Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » Faiz Ahmed Faiz on Jinnah’s Birthday – Editorial 27.12.47
Faiz Ahmed Faiz on Jinnah’s Birthday – Editorial 27.12.47
As we write the Muslims of India and Pakistan are celebrating the birthday of the Quaid-i-Azam. As the man who has propelled, guided and controlled the national policies of nearly hundred million human souls, the man who has been responsible for the birth of a major State and the liberation of a major nation from economic and political bondage, the Quaid-i-Azam has already passed into history.
With the establishment of Pakistan the mandate entrusted to him by his people may be considered to have been fulfilled and his historical role as the architect of our national State may be said to have reached its glorious consummation. The attainment of this objective demanded a steadiness of vision, fixity of purpose, an amount of unflagging devotion and courage that are rarely found among a people, broken and debased by enslavement and exploitation. The history of nations however is continuum like time, and the culmination of one struggle merely means the commencement of another. The mission of our national leaders, therefore, is far from complete and the national objective we have formally attained still awaits its material content. The future of Indian Muslims who have done as much and suffered far more for Pakistan than we the Muslims of Pakistan have, is still uncertain, and the State of Pakistan has still to require the constitutional flesh and bone. Both these problems are of as great an importance to us as the achievement of Pakistan itself and their satisfactory solution will require an equal amount of vision, determination and courage.
There are already many among us, men of small minds and smaller vision, who think that the future of our brothers beyond the border need not enter our national calculations and now that we have got Pakistan, the future of non-Pakistanis is none of our business. The happenings in East Pakistan have utterly negated our thesis and proved that our kinsmen in the neighboring Dominion are very much our business that we have got to take them into calculation while formulating our national policies. We have got to ensure that these policies do not in any way adversely affect the national existence of our co-religionists in the other land, through injudiciousness or lack of imagination. Similarly we have to ensure that both the constitutional structure and the governmental practice of the Pakistani State conform to the ideals that we put before ourselves when we embarked on our national struggle. We have not yet had a glimpse of the Pakistan of our dreams, for we are still besieged by all the ills that have plagued us in the past and the common man has yet to taste the contentment, physical and spiritual, of a free and prosperous existence.
The helmsmen of the nation, therefore, of whom the Quaid-i-Azam is the greatest and the most indefatigable, have far from reached the end of their labours and the future of the nation depends as much on their sagacity today as it has dependent on their industry and devotion in the past.
More From PakTeaHouse
- Reclaiming Jinnah’s Pakistan
- Partition of Sudan: Learning from India and Pakistan
- CM Naim on Iqbal and Jinnah
PakTeaHouse Recommends
- The Collapse of Complex Economic Life Support Systems (LongCrisis)
- US Paying Afghan Taliban Millions for Protection (LongCrisis)
Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: Faiz Ahmed Faiz, future, Pakistan, policies
45 Responses to "Faiz Ahmed Faiz on Jinnah’s Birthday – Editorial 27.12.47"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- roamin
said Hi MA,
loved your retort!!!! But Ahem did get u... - tajender
said evidence” that Rajiv Gandhi received a bribe, bu... - tajender said I have never seen a bigger idiot than you. You sta...
- tajender said ,BRHMN IN MAN KILLS THE GENIU IN HIM
,BRHMN IN...
- tajender said MR AKB AND REX,BRHMN IN MAN KILLS THE GENIU IN HIM...
- MA
said Once again I would say, that your obsession with P... - MA said Dear Ahem,
I feel sorry for you, as your variou...
- tajender said Ethnically speaking all Subcontinentals are Hindus...
- AKB
said How utterly amazing is someone who flees from some... - AKB said UGLY INDIA!!
.
India’s slide leads to an i...
Who writes such nonsense? Who gets carried away by it?
Jinnah was no saint and no saviour. He had his limited let-me-be-a-muslim-again ideology and plan. He had his megalomania. He had his islamic urge to rub down the non-muslims and thus re-establish his muslim-ness credentials among his quisling-brothers. This neurosis is to be found among ALL muslims. Even among the so-called liberals. May be even more so among them.
Anyway – no point debating all this. History has proved that he was a smug deceiver or self-deceiver. What can you expect of a lawyer in the service of a totalitarian and primitive god-concept? The showering of rose petals on killers is also a lawyerish activity in Pakistan now. A muslim killer of a hindu was defended by Jinnah too. Islamic heaven is the last place where a decent human being will want to be.
In 1947 Faiz was the Editor-in-Chief of the newly established The Pakistan Times. This December 27, 1947 newspaper editorial is reflective of the mood of the nation then and, also of the social philosophy of Faiz. He was a great humanitarian deeply concerned about the welfare of the masses.
.
However this editorial must be read in the context of the political developments immediately proceeding Independence. In 1947 the memories and the links with the Indian Muslims were still fresh. He states that, “The future of Indian Muslims who have done as much and suffered far more for Pakistan than we the Muslims of Pakistan have, is still uncertain.” Humanitarian Faiz thinks about the “future of our brothers beyond the border” and argues that “now that we have got Pakistan, the future of non-Pakistanis is [....] our business.”
.
He further argues that, “The happenings in East Pakistan have utterly negated our thesis and proved that our kinsmen in the neighboring Dominion are very much our business that we have got to take them into calculation while formulating our national policies. We have got to ensure that these policies do not in any way adversely affect the national existence of our co-religionists in the other land.”
.
Sixty-four years later we have to ask that what did Faiz mean by it when he said that “the future of Indian Muslims is our business.” Was he suggesting that the internal policies of Pakistan regarding its non-Muslim minorities should be such that India does not negatively reciprocate vis a vis Indian Muslims? Or was he suggesting that Pakistan in its foreign policy must include a policy of interjecting and interfering into the Muslim-minority affairs of the neighboring Dominion? Or was he suggesting both? What did Faiz mean by this editorial regarding Muslim Indians?
@observ
The same anti-intellectual supremicist rants as before.
to prithvi
The very ideology of Pakistan is an anti-intellectual and dishonest supremacist rant. Anti-intellectual supremacist rants come from muslims because of their religion and history-writing. If there had been a minimal intellectual streak in the pak ideology then they would have recognized that islam is no foundation for any modern free human-rights society. 64 years of proof are not enough? What can be more anti-intellectual than that?
PMA asks:
“What did Faiz mean by this editorial regarding Muslim Indians?”
You pakistanis can only live in the past. You never can come to live in the 21st century.
Faiz, qaid, zaid, saed .. what they thought .. what they wanted etc. etc.
What do YOU want TODAY? The old dead guys are gone and left a heap of confusions and bloodsheds behind.
[As we write the Muslims of India and Pakistan are celebrating the birthday of the Quaid-i-Azam."]. You got to be kidding!. Indian Muslims hate J Man from the core. Check it out before you write.
[...] Faiz Ahmed Faiz on Jinnah’s Birthday – Editorial 27.12.47 [...]
I don’t know who wrote this editorial which says,”…As we write the Muslims of India and Pakistan are celebrating the birthday of the Quaid-i-Azam….”
It is a juvenile understanding of present and past history of Indian Muslims. A profound ignorance.
Indian Muslims will do anything to keep away from the Islamic Paradise which M.A.Jinnah created in 1947.
Wa salaam
to kamath and ravi
In 1947 even muslims who remained in India wished that Pakistan can be a grand success so that they can later agitate and join them or work for yet another partition of India.
After pakistan’s utter failure and disgusting development (proving convincingly to all honest sincere human beings that a good human society cannot be founded or maintained on the basis of islam) the muslims in India are trying to create the impression that they remained back out of “love” for India or while they were ALWAYS against the partition or that the hindu right is to be really blamed for the partition tragedy of which muslims are sole victims etc.
The muslim always wants to be seen as the one on the divine-right winning side. And the muslims’ concern is only for the “welfare” of the muslim “brothers”. For them “welfare” means to bring all the muslims under the boot of islamic totalitarianism and imperialism. That it all then ends in bloodshed and unending conflicts and fascism rejoices them since it produces so many muslim martyrs”! A few non-muslims are allowed to survive so that they can be periodically blamed for all the failures in the “noble and divine” islamic society. What a calculation.
Faiz writing then is in error on all counts-On the need for intervention in the affairs of Indian Muslims(the Nehru Liaqat Pact notwithstanding),Pakistan’s ability to do so, or in establishing the pre-requisite moral authority.On the whole India has treated its minorities a great deal better than Pakistan.
I very much doubt anyone in India recalls it is Jinnah’s birthday. They remember Gandhi’s because it is a national holiday and Nehru’s sometimes because the ruling party sponsors media events on that day.
Hayyer (August 31, 2011 at 6:45 pm):
.
This December 1947 Ed-0p by Faiz is posted here by YLH. I am certain YLH has done so to provoke thoughts. In my comments (August 29, 2011 at 7:29 pm) I have posed a question to carry the provocation a bit further. But you (August 31, 2011 at 6:45 pm) have dismissed the issue as rubbish. Are you sure that India and Pakistan do not, and have not the ability to intervene into each other’s affairs? To support my point, I will present the first sixty-four years of our two countries as ‘Exhibit A’. In my opinion, the mutual disagreement that I have proposed here at PTH on many occasions, no doubt would be beneficial to both antagonistic parties. But it is not the editorial policy of PTH. Any further thoughts.
PMA.
The questions you raise;
“Sixty-four years later we have to ask that what did Faiz mean by it when he said that “the future of Indian Muslims is our business.” Was he suggesting that the internal policies of Pakistan regarding its non-Muslim minorities should be such that India does not negatively reciprocate vis a vis Indian Muslims? Or was he suggesting that Pakistan in its foreign policy must include a policy of interjecting and interfering into the Muslim-minority affairs of the neighboring Dominion? Or was he suggesting both? What did Faiz mean by this editorial regarding Muslim Indians?”
are already answered. Whatever were Pakistan’s internal policies India did not negatively reciprocate. And Pakistan has usually made a point of commenting adversely whenever Muslim affairs in India have gone awry, which they have sometimes.
To quote from the article;
“many….who think that the future of our brothers beyond the border need not enter our national calculations and now that we have got Pakistan, the future of non-Pakistanis is none of our business……our kinsmen in the neighboring Dominion are very much our business that we have got to take them into calculation while formulating our national policies. We have got to ensure that these policies do not in any way adversely affect the national existence of our co-religionists in the other land, through injudiciousness or lack of imagination. Similarly we have to ensure that both the constitutional structure and the governmental practice of the Pakistani State conform to the ideals that we put before ourselves when we embarked on our national struggle. We have not yet had a glimpse of the Pakistan of our dreams, for we are still besieged by all the ills that have plagued us in the past and the common man has yet to taste the contentment, physical and spiritual, of a free and prosperous existence.”
Note Faiz’s use of the term kinsmen for Indian Muslims. What does that say of the TNT, at the very beginning of Pakistan? Was Faiz stressing the hostage factor? It made no difference though because Pakistan dealt with its minorities as it thought fit. Your opinion of the Indo Pak exchange differs from that of PTH but I do not think the mutual attractions of the region can be forever overcome by recent events.
Having said that I don’t think it can go much further than trade travel and Bollywood. Ordinary political terms such as secularism seem to mean different things on opposite sides of the Radcliffe line. I am quoting below the concluding paragraph from Dr. Akbar Ahmad’s article ‘Why Jinnah Matters’ in that compilation of essays called ‘Pakistan, Beyond the Crisis State’.
“In 1971, when Pakistan was broken in two, its critics jubilantly cried, ‘Jinnah’s Pakistan is dead.’ They were wrong. Jinnah’s Pakistan will be alive as long as there are Muslims who feel for the dignity, the identity and the destiny of other Muslims, and who care for the oppressed and the minorities in their midst. In that sense Jinnah’s Pakistan will remain alive forever. Muslims must learn to say with pride: ‘I am Muslim’. They must live up to the nobility and compassion of Islamic ideals; they must carry themselves in their identity as Muslims. Most important, they must stand up for their rights; this is their destiny and they cannot ignore it. This is the lesson that Jinnah taught them; that is why Jinnah remains relevant today.”
Akbar Ahmad sees himself and is seen by other Pakistanis as a secular sort of person. To me the above piece sounds like a communal rant. Earlier in the same article he opines; “Had Jinnah’s vision prevailed-and found an echo in India-we would have seen a very different South Asia. There would have been two stable nations-both supplementing and supporting each other.”
Suppose the passage quoted earlier, from its second line onwards was written by someone like Jagmohan, with the words Muslim/Islamic, Pakistan and Jinnah replaced by Hindu, India and Nehru. Would it sound secular? Jagmohan is a great believer in India with a Hindu bias and constantly advocates Hindu spiritual values. His anti Muslim prejudices are never concealed and he considers himself a secular sort of person too, almost the only one who does actually.
The gulf between India’s political interpretations and those of Pakistan is so wide that ordinary discussions are bound to end up sterile. We need first a new semantics that will enable mutual comprehension. But first of all we have to agree that we want to or need to understand each other.
Correction. ‘they must carry themselves with dignity in their identity as Muslims.’
Hayyer,
Well to reinforce your very valid points, in India, secularism is now defined as something best illustrated by people who don’t chant Vande Mataram and Bharat Mata ki Jai but pour scorn and vitriol over people who do. Of course, everything is fine if you say Inquilab Zindabad!
to hayyer
We don’t need to invent new vocabulary or semantics. We cannot give in to the desires of those who wish to impose a fascist religion/ideology from Arabia in the indian subcotinent and also pretend that they know the will of the one and only god (who is identified as the mohammadan god allah).
We have developed a better understanging of politics and society since we do not believe that the last word of wisdom or science was written down in the 7th century. We have to stick to our understannding of the political terminology and not let some false tolerance manipulate us to make compromises with those who wish to push mankind back to 7th century Arabia, monotheistic totalitarianism and intimidating human beings with primitive ideas of hell and faith.
Bade Miyan.
I am not quite with you on Bharat Mata and Bande Mataram versus Inquilab Zindabad. The former express patriotism in religious idiom whereas Inquilab Zindabad is only Urdu for a secular terminology. Jeeye Viplav does not have the same resonance.
to hayyer
If “jiye viplav” does not appeal to or resonate with us it means we have been arabized. We are ashamed of our own languages. The rule by the agents and quislings of islam has gone into our brain and bone-marrow. So the disease is further diagnosed and located.
Secular muslims and secularism among muslims have been exterminated. That was unavoidable. It is the logical consequence of islam, even when islam is in a minority.
In Pakistan the sentiments and feelings of muslims rule since they are the arrogant majority. In India the sentiments and feelings of muslims rule because they are the minority which we hindus must appease and keep happy (otherwise they will practise terror and our leftists and pseudo-seculars etc. will surge forward to justify it and even blame it on the hindus).
Hayyer wrote:
Would these semantics have anything to do with reality?
Even the search for semantics have different semantics. Pakistanis want the dialogue to feel reaffirmation of their right to exist. Indians want the dialogue to encourage Pakistan to behave maturely.
Indians may understand that Pakistan’s right to exist means simply to be left alone, but Pakistanis understand that right to exist is based on the destruction of India.
India is the mirror in which Pakistan sees itself. And Pakistan will always see a hideous disfigured monster. No wonder it wants to destroy the mirror.
The search for commonality of semantics is a futile search.
Even Jinnah called his Pakistan moth-eaten, and even he did not love it!
Who would call his child “moth-eaten”?!
obsrv
I guess Hayyer Sb. is saying that “jiye viplab” doesn’t have the same resonance with the Hindus as “Vande Mataram” or “Bharat Mata ki Jai”. Why not? Part of the reason of course is the historical significance of Vande Mataram. When I personally listen to Vande Mataram, the faces that come to my mind are Khudiram Bose’s and Bhagat Sing’s, not Bharat Mata’s. I am of course also partial to Bankim’s historical novels, but would understand if the religious connotation makes some uncomfortable. Not all those uncomfortable with the deliberate association of over-religiosity with Vande Mataram are Muslims.
Hayyer Sb., many thanks for a clear unambiguous post, articulating so well what many instinctively feel.
Hayyer (September 1, 2011 at 8:47 am):
.
The question I had posed was, “What did Faiz mean by this editorial regarding Muslim Indians?”
.
Faiz wrote this Ed-Op in December 1947 as Editor-in-Chief of The Pakistan Times, a newspaper owned by Mian Iftekhar-ud-Din – a fellow leftist. At that time the newspaper had support of liberal Jinnah. The Ed-Op seems to be suggesting, perhaps with the understanding of the government at the time, that the newly formed Pakistan should stay engaged with the Indian Muslim politics directly as well as indirectly. In 1947 that was the public sentiment as well as the government policy. Some Indian Muslims not sure of their affiliation even went back and forth. The Congress government aware of this Pakistani Muslim card acted swiftly and neutralized Pakistan-Indian Muslim connection by adopting symbolic gestures towards Indian Muslims on one hand and by portraying Pakistan as nothing more than a communal state on the other. But the fact is that in India the Indian Muslims are marginalized politically and economically, more so than they were ever before. No matter what the internal and external policies of Pakistan, the die for Indian Muslims was already cast and there was nothing Pakistan could do to affect the future of the Indian Muslims in India except to accommodate more and more of them inside Pakistan. The influx of Indian Muslims whereas first welcomed became a source of resentment and in the post-Liaqat Ali period the practice was stopped altogether. Pakistan logistically could not take-in an additional population equal to its own size. Indian Muslims were no longer our kinsmen. This is the reason that sixty-four years later the Ed-Op by Faiz is still of interest. Sixty-four years later there is a 180-degree turn in national sentiments towards Indian Muslims. Today Indian Muslims are of no interest to Pakistan except whenever there is a mass-scale killing of Muslims in India. Then the issue is used as a propaganda tool. However it will be wrong to say that the issue of Indian Muslims is totally died-out in Pakistan. There is still a size-able constituency that advocates greater links with India and Indian Muslims. Some of it comes from the “South Asia” promoters, the so called liberal class; and some comes from the “pan-Islamist” religious class. As you know by now, I do not belong to either one the two classes. For me Pakistan comes first. But I do agree with you on some of your points. As you have said and I quote: “Ordinary political terms such as secularism seem to mean different things on opposite sides of the Radcliffe line.” And I also agree with your conclusion regarding Dr. Akbar Ahmad. Yes as a Muslim I do “feel for the dignity, the identity and the destiny of other Muslims.” If asked I proudly declare myself as a Muslim. But I feel no need to “carry my Muslim identity.” What Pakistan has given me is the freedom from religious identification, a freedom that Indian Muslims do not enjoy. Being Pakistani is good enough for me. I need no further identities. As always it is pleasure to read your posts.
PMA.
I hope that the last line in your post did not mean that I should comment no more. I stopped posting some time back and I am not sure, considering the infestation that continues to exist on PTH, whether it was wise to re-enter the lists. The semantics being key I will say a few words and then no more, on this topic at least.
“The Ed-Op seems to be suggesting, perhaps with the understanding of the government at the time, that the newly formed Pakistan should stay engaged with the Indian Muslim politics directly as well as indirectly.”
Indian Muslim politics ended the day Pakistan was created. If Pakistani Muslims (including those who went from India) believed differently they were as deluded on this subject as they were on the Two Nation Theory. I cannot believe that (and we are talking of December of ’47 when Pakistan had invaded India through the first of its NGOs) Pakistanis, leftists or not, could have believed that two countries in a state of war would encourage each other to interfere in their treatment of minorities. Leftists in India and I suppose, Pakistan, have always been deluded. They supported Pakistan and China against India and yet they claim to speak for the poor masses (as if the poor masses are subject to the laws of Stalin and Mao!); Faiz is only a deluded leftist in the political context.
“In 1947 that was the public sentiment as well as the government policy. Some Indian Muslims not sure of their affiliation even went back and forth. The Congress government aware of this Pakistani Muslim card acted swiftly and neutralized Pakistan-Indian Muslim connection by adopting symbolic gestures towards Indian Muslims on one hand and by portraying Pakistan as nothing more than a communal state on the other.”
It may have been the public sentiment in Pakistan. It certainly wasn’t the sentiment in India. Those who thought that way in Pakistan or India must have been subject to severe cognitive dissonance; and particularly so as war was raging. Would you concede that Pakistani Muslims were confused at the time? Not so those who stayed back in India, and if they were, they soon realized what their leaders had gotten them into. I refer you to Azad’s famous speech at Jama Masjid in 1948 or was it 47.
“But the fact is that in India the Indian Muslims are marginalized politically and economically, more so than they were ever before. No matter what the internal and external policies of Pakistan, the die for Indian Muslims was already cast and there was nothing Pakistan could do to affect the future of the Indian Muslims in India except to accommodate more and more of them inside Pakistan.”
Right, and who failed to see the consequences of casting those dice. Certainly no one in the Congress, the Hindu Right, or the Akali Dal. What did Pakistan think it could have done for Indian Muslims except house more and more of them? Wasn’t that the idea behind the two nation theory? Jinnah was determined on Pakistan, even a moth eaten one. If the game didn’t play out his way who is to be blamed but Jinnah? It is not that Jinnah suddenly came to embody some ultimate divine principle in the last decade of his life. He was playing games right to the end and he got stuck with the price of victory.
“The influx of Indian Muslims whereas first welcomed became a source of resentment and in the post-Liaqat Ali period the practice was stopped altogether. Pakistan logistically could not take-in an additional population equal to its own size.”
No one thought of that one did they when they plotted out the pathway to Pakistan or sent in the invaders to Kashmir?
“Indian Muslims were no longer our kinsmen. This is the reason that sixty-four years later the Ed-Op by Faiz is still of interest. Sixty-four years later there is a 180-degree turn in national sentiments towards Indian Muslims. Today Indian Muslims are of no interest to Pakistan except whenever there is a mass-scale killing of Muslims in India. Then the issue is used as a propaganda tool.”
That is interesting. Many still, on both sides, seek brides from across the Radcliffe line. Kinship is thicker than theory, at least the TNT. I suggest to you that the 180 degree turn is because Indian Muslims have seen the folly of TNT and rejected it, which undermines the idea of Pakistan. The last major riot, or mass killing if your prefer was ten years ago. Pakistan cannot help the unfortunate victims of these riots but they are useful in justifying Pakistan. “There but for the grace of Pakistan lie us”, a refugee might think, “under the Hindu butchers knife”. True enough for those few who left India-but hardly true for those who were in Pakistan to begin with and were at the delivery end when riots did occur before 47. And not true of those refugees, to Pakistan, or others who died in other kinds of riots in Karachi and elsewhere.
“However it will be wrong to say that the issue of Indian Muslims is totally died-out in Pakistan. There is still a size-able constituency that advocates greater links with India and Indian Muslims. Some of it comes from the “South Asia” promoters, the so called liberal class; and some comes from the “pan-Islamist” religious class. As you know by now, I do not belong to either one the two classes. For me Pakistan comes first. But I do agree with you on some of your points. As you have said and I quote: “Ordinary political terms such as secularism seem to mean different things on opposite sides of the Radcliffe line.” And I also agree with your conclusion regarding Dr. Akbar Ahmad. Yes as a Muslim I do “feel for the dignity, the identity and the destiny of other Muslims.” If asked I proudly declare myself as a Muslim. But I feel no need to “carry my Muslim identity.” What Pakistan has given me is the freedom from religious identification, a freedom that Indian Muslims do not enjoy. Being Pakistani is good enough for me. I need no further identities.”
Everyone has beliefs, and mostly proud of them. Nazis were proud to be Nazis once upon a time. Hindus are proud to be Hindus and Sikhs are proud to be Sikhs. One doesn’t hear about the pride felt by members of the Flat Earth Society or by Scientologists. They must be proud too.
I have a problem with religious belief but that is my problem-because the majority everywhere, almost everywhere, has a thing about faith. I can live with the unswerving faith of others as long as it doesn’t interfere with my life. All I need, and it is a genuine need, is that faith keeps its nose and its paws out of nationhood and government; because then we are talking of different nations, as the TNT used to proclaim.
I quoted Akbar Ahmad because his understanding of what Jinnah intended, and of a secular Pakistan is inextricable from not only being Muslim but pride in Islam, and the concomitant Islamic fellowship. In our vocabulary that means Jinnah’s Pakistan could not have been secular; by definition. Whatever Jinnah may have wanted, his words are now taken to mean what you want them to mean. He is quoted to suit everyone’s purpose in Pakistan; which may be a good thing eventually, but as we’ve heard, even the devil can quote scripture. The poor lefties were always confused about the nationalities question, and Faiz would necessarily have been confused as well, even as he continued to be a proud communist. That is what I meant in the first place. No more.
Hayyer,
My point was that the fact that such a thing is given due importance points towards the difference in the social/political/religious debate that is going on in our respective countries. We can have differences about whether Vande Mataram has religious connotation or not, or even, if this whole discussion is silly per se. For me, Vande Mataram, even without its historical context, is a far superior piece of work than Jan Gana Mana, and I mean this musically too. If I remember, Nehru and Azad didn’t find any objection to its secular credentials, especially after taking only the 1st two stanzas. For me, that is good enough.
Sometime ago, I had written about the declining quality of liberal discourse in our countries, in fact everywhere. This is a perfect example. Sadly, we have wrapped our discussions about semantics.
As for Faiz, I am not sure we can deduce either way. We know for sure that he was an important player in trying to secure Kashmir for Pakistan. I guess, poets have their limits too, when it comes to humanism.
Hayyer (September 1, 2011 at 11:03 pm):
.
The last line of my post read: “As always it is pleasure to read your posts.” But your response: “I hope that the last line in your post did not mean that I should comment no more” had me confused. Were you speaking with tongue-in-cheek? I know the noise makers take the fun out of commenting and posting. That is the reason I too stopped to post here at PTH for a while. The foul language exchange between some kids and one of the editors was getting nauseating. The editor in reference stopped but the kids, particularly the one out-of-work kid in Germany has continued. One has to learn to skip certain individuals in the comment section. But you sir have always been a gentleman, even when in disagreement. But since this may be your last post on this subject at least, I too will say few words and then get off.
.
In Pakistan the Indian-Muslim politics continued for a while, mostly in the elite circle that had migrated from India. Other than the Bengalis, almost all national political leadership of Pakistan came from India and their links over there were still fresh. It was Ayub Khan who put an end to that sort of politics, and he was never forgiven by that particular group.
.
There were more than one category of sentiments among Indian Muslims.
a) Did not support Pakistan at all.
b) Supported Pakistan and moved to Pakistan.
c) Supported Pakistan but did not move to Pakistan.
But Pakistani Muslims were never confused. They knew what they were going to get out of Pakistan. They had long bought into Iqbal’s idea, long before Jinnah came around.
.
At the end the Muslim leadership made the hard choice: i.e. save at least 2/3 of the Muslim Nation of India. The price was the Indian Muslims – the 1/3 of the Muslim Nation of India. Among that 1/3, bitterest is the category that did not support Pakistan at all, the Fareed Zakaria type. Creation of Pakistan and India was not a perfect surgical operation, but it saved the Sub-continent from total destruction. True, some still import brides from India. But as that group gets acclimated in its new environment, that practice will stop eventually.
Hayyer,
With reference to PMA’s post:
“But Pakistani Muslims were never confused. They knew what they were going to get out of Pakistan. They had long bought into Iqbal’s idea, long before Jinnah came around.”
What do you have to say about this? This is in total contradiction to your hypothesis where you asserted that the poison of TNT was wholly a handiwork of bhaiyyas on innocent Punjabis.
Bade Miyan:
Iqbal had his big idea but no vote was taken on it. We have to go by the ideas of elected Muslim leaders of the Punjab starting with Mian Fazle Hussain, followed by Sikander Hayat Khan and Khizr Hayat Tiwana. In 1937 despite what Khaliquzzaman wrote in Pathway to Pakistan the idea of Pakistan had not yet been publicly proposed and in Punjab and the Frontier the AIML did not win.
Anita Inder Singh in her The Origins of the Partition of India has documented pretty well the propaganda campaigns carried on through mosques and Peers in rural Punjab. And it is generally accepted that the British supported the AIML in the Punjab and elsewhere through the war period with support only disappearing when Churchill lost the election.
It is difficult to say what Muslim Punjab bought into. Iqbal himself is on record in his letter to the Times of London saying that his Allahabad speech did not mean something outside of India. His demand is not so different from that of the Muslim Unionist politicians, except that Iqbal implies some sort of one unit concept within India.
PMA. Thanks for your response. I had intended to let this topic lie, but Bade Miyan’s query needed a response. I apologize if my earlier post sounded ambiguous. I try to be clear as possible generally-ambiguity, or lack of clarity was unintended.
PMA writes:
“But the fact is that in India the Indian Muslims are marginalized politically and economically, more so than they were ever before.”
Right you are. Now don’t blame the hindus for this. It is the tablighization of muslims that causes this. Quislings will get marginalized as they should be. India is overpopulated but muslim population component keeps growing. This shows that their loyalty is not and cannot be to India. Demographic and territorial aggresion is in the muslim nature. And they are proud of it – and say so when they are among themselves.
All muslims who supported creation of Pakistan were scoundrels or misled people. Some more some less. Of those who did not support only some were decent guys – the most were ignorant or opportunists. If islam is created in Makkah and Madinah then why should hindu land be taken for an islamic or muslim state? This decent question needs to be answered decently by Pakistanis and by indian muslims.
Indulging in academic exercises may sound scholastic, but reality is that islam is a totalitarian arab-imperialist ideology. The more this truth is realized – not only in India but the world over – things will become more just for the non-muslims.
We just had this post from a pakistani american about how Pandit Lekh Ram was murdered by a muslim and the ahmediyas thanked the arab allah for this murder. Has any hindu murdered any arab in Makkah?
It is impossible not to think of muslims as scoundrels. But their indoctrination and arrogance are so deep that some non-muslims think we should appease the muslims – appeasing muslims is supposedly the better tactic. What good has appeasing the muslims brought? They have only become more conceited, arrogant and roguish. Whole of Pakistan is thus become a swamp of violence. I don’t have to prove it separately.
Is the situation of hindus in Pakistan better than that of muslims in India?
Hayyer says to Bade Miyan:
“Iqbal had his big idea…”
Quislings always have big ideas.
Widkun Ibrahim Quisling also had big ideas for Norway when he placed his premiership, his party and his government at the feet of the nazis. In the nazi world-view the nordic races were to have a big role to play over mankind.
Hayyer & Bade Mian:
My this post is on a different subject, in a way. I have seen the interest you two gentlemen have in Pakistan. I will like to stress that Pakistan in this twenty-first century is a very very different entity than anything envisioned by the mid twentieth century Muslim leadership of British India. Number of factors have contributed towards that transformation and a full volume book will be needed to explain.
.
Briefly speaking, the Muslims & Hindus (and Sikhs) of the Sub-continent are prisoners of the history of the Sub-continent. Neither party is willing to let it go. Even though today India & Pakistan are two different countries, each side has old scores to settle. From Pakistani perspective, (and there is an Indian perspective as well) the memories of the Sikh rule, 1947 killings, loss of Kashmir, 1948, 1965, 1971…..all have contributed towards hardening of sentiments towards India. Internally, the moving out of the relatively liberal, moderate, and educated Hindu/Sikh population and moving in of the conservative Indian Muslim class has changed the cultural demography of Pakistan. From a Muslim majority area it became a Muslim country. Islam became the only defining force.
.
Then came 1971. Up until then Pakistan was a Sub-continental country, a child of British India. Post-1971 Pakistan is an only marginally Sub-continental country with no to very little role to play in the Sub-continental politics. Just watch the dealings of India with Nepal, Burma, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka. Pakistan is a non-factor there. Perhaps that is what India wanted – political marginalization of Pakistan. As a result Pakistan’s policies became totally west oriented with no considerations towards India at all. The gulf between our two countries is greater today than ever before in our long history.
.
Then enter the 1979 Soviet invasion of neighboring Afghanistan and American involvement. Zia, American and petro Arab money, madrassas, Jihad, Taliban, Al-Qaida….all that has contributed into a cultural change of Pakistan to the worst. So gentlemen, in your analysis of Pakistan and India-Pakistan relations you have to consider all the contributing factors. For relations to improve between India and Pakistan, a cooling period is needed. America needs to get out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and India needs to stay out. Pakistan needs to concentrate on its internal problems and forget about India. A period of India-Pakistan inactivity is essential to unload the old historic baggage. Only then somewhere down the road our two people could look towards establishing trouble free new relations on equal footing. We need to leave each other alone for awhile.
PMA Miyan,
I recommend the same, There should be complete lull in any sort social, economic, diplomatic activity between India and Pakistan . But the fly is the ointment is the population of Muasalmans who have the right to move to Pakistan. MAJ was the leader of so called Indian Muaslmans and these so called Indian Musalmans have the obligation to go to the land of Qaid. Why in the name of Dharma, Indians have to share their resources with these Non indian fellows immersed 24/7 in licking, following, worshipping all that is Non indian in body, heart, mind and soul. We can grant few exceptions but no one in the right mind can deny their Pakistaniat. As you said, they are marginaliged. They are marginaliged because of their religious upbrining which deny them the freedom of thought, conscience, logic, common sense and complete loyalty to the land they eat of. They are one of you and not one of us.
PMA:
Here is an interesting perspective on Pakistan by Ayesha Jalal. She says nothing new and it shows that the search for blame is now at a dead end. Notice her observation that the Congress wanted to create Pakistan. Coming from someone like her that is a bit much. Till now all that you could accuse Nehru and Patel of was of partitioning Punjab and Bengal.
Podcast: Ayesha Jalal on Pakistan’s ‘Revenge of the ’40s, Then the ’80s’
asiasociety.org
We are all of us everywhere and always, prisoners of our history.
If neither party is willing to let it go it is because they cannot. And no amount of time will sort out the basic questions framed at the beginning of our time. The scores you mention go back a long time. I never knew that Sikh rule was so reviled among Muslims in Punjab. The accounts I read were of a relative benign period under Ranjit Singh and it was news to me to learn that the Badshahi mosque had been used as a stable. As you said, Sikhs and Hindus have their own narratives of Muslim oppression. I read Akbar Ahmad saying that killings in Pakistan started only in September of 47 when news of killings by Hindus and Sikhs across the border poured in. The perspective on this side is different.
Be that as it may, we should be concerned with things as they are and not as they were or could have been.
Pakistan and India will continue to develop differently, politically, socially and otherwise. Given a long enough period of isolation from each other they will become completely separate people despite the influence of Bollywood and shared language and culture in the north. No one should object to that if it happens as a natural outcome.
On the other hand, in a globalized world with an increasingly global set of economic, political, moral and cultural concerns, with easy travel and media penetration, the limits of diversification can be easily seen. India is becoming some sort of Bollywood kitsch with occasional Gandhian episodes. Pakistan seems to emphasize its Arabian connections in comparison to its Persian ones and would prefer to forget the eastern link altogether. And while Pakistan may have dropped out of the subcontinental scene for the present its ambitions to play a role there surely still exist. It is a member of SAARC and Sri Lanka’s close ally, and it may have a role in BD too in some future Hasina-less government. Similarly India is not going to easily abandon its tenuous foot hold in Afghanistan.
For these reasons and others, I don’t think the two countries are going to be able to turn their backs on each other, even if they wanted to. Since we can’t help being neighbours we should try and live as peaceful ones. Our discussions here on PTH are in no danger of causing war, or peace to break out any time at all. Our narratives are set. Let us try and reconcile them if we can.
Hayyer (September 2, 2011 at 10:28 pm):
If your prognoses are correct then we will keep on at each other’s throats. Sad to say that.
@ Hayyer
“Be that as it may, we should be concerned with things as they are and not as they were or could have been.”
I absolutely agree. I also don’t think India and Pakistan can have a period of quiet between themselves. We are too closely linked in many ways. We can develop common interests though and our shared heritage should make it very easy to achieve if there was political will to do so.
The political will can perhaps come too as mass communication, travel and rising levels of education break down received narratives on both sides.
I don’t fight with my neighbour. We resolve our disputes quickly with give and take. I seek to have good relations with them because I want to leave peacefully. Peace makes my life easier. If I had a neighbour from hell, I would still try to work out some modus operandi to make my life easier. Peaceful and open relations are in our self interest.
Today there is peace between USA and Russia. Why? Because Russia changed and threw off its Communism. How? By breaking up!
So of course there is possibility of peace between India and Pakistanis. It is Pakistan’s transformation that stands in the way!
PMA wrote:
It is very interesting to see Pakistanis crying about the world needing to leave Pakistan alone.
If Osama bin Laden attacked USA on 9/11, and Osama bin Laden was a state guest of Pakistan all this time either indirectly through Pakistan’s proxy in Afghanistan – the Taliban regime or directly in a villa in Abbottabad, then it is a little pretentious to ask USA to keep out. Besides Pakistan has been taking all sorts of aid from USA, for exactly this reason – to allow an American presence in Pakistan.
If Pakistan’s establishment sends in Kasabs to attack in India all the time, most prominently during Mumbai 26/11/2008, but was involved for the last two decades in sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir, and Pakistan is telling India to keep out of Pakistan.
Is there some connection to reality at all in Pakistan? Or do all Pakistanis just make some narrative that suits them, and tells it to others as if it were truth in it?
Faiz sahib was a poet — a notoriously temperamental lot. He can be forgiven for having been wrong (if so) here and there. I see no extenuating circumstances for Jinnahbhai.
Tilsim (September 3, 2011 at 12:31 am):
.
….”closely linked”…..”common interests”…..”shared heritage”……”mass communication”…..”travel”……”open relations”…….
.
Aren’t you getting a bit too chummy. Oh hell, then let us all pick up our Boria-Bister and move back to Delhi. Heard there are few vacancies open in Lal Qala.
PMA wrote:
Mohajirs, who still have their hearts in India, may one day again become Indians, but for Pakjabis there is no place in India, not even in the gutters of Lal Qila!
Raj,
You are drawing hasty conclusion. Pakistan is a necessity not only for Muslamans but also for Indians. If Qaid has not asked for it , we might have to find some one else to do demand it.If current Pakistan fails then we must create another one. A successful Pakistaniat ruling the heart and mind of people is also a success for India.
The priniciple of Duality in this material world demands such glorious entity. Its only by the fruits of their deeds one can recognize the mental, spiritual state of people. I will vote big no for Mohajirs and big yes for all the Kaffirs living in Pakistan. These Kaffirs deserve to come back and live safe live in India. Let Qadiani decide themselves if they are part of Kuffar world or not.
@ PMA
Since you are now a Pakistani who is based in America, you may have come across Johnny Mercer. He wrote a song called Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive. It was sung by Bing Crosby, hit number one on the charts in 1945 and goes something like this:
“If you wanna hear my story
The settle back and just sit tight
While I start reviewin’
The attitude of doin’ right
You’ve got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
And latch on to the affirmative
Don’t mess with Mister In-Between
You’ve got to spread joy up to the maximum
Bring gloom down to the minimum”
Delhi? Wahan kaun hai tera?
kuchh teraa naa meraa, kuchh teraa naa meraa,
musaafir jaayegaa kahaa?
Please move on.
Sachbol,
Well Mohajirs are fighting for a Mohajir Subba in Sindh. Let’s see where it takes us.
Sachbol,
Where did you get this idea that “…Well Mohajirs are fighting for a Mohajir Subba in Sindh.,,,,” Is this your own invention?
Tilsim (September 4, 2011 at 4:11 am):
My message exactly. Lets forget India and Indians. There is plenty in Pakistan for us to love and to build upon. Let us spend our energies in getting to know our own fellow Pakistanis. Let us not get bogged down in our linguistic and ethnic differences. Let us create one Pakistan. One nation where everyone is equal citizen regardless of his or her ethnic, religious and linguistic background. I may be based abroad but I am doing my bit in Pakistan. I encourage all Pakistanis to do the same no matter where they are. Lets move on.
PMA is a funny guy.
When Pakistan is exposed as the rogue nation he says leave us alone. Then why don’t you, by that logic, leave the killers in Karachi alone? Pakistan has become a nation of killers – killers of joy, humanism, human bodies, honesty, decency, honest history-consciousness, wisdom etc. etc. A day will come when future pakistanis will realize that indians/hindus were and are their real brothers (and not arabs, chinese or turks) and will thank them for not leaving them alone.
It is the muslims who still are allowed to live in India (although they should not be in India anymore) who must tell pakistanis that the anti-hindu propaganda is wrong, that it is wrong to misuse the problems in India (e.g. those between hindus and muslims) to devilize hindus, or to claim Kashmir etc. – all that is only helping arabs, chinese etc. to intefere in Pakistan and misuse Pakistan.
But there is no and can be no wisdom and calmness among those who are under the boot of this arab ideology. PMA (even though in USA) is yet another proof of this.
observer,
Was Mahatma Gandhi gay? A new book by Pulitzer-Prize winning author Joseph Lelyveld claims the god-like Indian figure not only left his wife for a man, but also harbored racist attitudes.Gandhi, who led India to independence and is a universal symbol of peaceful resistance, had another side — a more human one. In a biography that hit stores this week — “Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and his Struggle With India,” former New York Times reporter Lelyveld insists that Gandhi was gay, or at least bisexual.
His lover was Hermann Kallenbach, a German-Jewish architect and bodybuilder. The couple built their love nest during Gandhi’s time in South Africa where he arrived as a 23-year-old law clerk in 1893 and lived for 21 years, Lelyveld w
observer,
your researches on islam should have been eye-opener to muslims. But unfortunately they will not pay any heed to you. Do you know the reason? You know nothing about Islam. Please continue with your research and perhaps one day when you are tired of this futile exercise then you will realise that it was only your hatred towards Islam that caused you so much anguish.
In Quran Allah declares that through a verse of Quran the righteous people get guidance and the rest are misled.
If you had done so much research in Hinduism with positive mind, you could have really achieved something. Leave Islam alone. If Muslims are devil and Islam is a cult, pray to your god to take care of them, because you have not taken care of them. You always submitted to them. The presence of over a billion muslims in the world today, indeed the highest religious group in the world speaks of your failure.
You will always look at the Arab word to condemn Islam. Cannot you see hundreds of thousands of muslim intellectuals in India itself, who have immensely contributed to the progress of India. If you are in any doubt, answer the following questions?
1. Who was the president of Congress party, the party representing India, when India got its freedom?
2. Who was the first education minister of India?
3. Who was the only space scientist president of India?
4, How many presidents of India have been Muslims
by doctor zu siddiqui