no Holly Roman Church in Islam. There is no God’s representative on earth. The Imam of Ka’aba enjoys no such position. Shias hardly have a life in S. Arabia. They are difficult to tell apart from the sunnis in Pak. And the utter lack of any thing that could be cohesive or agreed or even a compiled version of the creature called ‘Islamic traditional jurisprudence’ or ‘Sharia’ does not exist.
There is religious sentiment. What it means is that when one after another politically and morally bankrupt despot (military or civilian, elected or unelected) stoops to the level of using the religion card by bringing in as law a so-called ‘Islamic’ injunction or another
1. The equally morally bankrupt and politically and socially ambitious maulvis jump on to the bandwagon and make the most of it
2. With enough whipping up of feelings it is very difficult to ever reverse the step or even come to some half-reasonable or rational damage control (the Hudood Ordinance and its subsequent half-hearted damage control is one pathetically feeble exception to that rule)
To quote an example from secular India: there was no mass agitation or demand for the Babri Masjid to be pulled down. But once a suitably frenzied mob had managed to do it, all the might of law, constituion and secular Indians cannot reverse the step. Those who rolled out the bandwagon and jumped on it, we know them all.
In Pakistan we don’t even have the ‘might’ (no matter how tiny) of rule of law, or the moderating effect of a functioning democracy. The tradition established here by our military adventurers has been ‘might is right’. The message has been received by the people, loud and clear (getting louder and clearer, after every new coup).
First the mullahs used to jump/invited on the despot’s bandwagon to get what they (as a tiny minority) wanted. Then they found their long lost brother in a five-starred uniform. Now they have decided to take up the gun themselves. A gun is a gun, standard issue or not.
Without going in to the mindboggling analysis of why the Army has not crushed them and the pols have capitulated, the problem for the people returns to what I said at the top of this post. Not many Pakistanis understand this, of course, or we wouldn’t have all the troubles with religous frenzy and sentimentality in the first place. The Sunni Tehreek and some other prominent ‘ulema’ are with the MQM and can be seen sitting quietly in some nice hall in Karachi to Altaf Bhai Londonwale’s telephonic address. Sufi Muhammad calls all ulema who participate in the unislamic democratic process – kafirs. Jamaat e Islami accuses MQM of towing the American line and recommends Sufi seek advice from some ‘proper’ ulema. So even if one or more of them claim prophethood, what will the people of Pakistan do? If you follow one, the other kills you. If you follow none, whoever gets to you first kills you. It’s the same if you decide to follow all. That guy who said that at least the non-muslims can get off the hook by paying jizya… was not far off the mark.
The only good thing about Taliban is that they are obligingly providing practical examples of the arguments that secular (muslim) Pakistanis have been trying to make for years. They are enacting the very predictions that were being made (Ghulam Abbass made a brilliant one as long ago as in 1969 in his short story called Hotel Moenjodaro). To many things are becoming much clearer now. To others they will with each passing day. To some, it will only become clear when a ‘most pious’ mullah is about to shoot them. The rest would have picked up a gun and joined one outfit or another long before the end.
I should have added that the shias, it seems, have a more organised clergy, a bit more organised jurispudence. In Iran they have the Ayotallah, who many non-Iranians also rever. The Agha Khani Ismailis have the ‘God’s representative’ on earth, and the Qadianis have a similar thing in the Khalifa (current one being their 5th). And members of all of these sects also live in Pakistan. I shalln’t say any more. Except, I fear for Gilgit and Hunza after seeing what’s happening in Orakzai. Let alone the last 25 years.
What was it that you were going to say about Ireland?
God save Ireland
Well, actually, when one gets right down to it, bringing up Ireland, a fundamentalist follower of one of the Abrahamic religions, and prone to unpredictable violent activity involving improvised explosive devices, usually directed at uniformed Anglo-Saxons, also to ‘trials’ of individuals from their sect suspected to be collaborating with the enemy, trials which normally ended with extra-judicial executions, and to forming themselves into a multiplicity of ever more extreme secret societies with armed wings….
It’s too close to the bone, too evocative of a caricature of contemporary terrorism, only with the Roman Catholic label changed to radical, fundamentalist Muslim.
I don’t know, I thought it might be thought to be a not very clever attempt at being funny, and thought then that discretion should be the better part of valour. As this post proves, better sense was voted down, with hoots of derision; the proverb which prevailed was ‘Fools rush in where angels fear to tread’.
bloody,
I’ve been harping about Hotel Mohenjodaro over the last many years…
Originally called “Dhanak” in Urdu…. this should be part of the new syllabus for all Pakistanis…
Majumdar,
I don’t think the article makes the argument that Pakistan ought to be secular only because its founder wanted it to be secular.
It makes the case that there is no justification to say that Pakistan was founded in the name of Islam… Pakistan was founded as a result of the economic and political forces at work… and if there is such a thing as “ideology of Pakistan” it can only be secular, since Jinnah’s movement was on secular not theological lines.
BREAK THE WALL
Subcontinent, Reunite
Tahir Mahmood
If forcibly divided East and West Germany can reunite, unnaturally partitioned South and North Yemen can become one nation again, why can’t people of the subcontinent revert to the unity of pre-1947 days? The partition of India – as unwarranted as the divisions of Germany and Yemen – was an unconscionable price we paid to throw off the colonial yoke. Undoing the blunder of history, people of those countries have managed a happy reunion. Can the people of the subcontinent – which not too long ago was a single nation united by common bonds of history, geography, religion, language and culture – not tread the same path of sanity? The partition of India was unjustifiably demanded, and unreasonably conceded, in the name of religion. Rulers of the newly created Islamic Republic chose to sacrifice democracy and human rights on the altar of a misconceived mix of religion and politics. Soon, they paid a price in the form of another partition, showing that bonds of language were stronger than those of religious affinity.
Many in those countries now realise they had been fooled into believing that they would be happier under a theocratic rule. Look at this Urdu couplet of a Pakistani poet: ‘Aa gaye sooe-haram wa’iz ke bahkaney sey ham/Warna razi ham sey butkhana tha butkhaney se ham’ (Misled by religious sermonisers in this mosque we did assemble/Otherwise the temple was happy with us and we with the temple). And see how an Indian Muslim poet feels: ‘Na janoon mein yeh sab kya hai na Bangladesh na Pakistan/Mujhey chahiye apney bachpan ka poora poora Hindustan.’ (I don’t know all this, no Bangladesh, no Pakistan/I want back my childhood days’ total Hindustan). Today, there is no peace anywhere in the subcontinent and the root of all this unrest lies in its artificial partition. We must bring back peace to our part of the human world – and the road to this noble goal lies in a reunification. If the Berlin Wall could be demolished by the Germans, it cannot be beyond us, the citizens of the subcontinent, to undo the partition of our common motherland. We may not realise this dream in our lifetime, but let us sow the seed to be reaped by the next generation.
All the above seems to be a true narration of this trobled region. I strongly support the above “Break the wall”. Pakistan and Pakistanis have been looted and exploited by The Feudals, supported by the army, the bureaucrats with the active supplort of the mullahs, and last but never the least our very corrupt judicary. .The only existence of this country seems to be to enrich the rulers and the army so that they and theirs can have massive accounts to settle anywhere in the world. The taliban problem is because of this corruption. If they had spent even a fraction of the amount that they were busy in looting on the people of this God forsaken country,everything would have been different. This country cannot afford to spend money on education , health or even the infrastructure, but has billions to facilitate the luxuries of the armed forces and the rulers. Everything is done for GHAREEB AWAM.
And this will continue, because everyone knows that they will not be held accountable for this massive destruction. Accountability courts are a circus with all the clowns posturing. Those at the helm mouthing inanities about doing something for the ghareeb awam. I could go on and on, but I do not know wheter these comments are relevant. What I have written here has been said and written and said a billion times or more. God help this country.
Thanks for this site. Extremely educational post.
One genius who goes by Harbir Singh Nain has declared that the late Hamza Alavi is
1. Bloody Nonsense
2. Hate mongering Islamist.
3. Pakistani Nationalist
And so on and so forth.
The real beneficiary of Indian continent division are:
In Indian are Pandits Class(Brahma Class: This the class who has waited for more than six thousand years to become the ruler of India. Never in the Past history of Indian, Pandit was a Raja (King) of India. Maximum he was a only minister with a Raja. Mostly he lived on the religious donations. Now, first time in the history of India, he is a ruler.Great patient of more than six thousand years.
In Pakistan, two classes were the beneficiary of India division.
No.1: The Present day Land lord and specially those ones who were traitors of 1957 Independence War. Who killed thousands of Mujahdeens for English Govt just on wages of Rs. 20 for killing one Mujahid., in which most of them were Makhdooms, Qureshis, Syeds, Pirs (all clans who once migrated to India just to mint money in the name of religion. Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s grand father whose name was also Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Killed 300 Mujahdeen (Freedom Fighters) and received a prize of Rs. 6000 from Britsh Govt.along with two villages)
No.2 : tribes of Banu Ummays & Banu Abbas (including all types of Syeds as well); These were the people who were settled in and around UP & CP in India since forein Muslium Invaders rules. Most of them were petty servants in British Govt. and before that as well. Bercause of partition of Indian, they shifted to Pakistan and occupied all important posts here and still are occupying. Had there been no partion, in India today, they would have been in amiserable position. They could not dream of the benefits and positions they occupied in Pakistan, had there been no partition. Most of them they would have been wandering in the streets of India.
to prof. rana
Brahmins are today the most slandered and vilified people in India. There may be some few who have joined the congress party and got some positions of note, but most brahmins are living in fear in India. Their socio-political situation is somewhat like that of the ahamadis or bahais in Pakistan. (No other comparison with them is intended or possible).
Somehow in Pakistan there is a very wrong impression about brahmins. Pakistan ideology has its own lies and mendacities against brahmins. I hope a man with a professor title should do more accurate and deep research before speaking out.