Pak Tea House » Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Army, India, North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan, Politics, Terrorism, USA, violence, war, World, Yusuf Raza Gillani, Zardari » Afghanistan's Great Game And Superficial Analysis By US Foreign Policy Analysts
Afghanistan's Great Game And Superficial Analysis By US Foreign Policy Analysts
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
The article below from Examiner epitomizes bad analysis that some in the US insist on carrying out which is damaging to the much flaunted “common objective”. God forbid if the author is right, it just means that the US is pursuing a perilous path by ignoring advice from Pakistan’s hardened policy hands. The author is absolutely wrong when she says the Pakistan Army “has never been excited” about US aid and intervention. The Pakistani military has always been very close to the Pentagon. What Obama needs is a sustainable strategy which brings on board every key player including Pakistan’s civilian federal government and the Pakistan Army.
This means that the US will have to address Pakistan’s concerns vis a vis Indian involvement in Afghanistan. All of India’s so called interests in Afghanistan are Pakistan specific. Furthermore, the US needs to come out clearly and distance itself from the horrendous and ridiculous Col Peters’ Plan which finds an increasingly audience amongst the new great gamers. How would US do that? Well for one - US has no business dealing directly with the NWFP and ANP. US should make it very clear that its channel of communication is with Pakistan’s Supreme Commander President Asif Ali Zardari and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani. The US Administration should stop making direct contacts with either Asfandyar Wali Khan, Amir Haider Hoti etc and treating them as the founding father and prime minister of a new state. They should be treated on merit as a provincial party and a provincial government. ( I wonder if there are people in the current administration naive enough to flirt with this idea of an independent Pakhtunistan. If there are indeed such geniuses, they should know that their new found favorites will be swept away in a flood.)
Here is the article I was talking about:
It is not possible for President Obama to declare a surge against Pakistan. After all, we are allies, and we are not supposed to be fighting on their soil. Why did it take so long to finally endorse the troops requested by General McChrystal?
The excuse came in the form of waiting for Afghan election results, despite the fact that the US knew well in advance that Karzai had no serious competitor. And, as reported earlier, the only possible man who could have had a chance at winning was pressured by the US to withdraw. See U.S. pressured Abdullah Abdullah to withdraw from presidential race
This afternoon, we heard Richard Holbrooke say: ‘no country is more important to our success than Pakistan‘, during an interview with Fareed Zakaria. He also spoke of the hostility faced by Secretary of State Clinton during her recent visit to Pakistan. We wondered about the same animus in our report: Pakistan: ‘Kerry-Lugar bill is unacceptable’ – who is the real enemy?
According to all indications, al-Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan. And the number of ‘dangerous’ Taliban has been reduced to less than one hundred men. The question has already been posed: do we need another 30,000 men to take out 100 men?
During another interview this Sunday on State of the Union, National Security Advisor, General Jim Jones was pressed hard about this surge, its meaning and its purpose. A single sentence stood out amid all of the rhetoric: the troops will be concentrated on the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan where the fighting has been heaviest.
Another fact which has recently emerged on Democracy Now! was the quiet work being done by the CIA in Pakistan, supported by private mercenaries (i.e. Blackwater) who are conducting a war so secret that it was indicated that the current administration may not have known about it. This is inclusive of the drone attacks which have killed many Pakistanis, including civilians.
And we have reason to worry about Pakistan now more than ever: President Zardari has been forced to relinquish some powers, as he has been accused of corruption. The Pakistani Army has never been expecially excited about American presence or assistance to the country. And then, there are those nuclear arms that need to be secured.
So as everyone continues the conversation about President Obama’s war in Afghanistan, we may want to pause and read between the lines.
Filed under: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Army, India, North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan, Politics, Terrorism, USA, violence, war, World, Yusuf Raza Gillani, Zardari · Tags: Afghanistan's great game, Amir Haider Khan Hoti, ANP, Asfandyar Wali Khan, Examiner, Foreign policy, NWFP Government, Pakhtunistan, Pakistan, strategy, US
128 Responses to "Afghanistan's Great Game And Superficial Analysis By US Foreign Policy Analysts"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- tajender
said Pak hindus were hoping that saeed will protect the... - Parliament-Certified Muslim
said @ Majumdar
According to Article 2 of the Constitu... - tajender said AHEM,u people preapre a story far away from ground...
- Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Sachbol
Aha so you think that Ahmadis are not...
- Skeptic
said Fingolfin,
Why blame the mullahs? The real proble... - PMA
said Dr. Jalal & Dr. Bose both are academician &... - Rex Minor
said Rajtoo,
I have no problems with your statements... - Mubaraka
said Mr. AKB
Can you please point out which article of... - yasser said no comments plz
- Skeptic said I read somewhere that Manto wrote thrice to Ismat...
MK
For somebody who has served global interests. Like President Obama.
i was referring to Bacha Khan’s nomination for the nobel peace prize in 1985. the claim that he was a nominee (amongst however many) cannot be verified, officially, of course… until 2035 at least.
@BC,
It would seem that politics somehow makes people ethically challenged. One would not have expected it of Frontier Gandhi, but then life is a series of continuous lessons.
@MK
true again. and then we’ve dr ambedkar’s (yet another bharat ratna) accounts of the ‘mainland’ gandhi.
life is a series of continuous lessons
life is a series of words and deeds too. both good and bad. at what point does the balance shift towards the whole person being condemned? is there ever a need to condemn a person? criticising individual acts, and condemning condemnable ones should be enough.
@BC ,
Talking of Dr Ambedkar, he was a brilliant scholar who gave a secular touch to the Indian Constitution. He stood up for the Dalits in the teeth of opposition, and gave them an identity to be proud of.
Sadly, the powers that be gave him nothing in return.
Maybe Bacha Khan’s partisans can answer those questions.
But here is a question (multiple choice) for Bacha Khan partisans.
Q. Which of the following south asian leaders bequeathed a substantial amount to an institution of higher learning in Peshawar, NWFP?
A. Bacha Khan
B. “Mahatma” Gandhi
C. Mahomed Ali Jinnah.
D. Maulana Azad
Hint- if what Ghani Khan said could come true, maybe a lot of problems would be solved.
Takhalus,
I agree there with you that ANP is well to the right of NAP and as someone suggested it is really a successor of the KK than the NAP. KK was a conservative party. It was a spitting image of Ghaffar Khan who was a conservative, intellectually aligned with Gandhi’s conservatism rather than Maulana Azad’s religious dogmatism. His singular achievement was hoisting the banner of secularism and democracy in a politically and socially primitive culture. Yasser’s attempt to conjure up a revisionist history based on some letters from the people who had their own axes to grind, would not qualify as accurate and well documented history. In comparison, there is tons of material out there that would show that Muslim leagues mostly comprised of people whose sole contribution to the political struggle was their extremely close relationship with the colonial bureaucracy. Ghani Khan in his early age was a firebrand and stayed in his ego trip long after the British left. His transition from a firebrand to a mellow establishment supporter is not a new phenomenon. History is full of people like him.
Bacha Khan’s political career started with Faqir of Ipi’s help. Ipi encouraged Bacha Khan to turn his social movement in to a political movement. (This is from what I read a long time ago…can’t produce any reference but there is enough circumstantial evidence to support this narrative). Fakir of Ipi and Bacha Khan both were united in two goals: they wanted the end of the British rule and they also wanted an independent area for Pushtoons. I don’t see any element of treachery there. They were both patriots. Faqir of Ipi chose the recognized tool of militant struggle against the British and Bacha Khan chose to stay within the constitutional path that Congress under Gandhi promoted.
There was no viable Muslim league then and Jinnah was politically defeated by Gandhi in the power struggle within the Congress in the late teens and early 20s. By the time Jinnah came around to leading the ML, the KK political doctrine was already deep-rooted. Pakistan movement progressed from 1940 and Pakistan was not a politically achievable goal before 1945. There was no way for the KK or Bacha Khan to switch political movement so quickly but they continued to change their ways and one of the worst compromise was in the shape of Dr. Khan Sahib accepting the One Unit leadership. Political parties make mistakes. KK was never mistaken in its support of independence for a united India because ultimately the united India would have expedited the creation of Pakhtoon homeland between India and Afghanistan. Their calculation was perhaps not accurate but the creation of Pakistan was certainly not in their calculations. The Pakistan demand made them recalculate and after independence they made many mistakes in recalibrating their politics. Their mistake were mistakes not crimes that the Muslim League committed after independence
Despite all the KK compromises the nawaiwaqt generation is not willing to let go of the biases and the progeny of the Nawaiwaqt will continue to regurgitate the Nawaiwaqt and Chattan type political history.
An aside, I think time has come in Pakistan to see a Pukhtoon Prime Minister and I acquiesce that Asfandyar Wali is the most eligible candidate. I have been following Nawaz Sharif’s politics and his support base since 1998, leaving his ideological perplexities aside; Nawaz and the people behind him have enough political foresight to support this move. I understand that with the iron grip that the army establishment has in Pakistan, Asfandyar may not be able to change much but sometimes the change in ideological orientation at the top, can initiate a major overhaul of political dimensions. This would parallel the change India made in 1992 when it switched from the controlled economy to an IMF inspired economy.
@BC: Beyond ratna’s what does being an amnesty prisoner of conscience mean ?
True ..transformative figures are often many different things at many differen times (as are all human beings). Whether it’s Jinnah being a founding father to pakistanis on one hand and a distant man in relation to his daughter on the other. Gandhi being venerated by pacifists but his treatment of his wife being largely unmentioned or Bacha Khan and the obvious devotion of his followers and Bacha Khan and his children.
Those who die with a story untold are often easier to place on a pedestal because one can paint ones hopes on the imagined canvas of their lives unlike those who have lived a full life where you have a beginning a middle and an end. The former end up being turned into types of saints ..the latter are often judged more harshly.
Dear Hossp,
Ha ha, Now you’ve added Chattan to that list. The same chattan your crooked friends in the ANP are quoting as the gospel truth these days.
Come on uncle …You know as well as I do that I have as much to do with the Nawai Waqt generation as you are a Neocon. Actually I think you are more of a Neocon in every way than I am from the Nawai Waqt generation. Ironically the Nation was always a big fan of Wali Khan later years and the real Nawai Waqtis took his cause with great verve when ANP was part of the Nizam e Mustafa push in 1977. I wonder which side Shorish must have chosen…
You know I suggested Asfandyar as the PM much earlier. However as I have gotten to know your friends in the ANP better, I’d say thank you very much but no thanks.
There can be no reconciliation with crooks of ANP unless they break decisively with the past.
Now uncleji you can claim whatever about my “revisionist history” but may I remind you that the otherside doesn’t even have the documents that I
have referred to.
Faqir of Ipi was an Islamist insurgent in the tradition syed ahmed, pawindah. The tradition continues to present day. Bacha Khan and his party aided and abetted Faqir of Ipi. They also hobnobbed with the Afghan government despite advice to the contrary from Mr. Nehru. Gandhi egged them on. All these form part of a record that is easily available at the library of Congress not by Leaguers but by Americans.
There is no question that other than Jinnah, Mohani and Khaliquzzaman, a great majority of the League had nothing to do with any opposition to British rule. It is also true that in NWFP, pro-British elements dominated the League (which played roughly the same role against the Congress, that the Unionist-Congress alliance played against the League and the CPI in Punjab). My own great grandfather from my mother’s side was a Unionist till 1939 (his eventual inclusion in the League cost him 60 murabas of jageer)… I frankly think the Muslim intelligentsia, Aga Khan, Sir Zafrulla and others were right in working with the British. To my mind Aga Khan and Sir Zafrulla did a lot more for the people than the likes of Faqir of Ipi (I won’t say Bacha Khan because before jumping into politics Bacha Khan did do some good work as a social worker which he ought to have confined himself to).
The British gave India unity, discipline, infrastructure, modern institutions etc. A bunch of raggle taggle thugs like Patay Khan the bandit, Sultana Daku Faqir of Ipi were criminals …especially since their so called movements were parochially tribal, unlike say Bhagat Singh or M N Roy not to mention the modernists and parliamentarian constitutionalists like the Nehrus or Jinnah or Sapru.
Had the British not carried out the Jallianwalla outrage, it is safe to say that there would be no Bhagat Singh. Otherwise British rule was a great liberation for South Asia and had it not been for the second world war, the Brits might just have stayed Bacha Khan, Gandhi and others notwithstanding. We would certainly have attained a Canada like Dominion status with Muslims forming the equivalent of Quebec in it. So uncleji stop this self righteousness about Brits being evil incarnates and portraying this dhong of independence struggle as anything more than a tamasha that it was. It is this impulse that presents itself in form of conspiracy theories and Islamo-fascism today…the sort of nawai waqt nationalism that you have internalized.
Takhalus mian,
Guess who else had the honor of being Amnesty’s prisoner of conscience?
Chaudhry Zahoor Elahi.
And you know who else?
Maajid Nawaz when he was still a Hizb-ut-tahrir activist…and under arrest in Egypt.
You obviously don’t understand that Amnesty’s “prisoner of the year” is not necessarily an endorsement of a prisoner’s political views. Arrest a Mullah long enough and unconstitutionally, he too shall become “Amnesty’s Prisoner of Conscience”.
Bacha Khan was busy plotting the secession of NWFP through out till the 1980s. Was it Najeeb who rebuked him for continuing down this road. Pushtoon Nationalist
Juma Khan Sufi has written about this.
…
I see that you’ve brought Jinnah and his relationship with his daughter up out of the blue. Jinnah’s close relationship with his daughter is on the record. It is true that they weren’t on cordial terms between 1939 to 1942… but I am afraid “distant to his daughter” doesn’t bear out in history. Read Wolpert’s book especially pages 132-133 (from memory) and there are countless pictures of Jinnah with his head on Dina’s shoulder, taking a walk with her, standing with her on the footsteps of his house proudly, playing with dogs with Dina next to him… And then Dina has given a clear account of their relationship in her essay “My father”. By all accounts it shows how sensitive and caring a father Jinnah was and it was this closeness that temporarily dented their relationship.
Instead of commenting on something you know very little about, how about you just answer the multiple choice question I posed above?
Bhatijay,
I am beginning to fear your intellectual naughtiness. British in India did what was needed to be done to perpetuate their own rule. In the process they created a class that you so proudly promote as enlightened. Jalianwala was not an accident nor was emergence of Bhagat Singh an aberration. The Ghadar party came in to existence way before Jalianwala happened and Jalianwala happened because the British were not ready to accept that the poor natives were human. While you can take pride in British sponsored unity, infrastructure and modern institutions I take pity at the millions of Bengalis who died because their crops were in the way of more profitable opium trade for the British. I also mourn many thousand Indians who became war fodder in Europe just because they were poor and were forced by your favorite scions to join the British India army.
I guess to honor that unity in 1947, the British left India in a state where partition was the most peaceful solution. Some unity they promoted.
More roads and infrastructure are developed in poor India and Pakistan in the last 50 years compared with the 200 years of British rule. The explosion of and a blooming middle class that you see in the subcontinent now, was a fraction of today’s numbers during the British rule in India. How ironic that the Opium trade ended in 1919 and within thirty years the criminal opium traders were ready to leave India. The minute India became a source of loss rather than of profit; the great benefactors left the country in the hands of their laypaalaks and went back in their cocoons. This is unbelievable that the laughing stock of today’s politics in Europe actually ruled a country as magnificent as India.
If your entire philosophy is based on assumptions that you laid out, then my friend, you will continue to read the history incorrectly.
Leaders like Gandhi, Jinnah and Nehru certainly were implanted by the British but Bacha Khan was one of the few standouts who managed to get to the top based on their own work and gift of leadership. Gandhi was unable to preach what he presumably believed to his own followers but Bacha Khan created his following against the grain in the most hostile section of India. He was a true leader. He never had British sponsors or the Lincoln inn education for the matriculates. My only gripe with him was that he decided not to challenge Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah more forcefully on national matters. I attribute that to not his style of leadership but his awareness that the British would turn him into a devil, if he did. Unfortunately, the Nawaiwaqt generation decided to do exactly that with him after the partition.
My reference to Chattan was to reinforce my point about the yellow journalism that was the hallmark of Nawaiwaqt. Personally, I never read Chattan in my whole life.
A Canada like dominion? You forget India opted for that option when it retained Mountbatten, what good that did to India?
@Hossp
I take pity at the millions of Bengalis who died because their crops were in the way of more profitable opium trade for the British.
That should have read indigo trade.
Merely an historical quibble, not affecting your main argument.
@Majumdar
Thanks to your constant relocation of my political standpoint, I am sadly forced to give up my nick. Any suggestions for a new one? Something that you can’t twist into sounding close to your friends? Not misleading either; please don’t come up with something like Iqbal Athar Ali.
Waiting hopefully…..
Uncleji,
Sadly the great HP is wrong on all counts.
. No naughtiness here.
Bhagat Singh was greatly moved by Jallianwala. The British alienated a lot of people with that one foul move.
My point is that British Raj was over all very good for everyone. You say we’ve made roads but that’s because our populations have increased multifold. The infrastructure that the British left was more than adequate and had these Ipi and Bacha Khan types given them a chance, they would have developed India much further.
Gandhi was probably planted but neither Jinnah nor Nehru were British plants. Jinnah was never a rebel, always a constitutional opponent of the treasury benches fighting for dominion status for India. For him to be planted, he would have to be in the center of the so called satyagraha.
Now you are just being silly by comparing such a small fish like Bacha Khan whose contribution to history is zilch. Incidentally, he was recommended to Irwin as a delegate to the Roundtable conference by Jinnah. So even if we accept your view… Ghaffar Khan was planted by Jinnah and Gandhi who you say were British plants.
And you’ve echoed chachaji the worst of the Mullahs when you criticized Lincoln’s Inn or a British education. I for one feel Macaulay’s minute on education was the best thing that happened to the subcontinent. Even Nehru said “I am the last Englishman to rule India”.
And your comment about Mountbatten is constitutionally untenable. India’s adoption of an Englishman as a first head of state is neither here nor there. Canada’s constitution and dominion status was very different. Had there been no dhong of independence movement, an Indian Dominion- with Quebec like status for Muslim sub-federation- would have come into being with an Indian governor general.
The Brits were in the balance very good. The so called “resistance” in the balance (with the exception of people like Bhagar Singh) was over all immoral.
Frankly, I echo Yasser Hamdani’s sentiment about Macaulayite education. Most of our problems in India – I cannot speak with authenticity and such assurance about Pakistan – is due to the fact that the Macaulayite system did not penetrate deep enough, soon enough. Our temper as a nation would have been far more democratic had that happened.
Instead, we got undersized steel plants, gigantic, ineffective dams, public sector undertakings that never made money, and their equivalent in education – scaled up polytechniques which deviated completely from the humanitarian concept of a ‘university’ and created high-earning technicians with no exposure to the humanities. The middle classes that have been created with the huge monies that these technicians have earned are middle classes with ethical and moral vacuums. The future is not promising.
hossp: perhaps you are confusing Haji of Turangzai and the Faqir amidst YLH’s polemics?
Humayun Mirza’s book on his father Iskander Mirza cites an interesting meeting between Mirza and Jinnah in which in feb 1947 he was asked by Jinnah to prepare for a violent jihad if Pakistan was not agreed too. Mirza was paid a large sum of money and started planning appropriately however in may he was told to halt any further moves because of sucess in negotiations. It is reasonable to assume similar tactics were used in 1947 to invade kashmir under the guise of jihad. Using the YLH theory of extrapolation are we to assume that is probably the beginning of the use of FATA as a sanctuary ..the consequences of which we are facing now? and to add to that example constituitonally with the objectives resolution Liaqat Ali Khan created the modern Islamist ideology to which Zia was merely an add on?
vajra
“That should have read indigo trade.”
No! Obviously you have not read about the Opium wars that British fought with the Chinese also known as Anglo-Chinese wars. The opium was forcibly cultivated in Bengal by the British.
“The backdrop to Amitav Ghosh’s fine, spacious novel is the Opium Wars of the 19th century, one of those inglorious chapters in the history of the British Empire that tend to get omitted from school history books.”
“In a nutshell, the British East India Company took umbrage because the Chinese were losing their appetite for opium imported from India; it had to act swiftly to protect a lucrative, if pernicious, trade. Hence the voyage of the Ibis, an old slaving ship, from Calcutta to China, laden to the gunwales with opium.”
You should study that; the whole thing is an opener.
Btw, India still has the world’s largest legal opium factory. Somewhere in Bihar near Patna I believe.
Bhitajay,
You have actually not answered any thing. When the Turks and Persians came to India they taught Persian and Turkish and used them as official language for their convenience. British were merely following in their footsteps.
Canadian progress is not because of its dominion status. Though I do agree that Congress’s rejection of the dominion status and the subsequent India act resulted in dismemberment of India.
Any education system is good or bad depends on who is taking advantage of it.
takhalus,
No, I am not. Faqir Ipi and Bacha Khan’s relationship though not publicized was real and he encouraged Bacha Khan to take part in Politics. I think Khan Abdul Qayoom Khan’s book sheds some light on it too. Though it has been such a long time that I cannot be sure of exactly what Qayoom Khan wrote in his book.
Here is the thing Takhalus mian… you are jumping from argument to argument because you and HP can’t answer the main point here.
I have read that book and let us for argument sake assume that Jinnah tasked Iskandar Mirza, a Shia Muslim of Iranian Origin and a known descendant of the great Patriot of Bengal Mir Jaffar, to start Jehad in the sunni pathan tribal areas. It makes me question Jinnah’s knowledge of Islamic sectarian division more than anything else (which we know was nothing to write home about- besides the little Islam he knew was of Khoja Shia variety)… if at all its true.
The extrapolation doesn’t work my friend. The ethnic, religious, social and political makeup of Fakir of Ipi and Behtullah are the same. They were both Islamist insurgents fighting the state. Thanks to Cunningham’s policy outlined in response to Ipi’s Islamist insurgency, the Pakistani establishment managed to wean the tribes away from this rebellion. However… now that marriage is over… and things have returned to their logical pre-Cold War calculations… vis a vis tribal politics and central authority. No wonder the Army chief is now making appeals to Islam again. The solution however lies in integrating them into mainstream.
As for Liaqat Ali Khan and objectives resolution… ofcourse General Zia used the objectives resolution. Objectives’ Resolution was a ridiculous piece of document and General Zia gave it teeth. What is your point exactly… that Behtullah was not the continuation of Faqir of Ipi who was aided and abetted by Bacha Khan and his family?
1. I know even less than Vajra about Baluchistan thus can’t comment on it but YLH is right; not all Independence struggles are progressive and not all revolutions revolutionary.
2. Thus the Indian war of Independence in 1857 was a not as much a war of liberation as it was the last gasp of medievalism threatened by a more modern and superior social and political system. The American Revolution OTOH was truly revolutionary; it represented progress because it sought to implant a republic in place of Imperial rule. Slavery was a neutral issue; it was legal in all the British colonies in 1776.
3. The British Imperial rule in India in1858, was without any exceptions, the most enlightened and benign rule till date.
4. The Jallianwalla Bagh (admittedly a very grotesque event) was an exception, not a rule. Even Churchill condemned it.
5. The complete and final victory of only one major European power in India turned out to be a major blessing because it combined India politically, linguistically and economically like never before. Consider the alternatives; an Africa like hodge podge of states under the British, French, and Portuguese rule with no regard to social, ethnic and historical continuity (Afghan Pakistan border many times over)
6. The British, by first almost absentmindedly introducing the ideas of enlightenment to a generation of Indians and then by forcing them to resist the inequalities of a foreign rule provided them with a perfect tool to forge a nation where there was none before. (Just like the American Revolution before)
7. Without the narrative of a freedom struggle (and the subsequent Constitution) there is nothing of consequence that is common to all the Indians even today.
8. The Indian freedom struggle (or various sub-struggles) in the 20th century was a progressive step since it was inspired by the (by then) universal ideas of liberty and equality; the 19th century European ideas of enlightenment.
In the local context it was first and foremost a struggle against White racism and secondly against economic exploitation.
9. Out of all the colonial powers) the British were the most graceful rulers when it came the time to quit. (Compare with the Dutch in Indonesia, the French in Indo-Chine and Algeria, the Russians everywhere or even the Americans in the Philippines)
10. The Afghans, to their great misfortune never became a part of the British Empire having beaten back the British again and again; the results are there for all to see.
11. With apologies to PMA Sahib in advance, the biggest harm the British did to our subcontinent was not economic though; it was ideological.
They planted a previously unknown and a very European (and unnatural in the local context) idea of Nationalism in the local soil. Our two countries are a living proof of it.
Regards.
Gorki
“10. The Afghans, to their great misfortune never became a part of the British Empire having beaten back the British again and again; the results are there for all to see.”
I can go over all of the points in your post because they represent a shallow knowledge of history. I just don’t have time for that and I hope you will study history to find how shallow your thought process is.
Afghans were defeated in the first war and the British controlled Kabul and installed a person of their liking as King. The Brits did not leave because they were defeated, they left because the East India company realized that unlike India, Afghanistan was no cash cow. It was a bad bargain and for their mistake of defeating the afghans, they ended up paying the Afghanistan instead of making money of it.
The British paid to the afghans for years and until 1947. British were paying for their error of defeating the Afghans. I think you can search for an article on Afghanistan that I wrote for PTH in October or November last year for more info.
Hossp uncle,
I did answer your points in my view but it is upto you to hold a contrary opinion.
On British Rule, let me produce Left’s Alpha and Omega Karl Marx’s words on British rule:
http://kosal.us/Marx1.html
How came it that English supremacy was established in India? The paramount power of the Great Mogul was broken by the Mogul Viceroys. The power of the Viceroys was broken by the Mahrattas. The power of the Mahrattas was broken by the Afghans, and while all were struggling against all, the Briton rushed in and was enabled to subdue them all. A country not only divided between Mahommedan and Hindoo, but between tribe and tribe, between caste and caste; a society whose framework was based on a sort of equilibrium, resulting from a. general repulsion and constitutional exclusiveness between all its members. Such a country and such a society, were they not the predestined prey of conquest? If we knew nothing of the past history of Hindostan, would there not be the one great and incontestable fact, that even at this moment India is held in English thraldom by an Indian army maintained at the cost of India? India, then, could not escape the fate of being conquered, and the whole of her past history, if it be anything, is the history of the successive conquests she has undergone. Indian society has no history at all, at least no known history. What we call its history, is but the history of the successive intruders who founded their empires on the passive basis of that unresisting and unchanging society. The question, therefore, is not whether the English had a right to conquer India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the Turk, by the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the Briton.
England has to fulfill a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and the laying the material foundations of Western society in Asia.
Arabs, Turks, Tartars, Moguls, who had successively overrun India, soon became Hindooized, the barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal law of history, conquered themselves by the superior civilization of their subjects. The British were the first conquerors superior, and therefore, inaccessible to Hindoo civilization. They destroyed it by breaking up the native communities, by uprooting the native industry, and by levelling all that was great and elevated in the native society. The historic pages of their rule in India report hardly anything beyond that destruction. The work of regeneration hardly transpires through a heap of ruins. Nevertheless it has begun.
I know that the English millocracy intend to endow India with railways with the exclusive view of extracting at diminished expenses the cotton and other raw materials for their manufactures. But when you have once introduced machinery into the locomotion of a country, which possesses iron and coals, you are unable to withhold it from its fabrication. You cannot maintain a net of railways over an immense country without introducing all those industrial processes necessary to meet the immediate and current wants of railway locomotion, and out of which there must grow the application of machinery to those branches of industry not immediately connected with railways. The railway-system will therefore become, in India, truly the forerunner of modern industry. This is the more certain as the Hindoos are allowed by British authorities themselves to possess particular aptitude. for accommodating themselves to entirely new labor, and acquiring the requisite knowledge of machinery. Ample proof of this fact is afforded by the capacities and expertness of the native engineers in the Calcutta mint, where they have been for years employed in working the steam machinery, by the natives attached to the several steam engines in the Burdwan coal districts, and by other instances. Mr. Campbell himself, greatly influenced as he is by the prejudices of the East India Company, is obliged to avow
So you see… British Rule was a on a whole a positive for British India even if it was not intended so.
All the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the people, depending not only on the development of the productive powers, but on their appropriation by the people. But what they will not fail to do is to lay down the material premises for both. Has the bourgeoisie ever done more? Has it ever effected a progress without dragging individuals and people through blood and dirt, through misery and degradation?
The Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till in Great Britain itself the now ruling classes shall have been supplanted by the industrial proletariat, or till the Hindoos themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether. At all events, we may safely expect to see, at a more or less remote period, the regeneration of that great and interesting country, whose gentle natives are, to use the expression of Prince Soltykov, even in the most inferior classes, “plus fins et plus adroits que les Italiens” [more subtle and adroit than the Italians], a whose submission even is counterbalanced by a certain calm nobility, who, notwithstanding their natural langor, have astonished the British officers by their bravery, whose country has been the source of our languages, our religions, and who represent the type of the ancient German in the Jat, and the type of the ancient Greek in the Brahmin.
I think that had the British stayed on for 50 odd years, the process would also have taken root in areas such as NWFP… The best response to British rule could only have been through constitutional parliamentary process.
Such a British India would be fertile ground for a real Marxist revolution today… not that as part of the petit bourgeoisie, I favor such notions of revolution. But in terms of historical process it is quite clear.
Hossp Uncle,
On Gorki sb’s point 10… whether British were beaten back or whether the Brits came out voluntarily, the point is valid…
Interestingly… the division of the subcontinent into de-regulated and regulated provinces itself comes as a direct trajectory away from where British rule was established first.
So … a native bourgeoisie was strongest in Madras, Bengal, Bombay, … and so on and so forth to Punjab, Sindh and NWFP…. all late additions to British rule … where industry and economy was not set up to that extent by the British.
One can map British rule on a scale of democracy… that part of British India which was longest under British rule tends to be most democratic…. that which came later is less so… and Afghanistan- having missed British rule- is the worst case scenario. That the left is strongest in Bengal (to Majumdar’s chagrin) has to do with this historical process.
It has everything to do with what Karl Marx wrote in 1853… that is the introduction of news means of production and bourgeoisie capitalism through British rule.
If Afghanistan was not a democracy, it was not a dictatorship either. It was just anarchy.
Such a degree of independence is hardwired into the Afghan psyche, that leave aside anybody else ruling Afghanistan, they cannot rule themselves even.
@ylh:It’s interesting how evidence of Jinnahs use of Jihad pre partition and post partition is dismissed as NOT injecting Islamist ideology into the tribal areas.
@MK: That’s the old argument is slavery in heaven better than freedom in hell? Is being occupied and treated differently because of skin colour acceptable if you have better roads then those who don’t accept being occupied?
@Takhalus,
The guy who values his independence is always on the moral high road. However, he should understand the value of discipline too.
Bhatijay,
Your bringing out Karl Marx to support you just floored me. Had you read the article before quoting it, you would have realized that Marx was talking about the “unintended benefits” and he actually substantiated my points that whatever British brought to India was needed to complete their conquest and exploit the Indian resources. Marx talked about Millcracy and how once you start a process it would take its own course. It is true that the Nomads from the central Asia did not belong to a vastly superior culture but they centralized power in India for such a long period that the concept of united India began to take shape. That was another “unintended consequence” of the Central Asians power grab in India.
Marx was a great analyst but he mostly commented on the current issues with knowledge that he gained mostly from the British media. Being a newspaper columnist, he sometime appeared not well informed and in some instances, outright racist.
We live in a different era, we have more access to knowledge and we also have some independent sources that have analyzed these issues with more knowledge. Some of the Indian historians including Romila Thaper have done phenomenal work in this area and instead of presenting the “letters” from the ML henchmen in Sarhad as the historical facts; you need to also find out how much credibility you can ascribe to the low level minions, who might just be making up stuff to impress the leader. Based on the criteria you used in presenting the letters from some unknowns, Humayoon Mirza appears more credible. His forefathers and even his own father might be the biggest crooks but Humayoon had no known axe to grind. His only fault was flattering the American Ambassador’s daughter and marrying her.
If you think your quotes from the unknown are your ace in the hole, then you have actually lost the ball in high weeds.
Gorki (December 10, 2009 at 10:24 am):
Hossp (December 10, 2009 at 10:42 am) has already addressed some of your points. You, Vajra and a score of your Indian compatriots repeatedly here at PTH say that you know very little about Pakistan and its history but then you continue to comment about it anyway. Why?
True. The 1857 mutiny repackaged in India as “Indian war of Independence” was a not as much a war of liberation. But you surprise me when you say that: “the British Imperial rule in India in 1858, was without any exceptions, the most enlightened and benign rule till date.” If that is true then why the hell that ‘little half naked fakir’ was running around the countryside agitating against his ‘enlightened and benign’ masters. That makes me think may be Bhutto was right about his assessment of Indian mentality. On one hand you admire your old masters for creating an ‘Indian Nation’ but on the other hand you blame them for “planting an unnatural and previously unknown very European idea of Nationalism in the local soil.” Are you not conveniently being self serving here.
Talhalus mian,
Your “evidence”, flimsy as it is, was given due attention. For example there is not a single speech where Jinnah uses the word “jihad” on record. How strange for someone who was about to start a Jihad in Sunni tribal areas by using a known Shia Muslim of Iranian ancestry like Iskandar Mirza.
In other words you are telling me that Taliban and Mehsud are not Sunni Islamist fanatics like Fakir of Ipi but secretly Shia Muslims of Iranian ancestry. How crooked is that argument.
Dear HP,
Haven’t you had enough drubbing for a day. I have written a five part series in which I have quoted secret reports of both Howard Donovan to George Marshall on the activities of the Afghan government, Bacha Khan and Faqir of Ipi…as well as the British India office.
You say that humayun’s father had an axe to grind. Well you are in luck because the book is quoting Iskandar Mirza not Humayun Mirza.
But still we may accept your little friend’s spurious argument, if you can prove that all Taliban are Shia Muslims of Iranian ancestry and not Sunni orthodox islamist insurgents of Pushtun ethnicity like Faqir of Ipi.
I see that Marx has really upset you. Now you are hiding behind “unintended” benefits. I didn’t know that the British were supposed to act out of the goodness of their heart instead of their self interest.
And it was not as unintended as you make it out to be. Surely it would not show up in Macaulay’s grand design so explicitly.
So you can repeat yourself again and again but it just proves that you don’t have a counter-argument that could hold up. After all Faqir of Ipi was an Islamist insurgent who used Islamist slogan and justification for his Islamist war against Pakistan and he was aided and abetted in his violence by Bacha Khan and his family.
Now don’t worry, for your benefit I will produce those US national archive documents tomorrow which show Bacha Khan hobnobbing with the Afghan govt.
PS: Please do quote what Romilla Thapar has to say about Fakir of Ipi’s revolt against the Pakistan govt.
“Afghans were defeated in the first war and the British controlled Kabul and installed a person of their liking as King. The Brits did not leave because they were defeated, they left because the East India company realized that unlike India, Afghanistan was no cash cow.”
Dear Hossp: I know for a fact that you are a scholar of history therefore I think that you know better than the above. Perhaps you were trying to make some point (of just proving me wrong?). Nevertheless just like YLH wrote; it is beside the point whether the British left on their own or they were kicked out, the point is that the fact that they did not rule Afghanistan then was unfortunate for the present day Afghans.
)
(A minor point; however how does one defines victory? If the first Anglo-Afghan war was a British victory because they temporarily installed a puppet on the throne before being ejected out and massacred then so was the Soviet Invasion since their puppet regime lasted longer
Dear PMA Sahib: Thank you for your post since it highlighted two points.
The first is a crucial error that I overlooked (I will never make a proofreader
) before posting which is:
British Imperial rule in India in 1858, was without any exceptions, the most enlightened and benign rule till date = ….was without any exceptions, the most enlightened and benign rule till THAT date.
That should clear the air.
I admit the entire meaning is changed by one error although by reading my entire post it is clear what I was trying to say.
The second point was that that by writing:
“That makes me think may be Bhutto was right about his assessment of Indian mentality…”
you nicely make my case that nationalism (and national mentality) is an outdated concept.
Old timers the world over (including in India and the United States) don’t like change and want to cling to old concepts such nationalism as if it is an immutable law of physics.
The fact is that in the modern World there is no ‘us Indians’ as there is no ‘you Pakistanis’. First take a look at us two for example; we both live in (and I presume hold the national passport) of the nation that we love (and the founding principles of which are dearer to me than any religion) yet we were not born in it. You yourself have mentioned earlier that you don’t like to converse with fellow Americans who seem to be Indian the moment they mention the fatal words “you and I are the same people…”. Now these are your ‘countrymen’.
On the other hand there are Pakistanis who come to PTH from time to time to taunt YLH about MAJ being a votary of Islamism. I believe you and they have less in common.
Similarly poor YLH has to defend himself from such morons when they attack him of preferring to befriend “us Indians”. He is light years away from their ideology.
I for one have no hesitation in saying that I proudly consider men like YLH, BC, DAN, Adnann, and so many others closer to me intellectually and politically than say TM or Sudarshan. In effec they are my virtual countrymen.
I believe once enough citizens receive a certain level of liberal education and develop free thought, 19-20th century nationalism becomes obsolete fot them.
Last point; the half naked fakir was running around in India and the countryside listened to him was due to the fact that your any my ancestors lived in a land where there were signs displayed outside certain establishments saying “Indians and dogs not allowed”.
Regards.
Bhatijay,
I am afraid you are not reading my posts with glasses on. Or perhaps, I am just too brief for you as I believe in your astuteness to pick up the hints.
My point that did not come across to you was that Humayoon Mirza was more or less as credible as the few “letter” writers on which your claims are based. The reference to Romila Thaper was basically an advice to you to read history written by some qualified people instead of the letter writers and secret police.
Now something on secret police, I just remembered a story. A long time ago some secret writers presented their charges against me in a military court. They charged that I was a member of a major gang of dacoits. It so happened that the Major, presiding the military court used to play squash with me at Hyderabad Gymkhana. We were not friends but he knew enough about me to laugh with me over those charges.
Since you place a high level of confidence in the British gifts to the poor Indians, it may surprise you that lying was one major skill they assiduously taught to our law enforcement officers. In fact the British bureaucrats practiced it so much that the brown folks under them were immensely impressed and turned lying in to an art form.
I hope you have been following the proceedings on the reasons for the Iraq war in the British parliament. It just came out that the British government wanted to go to war with Iraq because a Taxi driver overheard some Iraqis claiming that the Iraqi army could launch WMDs within 45 minutes, if hostilities were to breakout. I am sure most of the reports you sight as authentic were based on claims by some Tanga wala who knew exactly what Bacha Khan and Faqir of Ipi stood for.
I am not going to post anymore on this subject because the history you quote is absolutely rubbish and is based on some hearsay accounts and by known partisans.
“Tony Blair’s taxi-derived “45-minute” WMD claim”
guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/08/45-minutes-wmd-taxi-driver
“An Iraqi taxi driver may have been the source of the discredited claim that Saddam Hussein could unleash weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, a Tory MP claimed today. Adam Holloway, a defence specialist, said MI6 obtained information indirectly from a taxi driver who had overheard two Iraqi military commanders talking about Saddam’s weapons.
The 45-minute claim was a key feature of the dossier about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that was released by Tony Blair in September 2002. Blair published the information to bolster public support for war.”
yasserlatifhamdani (December 10, 2009 at 10:17 am):
“I have read that book [From Plassey To Pakistan--The Family History of Iskander Mirza, The First President of Pakistan, by Humayun Mirza] and let us for argument sake assume that Jinnah tasked Iskandar Mirza, a Shia Muslim of Iranian Origin and a known descendant of the great Patriot of Bengal Mir Jaffar”
Two things here. First the family was of Iraqi and not of Iranian origin. Second, Mir Jaffar is not considered a ‘patriot’, certainly not by Bengali Muslims. Let me share a page of history with you:
During the time of Emperor Alamgir, a man named Syed Hussain Najafi came to the Mughal Court from the area of Najaf in Iraq. He was said to be the Governor of Najaf in the Ottoman Arabia and also a key holder of the Mausoleums of Khalifa Ali and his descendants. He took up employment in the Mughal Court as Naib Darogha Baytal (Assistant Court Chamberlain). His son Syed Ahmad Najafi took the same job after him. Later on Syed Ahmad Najafi became Governor of Govaliar state and then Governor of Orissa, a state west of Bengal. His son was Syed Mohammad Najafi (1691-1765) commonly known by his official tittle as Mir Jaffar Ali Khan or simply ‘Mir Jaffar’. He was married to a sister of Ali Wardi Khan and was named Commander-in-Chief of the forces of Ali Wardi Khan. In the battle of Plassey he betrayed Nawab Siraj-ud-Doula and sided with the English. As a reward for his services the English installed him as Nawab of the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The first president of Pakistan, General Iskander Mirza was an eighth generation descendant of Mir Jaffar.
@PMA
Which parts of my comments on Pakistani history, if any, have you found objectionable?
@PMA
Which parts of my comments on Pakistani history, if any, have you found objectionable? Would it be too much of an effort to refer you to the specific context, that the reference is to current affairs in Pakistan, in that case, to Balochistan, not to history as such?
Gorki (December 11, 2009 at 2:06 am):
I admire your profoundness and sentiments. But the reality is that the world is organized into nations and countries and that is how all of us identify ourselves. The day all the countries of the world will open their borders to all the citizens of the world perhaps we will stop identifying ourselves with the countries of our birth. In the meantime you will continue to identify yourself with your country of birth India and I will do the same with my country of birth Pakistan. That is how it is. But our love for our country of birth should not translate into hatred for others. In my own case my doctor is an Indian and so is my grocer. They both are very fine gentlemen. They respect me for who I am and I return their sentiments. But I also read and observe. So let’s just leave it there and enjoy each cup of tea our host Raza Rumi has to offer us.
@MK. agreed..
@PMA : i think you misunderstand YLH..he believes colloboration with the East India Company was and is acceptable. As such Mir Jaffar in his eyes is a good man as the EIC united India and developed it on modern lines (the white mans burden argument)
@Hossp: I forgot to mention one element of what Mirza (a former political agent with extensive links in the tribal belt) wrote, he was paid Rs.20,000/- with a promise of Rs 10 million ( an enormous sum of money in those days) to follow. (From Plassey to Pakistan p 151)
What happened to the first bit is not mentioned nor what activities he may have done in that initial period..but it does co-incide with increasing attacks from the tribal areas on Hindus and sikhs living in the settled districts.
Dear Hossp,
So in other words there is nothing in Romilla Thapar about this ..you threw the name for Roab Daab programme. Now tell me what it is about Faqir of Ipi that I have alleged which you consider nonsense. Was he not an Islamist insurgent fighting the state and is Behtullah Mehsud not the continuation of him.
You are not going to comment because you don’t have a point uncleji. If you do pleas answer the question because frankly I am losing my faith in your astuteness.
Takhalus mian,
Let me put it to you again. Let us accept that Jinnah did task Iskandar Mirza the Shia Muslim with this. Could you point out what it was that Iskandar Mirza achieved as a result?
The point is – which you keep ignoring- is that Behtullah Mehsud was the continuation of the work of Faqir of Ipi, Mullah Pawindah and Syed Ahmed Shaheed …and not of Iskandar Mirza the Shia Muslim…who to my knowledge did not contribute in any major way to NWFP’s great tribal revolt. Maybe you can tell us.
Iskandar Mirza needed to prove his credentials in the Pakistan movement when countering Muslim League’s opposition in 1957.
Otherwise the people Iskandar Mirza was very close to in the Frontier was Dr. Khan Sb and Bacha Khan. Infact they were so close that you might now adopt Mir Jaffar as a great patriot too in all sincerity (as opposed my sarcastic remark about the man that you didn’t get. Iskandar Mirza – the great would be Jehadi- made a party with Bacha Khan’s brother that was in a ministry together. Oh yes…you know which Party I am referring to … The Republican Party… Pakistan’s first King’s Party. And guess what Dr. Khan Sahib was its first Chief Minister of the One Unit West Pakistan (the hypocrisy of ANP and KK knows no bounds).
As for your comment to PMA… It shows desperation of a person who can’t argue on the facts. I am not sure how you came to that conclusion …I tend to see things in term of a historical process not in “patriots” and “traitors” as you seem to do. Lord Clive’s “loot khasoot” was sadly the birth pangs of a fresh era that created a new world. Similarly Mir Jaffar – who was a weak ruler by all accounts- may yet be considered a necessary evil in getting rid of that tyrannical feudal grandson of Ali Wardi Khan of Murshidabad. For Bengal it laid the foundation for destruction and regeneration Marx talks about.
PMA,
The use of patriot was at best sarcastic.
You are backing the wrong horse as usual but that is not surprising.
May I suggest you stop attacking Vajra and Gorki who mean Pakistan no harm.
Vajra sb,
No need to get agitated. Pakistani uncles love to float “nonsense history” when they can’t come up with arguments.
Dear Bahtijay,
Don’t get flustered. The facts are not on your side in this case. When you first posted your article above I cautioned you on your same same about JI and ANP. There are tons of differences between the Fakir and Baitullah. There is no same same here either. There is plenty of material available on Faqir on the net, study it to enlighten yourself.
I end this conversation with a quote from my post on this subject from 2008.
Hossp
July 28, 2008 at 1:53 am
I really don’t want to debate this issue with you. I think you make honest efforts to learn the history and draw some conclusions that may not be accurate now but you will get the truth in your own time.
Dear Yasser:
Thanks for your kind comments and your confidence in me although I can stand up for myself in any civilized academic discussion with my fellow citizen from Illinois.
You are right; for a man who still owns a small farm about 60 miles on the Indian side of the Pakistani border; I can never mean my neighbor, Pakistan any harm, for in doing so it would mean putting a question mark on my own future and on the future of my loved ones.
I agree with PMA Sahib that ones love for their own country of birth should not mean a hatred of others. Yet nationalism and patriotism is an interesting emotion; it makes even decent people reflexively shrink back from seemingly harmless and friendly gestures if it is felt that the person making the gesture belongs to the ‘other’ side.
Consider for example, PMA Sahib; otherwise an intellectual, a poet, a historian who was educated at a well known US University but who claims that he walks away from any Indian who claims kinship with him.
He claims that the people who live in today’s Pakistan are his countrymen and were always different from us Indians. Perhaps this difference (and the unfortunate history of the past 60 years) makes him very suspicious of us ‘Indians’ and he always doubts our sincerity.
Yet it is interesting to consider that had MAJ won his argument in 1947 that a Punjabi is first a Punjabi and a Bengali is first a Bengali, (and thus avoiding the partition of Punjab and Bengal) PMA Sahib may very well have found us ‘Indians’ (Vajra and myself) his countrymen. Similarly had Radcliff felt a little distracted on that fateful day and drawn a certain line on a piece of a certain paper a little carelessly; he would have then felt OK listening to me saying ‘we are the same people’ but would have walked away from Vajra!!
The point I am making is not that we should forget the partition and all should suddenly start holding hands and start singing ‘It’s a small world after all’ but that nations and nationalities are often accidents of history beyond the control of ordinary folks and our two nations were all the more so.
It is true that we have had a bad history on a national level but does that mean that even as people to people we can not appreciate or even admire qualities in each other?
And if we have to make a start who better than the poets and intellectuals of this world who well understand how absurd this ingrained suspicion of the ‘other’ is?
After all peace can’t be made if we don’t risk lowering our guard a little.
Peace is not made between friends but between peoples who were former enemies.
PMA can ridicule my own ‘shallow knowledge’ but he knows fully well that Vajra is a great guy; a rare scholar, a writer and an amateur historian like no other, a true polymath.
In an unguarded moment or two I swear I could even sense a hesitating hint of admiration in PMA Sahib’s words to both Vajra and Hayyer. Yet so far he has always quickly managed to shake himself free of those seemingly weak moments and reverted back into a stoic but familiar aloofness.
I am not a poet like PMA Sahib is but I certainly can used borrowed words of another loved poet who belongs to us ‘Indians’ culturally as much to PMA Sahib’s country :
Hum ke Thehre Ajanabi itni mulakaton ke baad;
Hum baanege aashana aur kitni mulakatoon ke baad?
Regards.
Dear Hossp Uncleji,
I think the facts are very much on my side… which is why you don’t want to debate this.
Anyway…
Sir Olaf Caroe, the governor and also the famous author of the book “Pathans”, sent an urgent telegram to the Viceroy on the evening of 25th June, 1947 in which he said: “I am unaware of reactions of Foreign Office or of Government of India to this Afghan incursion into Frontier Affairs. But Your Excellency should know that there is reason to conclude that this move was to some extent inspired by Frontier Congress leaders with certain Afghan elements and considered when Abdul Ghaffar Khan visited Kabul for Qashan last summer. Moreover [the] fact that Gandhi is wedded to Pathanistan idea will make it difficult for E.A. Dept at present juncture to approach this issue objectively”. (No. 342, Transfer of Power Papers, Volume XI, Page 633).
On 11th June, 1947, a few days after the approval of the June 3rd plan Giles Squire in his letter addressed to the Earl of Listowel once again mentioned Afghan Government’s dissatisfaction on the question of “independence” for “Afghans living between the Durand Line and River Indus”. He went onto say that “I endeavoured to explain that the Pathanistan kite had recently flown in Peshawar but had fallen badly… I explained that tribes in independent territory had already been assured that they were entirely free to negotiate a new agreement with India and that presumably this freedom included freedom repeat not to negotiate… as regards settled districts I said that proposed referendum would only decide which Constituent Assembly Province wished to join. I did not think that Province could be prevented from demanding complete independence in Constituent Assembly if they wished to do so”(Giles Squire to the Earl of Listowel- Telegram, L/P&S/12/1811, No. 140, Transfer of Power Papers, XI, 262-263).
“the view taken by the Afghan Government is that the tribesmen in tribal territory are more closely connected with the Afghan Government than with the Interim Government of India and the Afghans have, as you know, already asked that the tribes should be given the option of securing their complete independence or joining themselves to Afghanistan if they wish to do so rather than continue as part of India” (Giles Squire to Hugh Weightman- L/P&S/12/1811, NO.82, Transfer of Power Papers, Volume X, 135-136).
Here is Rob Lockhart- the Governor of NWFP appointed in Olaf Caroe’s place on Congress’ agitation and request:
“There is no doubt that most improper things have been happening. Certain people have been issuing instructions for licenses to be issued on a party basis. Even Dr. Khan Sahib himself is said to be guilty on these scores. A prime offender in arms trade is Abdul Ghani, the son of Abdul Ghaffar Khan. I have given orders that if proof can be produced he is to be proceeded against… there are reports that the Nawab of Tank, MLA, Muslim League is guilty of similar practices. If he too could be proceeded against, it would be good”. (Rob Lockhart to Mountbatten, 6 July, 1947, IOR, L/P&J/S/224 from India Office)
The police intelligence report of 5th August, 1947 reads as under : “MILITANT CONGRESS PREPARATIONS AGAINST THE MUSLIM LEAGUE: It is rumored in some circles that Congress and Red Shirt supporters might start civil disobedience after the 15th of August if the Congress Ministry is made to vacate the office. It is reported that the Faqir of Ipi will declare Jehad against the British and the Hindus after the Id and that the Zalmai Pakhtoon Party would fight the Muslim League for the attainment of Pathanistan. Two Muslim League supporters of Prang were shot dead by certain Red Shirts on 20 July.” (No. 220, National Documentation center, Islamabad, 1996, 263-264 “The Referendum in NWFP”)
“Abdul Ghani son of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan , the Frontier Gandhi, who came to see Faqir of Ipi in connection with the resolution passed by the Congress in support of Pathanistan. Government authorities supported this move” (Jinnah Papers, Volume III, No. 68).
I want you to underscore the part about your hero Fakir of Ipi announcing a Jehad against British and Hindus as part of the grand separate NWFP from Pakistan push … which he was doing at the behest of Congress. How ironic. By the way… Sir Olaf Caroe’s book “Pathans” is a rather interesting read. Caroe actually did claim once that it was he who suggested Pathanistan to Frontier Congress.
Howard Donovan, the Counselor for US Embassy in Delhi, in his periodic report of 26th June, 1948 addressed to US Secretary of State George Marshall, points out that “observers in New Delhi believe that the Muslim League will win the forthcoming referendum and that it is a foregone conclusion that the NWFP will join Pakistan. This is unpalatable to Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his recent talks with Jinnah and Gandhi in Delhi were an effort to forestall… Gandhi has supported Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan… Nehru, Patel, and other Congress members of the Government are understood to be opposed to the idea of Pathanistan. It is of course ridiculous for the Congress to oppose independence of Travancore and at the same time espouse the cause of independence for the North West Frontier Province… Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s action will further complicate the situation in the North West Frontier Province and it will in all probability lead to further strife and bloodshed”
The editorial of the decidedly Indian nationalist newspaper “Statesman” for 28th June, 1947 stated that this amounted to an admission that the Frontier Congressmen who had been claiming that they had killed the Pakistan idea in the elections were now “afraid to meet its ghost”. It went on to say “Nor can it be regarded simply as a provincial affair; it carries grave all India implications. It is the first breach in the Mountbatten plan… To that plan the Congress was pledged by Pandit Nehru and AICC. Frontier Gandhi’s boycott then suggests one of the two unpleasant things; either the Congress High Command during the recent New Delhi confabulations possessed insufficient authority to get its decision accepted by its Pathan followers or else it abstained from exercising that authority to the extent which its June 3rd commitments morally required. Perhaps, however, Mahatma Gandhi operating to some extent independently has been a complicating factor. This seems a reasonable deduction from recent comings and goings in the capital… his advocacy of Pathanistan with its Balkanizing implications has involved him in some logical difficulty because of his simultaneous strong denunciation of independence for the state of Travoncore. Of the possible consequences of boycotting the referendum, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his colleagues cannot be unaware. Under June 3 plan it was to be the lynchpin of all future constitutional change in the province. Refusal to participate thus looks like an attempt to disintegrate the procedure before it has begun… That the difficult process of the referendum should be followed not long after by general election might cause grave disorder even chaos. Yet if the votes recorded next month result in the province joining Pakistan – as now seems inevitable- it is not easy to see how a ministry which has always opposed and derided Pakistan should remain in office.”
Henry Grady of the US Embassy in Delhi in his report of 1st July to the Secretary of State wrote: “Jinnah’s charge in June 28 statement that Frontier Congress’ resolution demanding free Pathan state is ‘direct breach’ of Congress acceptance [of] His Majesty’s Government’s June 3rd Plan seems fully justified. Frontier Congress Resolution favored establishment of a ‘Free Pathan State of all Pakhtoons; constitution based on Islamic conceptions of democracy; and refusal by all Pathans to submit to any non Pakhtoon authority’. Jinnah pointed out Gandhi speaking at AICC meeting urged acceptance June 3rd Plan which provided for referendum to decide whether Frontier should join Hindustan or Pakistan; Frontier Congress was bound to honor agreement. Gandhi, however, has encouraged Khan Brothers ‘to sabotage’ plan and sudden volte-face is ‘pure political chicanery’, Jinnah said only constitution which Pakistan CA could frame would provide for ‘autonomous unit’ but Khan brothers have made false charge that Pakistan CA would ‘disregard fundamental principles of Shariat and Quranic laws’… Gandhi’s decision to effect boycott of NWFP referendum appears to be deliberate effort to embarrass League… While the Afghan Government must realize it is not in a position to control the tribes, it might be tempted to annex the tribal territories and NWFP… Therefore while League will obviously win referendum current Congress campaign, based on wholly on party considerations with no regard for international angle, could produce conditions in NWFP more precarious than at present.” Prophetic words for what we have been witnessing till today.
Let us reproduce the letter from George Cunningham to Liaqat Ali Khan courtesy Salman Latif which would help shed some light on Faqir of Ipi’s role.
http://www.grandtrunkroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Cunningham-to-Liaquat-Ali-Khan.pdf
Read especially 5(A) which says: ”
“I think it quite possible that when our troops are in the final act of evacuation, Waziristan Gangsters (mostly followers of Ipi) shall make a parting attack on them”
Then read 9… ” A question that would undoubtedly be raised by the tribes at the outset of discussions is the position of Fakir of Ipi. The matter is at present complicated by his championship of Pathanistan and his attempt to lead the tribes in opposition of Pakistan. I am doubtful , when the troops are withdrawn from Waziristan, that he will be able to find himself able to maintain this attitude with any great force, but untill he is ready to renouce his opposition to Pakistan, it is very difficult for the Government to come to terms with him…”
I think the picture and the chronological order becomes quite clear… now Takhalus mian may go hide behind Iskandar Mirza. Bacha Khan and his Uruk Hai must shoulder some of the blame along side ISI, Pak Army, US, CIA, Zahir Shah and what not for the the damage done to NWFP which is now holding us back.
Gorki sb,
Similarly had Radcliff felt a little distracted on that fateful day and drawn a certain line on a piece of a certain paper a little carelessly; he would have then felt OK listening to me saying ‘we are the same people’ but would have walked away from Vajra!!
No, sir, it wudnt have mattered where Sir Cyril had drawn the line- you wud have ended up on the opposite side of PMA’s- unless of course your people wud have reverted.
Regards
Yasser Pai,
There are two distinct regions (I am excl Kashmir) in the subcontinent which didnt go according to script.
North East (or perhaps more specifically Nagaland) and NWFP. The former was none too thrilled of having to accede to India the latter had mixed feelings about acceding to Pakistan inspite of being Muslim.
Perhaps we need to be think differently about Pushtun and Naga leaders who were bitter about their fate rather than dub them as “traitors”
Regards
Dear Majumdar:
Sigh!
Perhaps you are right.
Ethnic cleansing was an equal opportunity tool, practiced freely by both sides in 1947.
Thanks.
Gorki sb,
You are right that ethnic cleansing was practised freely on both sides of Punjab. I am not sure that it is worth sighing about. Perhaps it was in the best interest of Punjabis- long-term.
Regards
@Majumdar
Dada, I can’t believe you meant that the way it came out!
Vajra,
The loss of life was appalling but I think Punjabis on both sides are better off the way it is.
Regards
Dear Majumdar,
I don’t think NWFP was as such double-minded. It is just that Khan brothers did not really trust the electorate that they used to parade as proof of their hold over NWFP….
But you have a point about North West and North East Pulls…. after all even Pakistan idea followed the same script.
Perhaps we need to be think differently about Pushtun and Naga leaders who were bitter about their fate rather than dub them as “traitors”
I am not dubbing them traitors. I brought up Non-violent Bacha Khan’s chequered past only in response to Mr. Asmat… Bacha Khan was much a patriot or a traitor for Pakistan as Mr. Jinnah was for India.
However… my point about Faqir of Ipi’s insurgency and this being continuation is the one that has upset some Bacha Khan apologists.
But you have a point about North West and North East Pulls…. after all even Pakistan idea followed the same script.
Bhaijan, I am not sure that the Nagas or the Manipuris wud have been thrilled to be a part of Bangistan, prolly even less thrilled than at being Indians.
Regards
The ethnic cleansing that happened on either side was the tragic part of partition.
Had there been a smooth and peaceful transition, a lot of the bitterness would not have been there. Of course, now that is 62 years back which is an extremely long time, many of us are not even close to that.
So, we need to be able to put that behind us and look forward to a pleasant and fruitful future.