Articles Comments

Pak Tea House » History » The Man Who Forged An Interview: Shorish Kashmiri's Maulana Azad Hoax

The Man Who Forged An Interview: Shorish Kashmiri's Maulana Azad Hoax

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Some people believe that if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth. Making the rounds on the internet these days is a “suddenly discovered” interview of Maulana Azad which he allegedly gave to Agha Shorish Kashmiri of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam in April 1946.

Well I hate to break it to all of you – Agha Shorish Kashmiri was a fraud and the interview itself was most probably cobbled together through excerpts from Azad’s book “India Wins Freedom” and his famous address to the Muslims left behind in India in Jamia Masjid- both easily available texts. Before I come to the actual nature of the forgery, let us re-cap for a second what this creature Majlis-e-Ahrar was and just how deep its motivation ran in discrediting Pakistan and the leadership of Mr. Jinnah who Majlis-e-Ahrar considered an outright Kafir. Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam, a group of Islamic fanatics closely allied to the Congress party, was one of the most rabid anti-Pakistan movements around.

Their leaders Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar and Maulana Ataullah Shah Bukhari were foul mouthed bigots who resorted to choicest abuses from the pulpit against the Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah. The elections of 1946 resulted in their complete rout and after Pakistan was created, this group was in the forefront of the conspiracies against the state. Agha Shorish Kashmiri was one such Ahrari remnant who was in the forefront of anti-Ahmaddiya rioting in Pakistan and whose hatred for Pakistan was boundless. The internal struggle in Islam has always pitted liberal Muslim leadership against the clergy especially in the subcontinent. The difference in the closing days of the Raj was that through a freak chance, liberal and secular Muslim leadership in form of Jinnah was isolated from the Hindu leadership i.e. Gandhi and Nehru led Congress which in turn used the fanatical Muslims making common cause with them against British raj.

Maulana Azad was the blue-eyed boy of the Ulema who opposed the Muslim League. Azad was a religious scholar of renown, a salafi who followed Ibn-e-Taimiyya. He commanded respect amongst the Ahraris and he was admired by the nationalists. That Azad was a smart politician is evidenced from his support for the Cabinet Mission Plan, where he alone in the Congress was ready to work it to its logical conclusion. He was also an intelligent man who did predict the separation of Pakistan’s Eastern Wing in his book “India Wins Freedom” as dictated to Humayun Kabir in 1957. He did not however make the predictions that are being attributed to him in the so called interview.

Now let us see the obvious gaping holes in this so called interview:

 1. First of all the interview finds no mention in any of the official works on Azad. It is only found in Agha Shorish Kashmiri’s book on Abul Kalam Azad which was financed and published by Kashmiri himself.

 2. Azad says “H S Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in esteem”. Jinnah’s relationship with Suhrawardy soured in late 1947 but in April 1946 there were no such signs. Till 1947, Suhrawardy was tipped to be Pakistan’s firs t Prime Minister. Infact in his book “India Wins Freedom” Azad hints that Jinnah sidelined Nazimuddin because Nazimuddin was not the loyalist others (presumably Suhrawardy) were.

3. Azad is quoted as saying that “East Pakistan’s confidence will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan are alive”. This is a rather odd statement on three counts. One in April 1946 no one used the term “East Pakistan”, secondly Liaqat Ali Khan just did not enjoy the kind of importance that is being attached to him and third that while Jinnah was ageing and was expected to die sooner or later, Liaqat Ali Khan was relatively young, and certainly younger than Azad. This sounds eerily similar to something our established Pakistan Studies’ books would say about Quaid-e-Azam and Quaid-e-Millat.

4. Azad is shown to speak about the “assertion of the subnational identities of Punjab, Sindh, Frontier and – please note- Balochistan”. There was no Balochistan issue till the annexation of Kalat. Balochistan did not exist as a proper province, let alone register as a possible hotbed in April 1946. All of Baloch grievances revolve around the purported events of March 1948 and the annexation in 1956. There is no way Azad could have spoken about Balochistan in April 1946.

5. Then Azad is quoted as saying “incompetent leadership will pave way for military dictatorship as has happened in many Muslim countries”. Till April 1946, there were no known coups in Muslim countries. Perhaps Azad was referring to Turkey but then Turkey was not a military dictatorship as Ataturk had retired from the military and was the elected – though autocratic – president of Turkey. His prime ministers, Ismet Inonu and Celal Bayer, had followed suit.

6. Azad then looks into his crystal ball and speaks of “heavy burden of foreign debt”. Foreign debt was an unknown and unlikely creature in Pakistan till the 1960s when Pakistan financed the building of a new capital. In April 1946, there were no apprehensions of foreign debt. Pakistan no doubt asked for military aid from the US soon after independence but that was hardly debt. Unless ofcourse Azad knew that the Congress planned on withholding Pakistan’s share of the treasury- another unlikely proposition since in April 1946 it wasn’t even clear that there would be a partition (except maybe in the note sent from V P Menon to George Abell on January 23rd 1946 which demarcated Pakistan exactly and precisely).

7. Azad is lavish in his praise of Jinnah as the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, something he misses out completely in his book “India Wins Freedom”. Other than this purported interview Azad has never acknowledged Jinnah’s contributions to the Congress. It was just not Azad’s style. The description itself seems to follow the passages on Jinnah by Dr. B R Ambedkar’s “Pakistan or Partition of India”. Granted that this book was in circulation at the time but my bet will be that it was Kashmiri and not Azad who read it.

 8. Azad then goes on to say “In the battle of Jamal, Qurans were displayed on the lances”. How strange and ironic that a learned Islamic scholar and authority would make such a major error? It was Jang-e-Sifin – between Muawiyah and Ali- where the Qurans were displayed on the lances.  I for one cannot believe that  Maulana Azad would say something like that given that this was his bread and butter.   Had this been suggested about Jinnah or even Nehru or Iqbal it would have been believable but certainly not Azad.

My objective in posting this is to counter the lie and propaganda that Ahrari crook Agha Shorish Kashmiri is carrying out posthumously with the help of those who want to see Pakistan disintegrated. That this was translated by an Indian MP and published in a magazine that calls itself “Covert” only adds to the mystique of it, since the timing couldn’t be better. But as they say in Punjabi/Saraiki “Naqal kan aqal chaidee”. The planners and executors of this third rate attempt at forging this interview and enhancing Maulana Azad’s credentials as India’s Nostradamus have done the ex-Congress president a disservice.

On our part it is time we stopped being impressed with such trickery.

Written by

Filed under: History · Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

159 Responses to "The Man Who Forged An Interview: Shorish Kashmiri's Maulana Azad Hoax"

  1. YLH Pakistan Google Chrome Windows says:

    One reference to Eastern Pakistan by Wavell does not prove the rule. No Congress leader is on the record speaking of “East Pakistan” when referring to Bengal. That would have been the death knell for their ideology. Secondly Balochistan’s status is well known and quite clear.

    I would request Sarmachar to see things in entirety.

  2. Irfan United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    AA,
    Knowing the life history of Kashmiri, your allegations are incorrect. Also, saying that “Ahrar’ took Jinnah as Kafir is incorrect. It was only Maulana Mazher who called him Kafir in his speech when running against Jinnah in elections.

    Also, just because some disagreed with Jinnah or ML, it means they were wrong? Jinnah did make the same mistake he was warned of by ‘Mullahs’…that opportunitst coming into ML will screw Pakistan. So, instead of rushing up, put together a good team of men of character.

    Today’s Pakistan is a result of Jinnah’s that mistake!

  3. tinyurl.com United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    I really Think post, “The Man Who Forged An Interview:
    Shorish Kashmiri’s Maulana Azad Hoax | Pak Tea House” ended up being just right! Icouldn’t see eye to eye
    along with u even more! At last looks like I actuallyuncovered a blog page definitely worth browsing.
    Thanks, Helena

  4. ahmed ali Saudi Arabia Internet Explorer Windows says:

    religious and nationalist conflict is tearing pakistan apart..Muhajirs has become subject to murder and other excess and passing through great ordeal

  5. Mohammad Arif Siddiqui United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    It is not a question that weather ABUL kALam interview is fake or real,the question is does interpretation of the historical documents signed by the founder’s of both the nation available At British Record Library London , make seance and is logically right , doesn’t matter who so ever said it or rote it .
    Just think why in Dec 1930 the Idea of 2 Nation theory was float by Allama Iqubal with the condition that Muslim National language will be Urdu, and Hindu National language will be Hindi.Where as in March 1929 Quaid Azam in his 14 Points used the words of 2 Communities Hindu & Muslim ,but never used the Nation word in his 14 points ?.Then what was the need to use this word “NATION” ?.And why the national language be Urdu ?. And non of the ethnic community then raised any question on it why ?.Neither Bengali , Punjabi , Sindhi , Belochi , or Pathkuns none of them raised language issue ?.Then how come Now ?.

    What was the need to acknowledge the 1946 Cabinet Mission conditions which are the part of Pakistan Objective Resolution table by constituent Assembly on 12 March 1949 ,, and why its Basic Principle Committee(BPC)in its 1st report dated 28 Sep 1950 ,talk about “PARITY” equal representation for all province in Pakistan , And was changed after the assassination on 16/Oct/1951 (PM) Liquat Ali Khan?.The New (BPC) report dated 22 Dec 1952 adopt “PRINCIPLE OF PARITY” applies on East Pakistan only ? .
    What was the need to adopt ,”ONE UNIT”system on 14 /Oct/1955 , and why it took 9 Years to Pakistan to become Republic in 1956 , what was the need to dissolved the ONE UNIT on 30 June 1970 .

    What is the criteria of (NATION)in the international law required by United Nation to have a right of self determination / Country ?.What percentage of population is required to become a nation ?.Is it not true that international law require to be a nation, must have Same Culture/Same National Language/Same idea logy, conditions or not .Did existing Pakistan with having only 17 Million population in 1947 could become a country without fulfilling the UN conditions?.

    The day you know the answers of all these question , you will definitely under stand and Analyze the authenticity of Abul Klam Azad
    analyses .it’s true.
    The British Record Library London is the best source to see these documents signed by our founding leaders accordingly.

  6. I do not even know how Iended up here, but I thought
    this post wwas good. I do not know who you are but certainly you are going to a famous blogger if you aren’t
    already ;) Cheers!

    Also visit my homepage what is my Credit score

  7. A2Z United Kingdom Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @Mohammad Arif Siddiqui…It really matters whether interview is fake or not. Because it is challenging the basic foundation of Pakistan.
    Istead of asking questions why not post the answers or write column in your blog and challenge the author? That would help us to know about these things. Otherwise keep quite as using “Why” is just a rhetoric with no real substance.

  8. [...] The fake interview of Maulana Azad that Agha Shorish invented to prove that Azad was the most prescient politician of South Asia was exposed here. [...]

  9. [...] The Man Who Forged An Interview: Shorish Kashmiri’s Maulana Azad Hoax [...]

Leave a Reply

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>