Pak Tea House » History, Jinnah » Important Corrective to distortion of history by Viewpointonline
Important Corrective to distortion of history by Viewpointonline
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Waseem Altaf’s article on Viewpointonline (Jinnah “the Quaid”) made some completely inaccurate claims that need to be addressed. Almost every claim in the said article is inaccurate when tested on the touchstone of historical facts. Since Viewpointonline is as closeminded in its approach to dissent as Daily Ummat or LUBP, they are unlikely to publish my rebuttal.
Mr. Altaf’s first claim is that Jinnah became a Shia to advance his political career. This is completely inaccurate. Jinnah had converted out of Ismaili Khoja Faith in 1901 (5 years before Jinnah entered politics as an Indian Nationalist) after his sister Mariam was excommunicated from the Aga Khani sect by the Aga Khan himself for marrying out of the Aga Khani sect. In any event most of Muslim League’s founding members were Ismaili and Aga Khan was the first president of the Muslim League. Therefore Mr. Altaf’s claim is laughable to say the least. In any event Jinnah should have either converted to Sunni Islam or to Hinduism to forward his political career by that logic.
Mr. Altaf’s second claim that Jinnah disowned his daughter is also not backed by any real historical evidence. Not only is there no legal document that states that Jinnah disowned his daughter but evidence suggests to the contrary. A substantial amount is left to his daughter in his will after the said marriage. Here is an account by Dina Wadia (from “A Daughter’s Memory”):
“My father was not a demonstrative man. But he was an affectionate father. My last meeting with him took place in Bombay in 1946. He had come from New Delhi, in the midst of most heavy preoccupations with crucial negotiations. He phoned, inviting me and my children to tea.
“He was very happy to see us – Dina was five and Nusli, two. We mostly talked about the children and politics. He told me that Pakistan was coming. Despite his pressing engagements in New Delhi he had found time to buy presents for us. “As we said good-bye, he bent down to hug Nusli. The grey cap, which he wore so often that it now bears his name, caught Nusli’s fancy, and in a moment he had put it on his grandson’s head saying, ‘Keep it, my boy.’ Nusli prizes the cap to this day. I remember the gesture because it was characteristic of his sensibility and consideration for me and my children. At the time of partition, Dina decided to stay on in India. She had married into one of the wealthiest Parsi families of India, the Wadia family.”
Does this sound like he disowned his daughter?
Dr. Ayesha Jalal’s painstaking work as well as that of H M Seervai shows that Jinnah’s Pakistan was not synonymous with partition of India or the partition of Punjab and Bengal. Neither Mountbatten nor his latter day apologists like Mr. Waseem Altaf fully understand the significance of the fact that Punjabi and Bengali are not synonymous with “Indian”. The multiple identities thesis is well known and when Jinnah argued that a Punjabi is a Punjabi before he is Muslim or a Hindu he was stating what was obvious to a historian – regional identities trumped communal ones and communal trumped and continue to trump national identities. Jinnah himself an Indian nationalist for most of his life was well aware of this unfortunate fact. Mountbatten’s response- again not completely stated in terms that Mr. Altaf gives (he seems to be very generous in paraphrasing)- showed Mountbatten’s inability to understand the complex dynamics of identity in South Asia. In any event partition was forwarded by Nehru and Gandhi who shot the cabinet mission plan down. Even Maulana Azad accepts it. That Jinnah was moved by the violence at partition is admitted even by unsympathetic Indian historians. That he made every effort to put it down ruthlessly where ever he could is also recorded as part of history. I do not wish to respond to the wild fantasies about wine parties and what not because they have no historical merit.
Then we come to other odd distortions of history- the caricature of Jinnah created conveniently over the years- that Mr. Altaf deploys in his poorly researched article. Almost all impartial academics have rejected charges of “excessive snobbery” and “elitism” leveled against Jinnah. Ian Bryant Wells writes on Page 237 of “Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity”: “Jinnah was not, however, a political elitist that he is sometimes painted as being… he remained committed to the rights of the people of India and showed himself able to come to the streets to motivate and lead the masses”. Incidentally even today in Mumbai there is a hall commemorating the mass agitation Jinnah led against Lord Willingdon.
The reason why Jinnah chose to be Governor-General instead of prime minister is plain enough. The Times of London wrote in its editorial of July 11, 1947: “Yet those who will be called to rule Pakistan may hold that relatively undeveloped qualities that make up much of its territory must be guided by a governor general capable of exercising the functions of higher control and co-ordination which formerly vested in a Canning or a Curzon.” The powers Jinnah enjoyed were far less than those enjoyed by either Canning or Curzon, mind you, and when compared to, say, powers vested in and assumed by President Abraham Lincoln in the aftermath of the civil war, Jinnah’s powers were toothless.
Even Lord Mountbatten, who never made any effort to hide his ambitions, had more power as Governor-General than Jinnah. Mountbatten was handed — allegedly — a blank piece of paper by Nehru for cabinet selection. Mountbatten presided over not just every major decision of the Indian government but he even commanded and directed the Indian troops in Kashmir. This was far beyond the powers Jinnah had.
As a student of law and constitution, I must state here that in the empire’s history, a powerful politician like Jinnah taking over as the first Governor-General of a self-governing dominion is the norm and not the exception. Lord Elgin and Lord Dufferin were two such political Governors-General, both instrumental in the formative phase of Canada. Ireland’s first Governor-General of the Dominion was an active party politician (Jinnah on the other hand had resigned from the presidency of the Muslim League soon after independence stating that he could not as Governor-General remain at the head of an avowedly communal organisation). So if Jinnah is to be called autocratic, then from Bismarck to Lincoln and Roosevelt, every Dominion Governor-General was autocratic, including India’s first Governor-General.
So why did Nehru choose to become prime minister instead of Governor-General? Important as Nehru was, he was just one party leader and at best a stalwart amongst at least three others. There was no question of Congress forwarding Nehru’s name for the Governor-General given that he was not a neutral arbiter for the various party factions. He had a major rival in Patel and his position in the Indian pantheon was by no means as absolute as Jinnah’s. Jinnah was — as Nehru wrote in his book, Discovery of India — the only Muslim League politician of noted ability, and entirely without the lure of office. Nehru’s role in India was to be that of a respected party politician and not that of an impartial arbiter that Jinnah’s followers expected.
There are many myths that are woven around Jinnah’s period as Governor-General of Pakistan, one of which was forwarded by Campbell Johnson who inaccurately claimed in his book Mission With Mountbatten that Jinnah applied for powers under the Ninth Schedule of the Government of India Act 1935 (GOIA 1935). It was the Ninth Schedule of the GOIA 1935 that strengthened the Governor-General and gave him powers to ensure passage of bills in a form that had been recommended by the Governor-General. From July 19, 1947 onwards, the Ninth Schedule was no longer available.
A constitutional point of divergence between the Dominion of Pakistan and the Dominion of India was Section 93, which empowered the Governor-General to dismiss provincial legislatures. It was Pakistan that omitted Section 93 and India that adopted it. Therefore, the Pakistani Governor-General could not, in contrast to the Indian Governor-General, dismiss a legislature. This is very relevant in the context of the Khan Ministry dismissal, for that dismissal was not the dissolution of a legislature but simply constitutional manoeuvring. The governor of NWFP, after concluding that Dr Khan Sahib no longer commanded the confidence of the House, invited Abdul Qayyum Khan to form the government, which he did. After this, the House was prorogued and reconvened when Qayyum had established a majority before the budget session. Technicality? Perhaps. However, the Canadian Governor-General as late as December 2008 used the same constitutional device to save Prime Minister Harper’s government and no one accused her of being undemocratic.
The dismissal of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP, now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) government has long been cited as an example of an early streak of authoritarianism in Pakistan’s history. It is said much of Pakistan’s later crisis of democracy has its roots in this decision. This sound bite has been used by many critics of Jinnah as being one grave example of lack of statesmanship at a critical juncture. I have a different view and I will endeavour to explain why.
We must examine whether Jinnah’s actions vis-à-vis the NWFP Assembly in that first week of independence were unconstitutional. If these actions were not unconstitutional, were these undemocratic and malicious under a veil of constitutionality? Finally, if we conclude that these actions were either unconstitutional or undemocratic, were these actions responsible for Pakistan’s subsequent crisis of constitutionalism and democracy, which manifested itself in the form of prolonged periods of direct military rule in the country.
To begin with, it is important to note again that Pakistan opted to omit Section 93 powers, which allowed the central government to dismiss provincial legislatures. India, on the other hand, retained these powers and used the same on several occasions to dismiss provincial legislatures. The dismissal of the Khan Ministry in NWFP, however, was not a dismissal of the legislature. The governor of NWFP, Sir George Cunningham, acting on the advice of the Governor-General under Section 51(5), dismissed Dr Khan Sahib as the chief minister and invited Abdul Qayyum Khan of the Muslim League to form the government. Therefore, the issue of constitutionality of the action does not arise per se.
Now the real question is whether this meant a dismissal of a democratically elected government and whether this action taken at the behest of Jinnah was indeed undemocratic or malicious. To address whether the decision was democratic or not, let us consider the facts. Dr Khan Sahib became the premier after the 1946 election on the basis of 30 members in a House of 50. Out of these 30 members, 12 were Hindu MLAs. It may be pointed out that the weightage given to the Hindu community was 24 percent against an actual population of six percent in the province; 11 of these 12 Hindu members moved to India at independence. Of the remaining 19, two belonged to the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, an ally of the Congress Party. Congress proper had won only 16 seats out of a total of 38 Muslim seats. Therefore, Dr Khan Sahib enjoyed the support of 19 members in a House of 39, already a minority government. Later the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind members also parted company and so did a Congress member Mian Jaffar Shah, leaving Dr Khan Sahib with only 16 members in a House of 39. As for the procedure adopted to effect a ministry and get the requisite support, the newly formed League ministry had to show its numbers by the next budget session, which it did.
Even otherwise Dr Khan Sahib had lost all moral authority to govern after the referendum a couple of months before independence, which had returned 51 percent votes in the Muslim League’s favour. While in recent years some have tried to argue that the referendum was questionable, the truth is that Congress had not only endorsed the referendum but had successfully procured the removal of Sir Olaf Caroe, who it deemed inaccurately as pro-League, as governor, replacing him with Sir Robert Lockhart to preside over the said referendum. Even Dr Khan Sahib had confidently declared that if the League received 30 percent of the votes in the election, he would resign. Dr Khan Sahib himself agreed that the referendum was as proper or improper as the election that had gotten him into power and this was promptly reported to the Viceroy by Rob Lockhart, Congress’ governor of choice. Lockhart went on to advise Dr Khan Sahib that the right and proper thing to do was to resign immediately. The governor also expressed concern that the continuation of a ministry so utterly hostile to the new state would be untenable and that the Viceroy should consider dismissing the NWFP government under section 93, which would be the best course available. In public, of course, both Dr Khan Sahib and Bacha Khan continued to declare that the referendum was improper and fraudulent. To this end, it is important to quote Kanji Dwarkadas, who in his letter of July 26, 1947 said: “An American journalist who has returned to Delhi from the Frontier has told me that…the Frontier referendum was run on fair lines and not as Dr Khan Sahib and Abdul Ghaffar Khan have explained it. He found Dr Khan Sahib to be muddled headed and both Khan brothers are now rather sore with the Congress for having let them down.”
As a liberal democrat with close to four decades of parliamentary experience in the Indian legislature, Jinnah was repulsed by the idea of dismissing any Legislative Assembly. Therefore, in early August, he suggested instead that if given a chance the Muslim League could form a coalition government with non-Muslim representatives, which would give the Muslim League legislative majority and thereby bypass the Section 93 dismissal. As mentioned earlier, this Section 93 was in any event not available after August 14, 1947. Rob Lockhart was of the view that if a change was to be made, in the fitness of things, it had to be made quickly because he recalled that Dr Khan Sahib had warned of a mass movement, which he “would try and keep non-violent”. Lord Mountbatten failed to heed either advice and consequently it fell to the Governor-General of Pakistan to take a decision that he had hoped to avoid.
The Khan brothers were openly hostile to Pakistan. They had boycotted the referendum citing that it did not have the option of NWFP remaining independent or worse joining Afghanistan. Bacha Khan had on June 27, 1947 called for an independent and free Pathan state based on Islamic principles and social justice. Dr Khan Sahib meanwhile continued to distribute arms licences to his party men. Similarly, consider the police intelligence report of August 5, 1947 that said: “It is rumoured 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 jihad 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” (See No 220, National Documentation Centre, Islamabad, 1996, 263-264, The Referendum in NWFP). In the circumstances, which government was going to allow an openly hostile government to continue in power, especially when that government had lost its majority in the Legislative Assembly? In the US for example, President Abraham Lincoln had dismissed not one but five state legislatures in the South in the immediate aftermath of the civil war. Jinnah, on the other hand, had not dismissed the legislature but had ensured an in-House change. Therefore, in the view of this writer at least the dismissal of the Khan Ministry was constitutional, democratic and morally responsible.
Finally on Balochistan and the annexation of Kalat, I would say that no princely state in Indian subcontinent was given the right to sovereignty by either India or Pakistan. This is the legal paradigm. It is no more coercion than India’s actions in Hyderabad, Junagadh, Tripura or Travoncore. So frankly that is neither here nor there.
Filed under: History, Jinnah · Tags: Governor General, Important Corrective, Jinnah, Pakistan
132 Responses to "Important Corrective to distortion of history by Viewpointonline"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- Ex-Paki
said Raj,
Sorry, my comment was meant for Satyam. - RajTOO
said Rex Minor,
brainwashing can make anyone believe an... - Ex-Paki said Raj,
Can any muslim….
That is a totally irra...
- Rex Minor
said Raj,
O’h you do not hurt a muslim or me peso... - RajTOO said Tajender,
We of Indian soil are proud Bharatiyas....
- Rex Minor said Raj,
No you do not speaks fo sikhs! They have publ...
- RajTOO said Rex Minor,
When I speak of Hindus, I speak of Budd...
- anti cellulite treatment
said We’re a group of volunteers and starting a n... - cellulite treatment said This is really interesting, You’re a very sk...
- Rex Minor said Raj,
And when an Indian presents itself solely wit...
Cognitive dissonance for people like Shakil Chaudhry
There seems to be cognitive dissonance for some parties when one proposes a historical hypothesis that is at variance to their long held beliefs. One such hypothesis is the formulation of the Cambridge school of thought on how and why partition happened. Over time this hypothesis has been confirmed by documents de-classified pertaining to partition but there is still continuing hostility and resistance by those who wish to remain mired in their respective nationalist discourses and/or their own personal biases.
1. The assumption that the much misunderstood Two Nation Theory suggested that Muslims and Hindus could not live together is patently false and historically naïve. Two nation theory was a consociationalist theory which argued that Muslims were a nation and not a community. The Lahore Resolution itself referred to and spoke about minorities and did not suggest that Hindus and Muslims could not live together. It spoke of two federations – one consisting of Muslim majority provinces and the other of Hindu majority provinces. Neither federations were envisaged by the Two Nation Theory as being exclusively Hindu or Muslim. It was at a very conscious level an attempt to bridge the differences between Muslim majority provinces (which had wanted a loose federation) and Hindu majority provinces (which wanted a more centralized federation). A critical reading of the Lahore Resolution also shows that the door was not closed on an all India union. Therefore the assumption that Lahore Resolution or the Two Nation Theory envisaged a completely separate and antagonistic Muslim state in the subcontinent is false, frivolous and denied in toto.
2. Just as the idea of Pakistan did not necessarily envisage a partition of India, the Two Nation Theory did not envisage – necessarily – a partition of Punjab or Bengal. Both those partitions were imposed on Punjab and Bengal by the Congress Party. For all its long winded arguments against the Two Nation Theory, Congress Party practiced a more insidious and cynical version of the said theory to divide constituent units. It was not done fairly even then. After all if partition was to be reduced to a partition of districts, then surely many districts in India, with Muslim majority, not contiguous to Muslim majority provinces should have also fallen in with the Muslim majority provinces.
3. The Two Nation Theory did not state that Muslims were Muslims and nothing else. The Two Nation Theory forwarded the multiple identities thesis. The locus of Muslim identity was the middle tier, of regional, all India identities and atop all of that an Indian identity. This is why Jinnah said famously – in the aftermath of the Lahore Resolution- that Muslims were proud to be Indians and their demands were made on the principle of India for Indians. Therefore the idea that a Punjabi or a Bengali was a Punjabi or a Bengali before he was a Hindu or a Muslim was not in contradiction to the Two Nation Theory. Jinnah was and remained as proudly an Indian as he had been in the first thirty years of his political career.
4. By letting the Muslim majority provinces go their own way separately, Congress sought to make Muslim numbers more manageable. Instead of agreeing to the three tier federation that was devised to keep India united, the Congress party bosses, including Nehru and Gandhi, decided that a smaller more manageable Muslim population was in India’s best interest. Hence they let go of the Muslim majority provinces who were willing to come in the federation provided that they had a certain degree of provincial autonomy with residuary powers resting with the provinces (as opposed to the centre where Gandhi and Nehru wanted them). Was it so horrible an idea? The residuary of legislation in United States of America and Australia lie with the constituent units i.e. states, provinces, territories etc. In Canada Pierre Trudeau had worked out a compromise with Rene Levesque because Trudeau wanted Quebec to stay on.
5. Finally the gentleman wrote that Sikhs would have been badly treated in Pakistan just as Ahmadis were. This is a pathetic conclusion. Not just Ahmadi Muslims, but all communities, did fairly well in the early years of Pakistan right up to 1973-1974. So long as East Pakistan with its significant non-Muslim minority remained in the federation, religious extremism was kept under check. The state had sent a strong message to the Mullahs in 1953 and generally Pakistanis, Muslim or Non-Muslim, felt secure. It may be remembered that these were the same Mullahs who had opposed the creation of Pakistan who were attempting to persecute Ahmadis in Pakistan. With the departure of East Pakistan, not only was the counter-weight to religious parties lost but West Pakistan was forced to look for alternative historical cosmology which it searched for in Islam. Now imagine if Sikhs had decided to put their lot in with Pakistan in 1947. East Pakistan or not, there was no way that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto would have or even wanted to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims. Pakistan’s theocratisation is the consequence of the 1973 constitution and Bhutto’s pandering to the religious right. To try and trace that in the Pakistan Movement is not only unfair but historically untenable.
Ylh
You don’t have to prove your stupidity. We got it.
Once your mind settles, think about getting these ” we need Sikhs to keep us sane” posts removed. These don’t go very well with your reputation. Also try and keep your inner Islamist in control. East pakistan did not depart – punjabis forced east Pakistan to depart and Jinnah led the way.
You sound like AKB, and rexie now.
Dude you got enough kuffar and you consumed all that – you not getting any more –
Go consume some ahmedi and Shia now and then you could consume some liberals…
YLH:
Finally the gentleman wrote that Sikhs would have been badly treated in Pakistan just as Ahmadis were. This is a pathetic conclusion. Not just Ahmadi Muslims, but all communities, did fairly well in the early years of Pakistan right up to 1973-1974. So long as East Pakistan with its significant non-Muslim minority remained in the federation, religious extremism was kept under check”
.
I will try to respond to this later when time permits but would like a comment on the resignation letter of JN Mandal which flies in the face of the above comment. Mandal’s letter is not just a letter of one individual, it is a historic document, from the POV of a person who had a ring side seat to the events, a representative of a people who had defied odds to trust AIML by taking Jinnahs word. It gives specifics, names, dates, of how the minorities were given a short shift right from the inception of Pakistan, not by any mullah but by the rank and file of the AIML; Jinnah’s former colleagues!
Mythbuster,
I don’t know if you followed the subtext of the wonderful insight by YLH. It seems that minorities were needed to hold Muslims in check. If one carries it to its logical conclusion, what he is implying is that Muslims in brute majority cannot be secular since you need a critical mass of minorities to periodically reign them in. That, of course, makes one go to the original question: Why even the demand of separate Muslim province in the first place? Or were they superimposing their handicap on the Hindus as well? In larger India, they would never have to fear about their fellow Muslims going berserk.
.
One also wonders then why this brouhaha about Pakistan being a non secular state. That seems to be a normal state of things and all the efforts for constructing a secular state thoroughly useless. More than Jinnah, you can find wisdom in the forgotten star of the freedom movement: Azad. He correctly predicted that non-Muslims from Muslim majority provinces would be hounded out as the poisonous rhetoric of Jinnah was creating havoc in Punjab and other places.
.
It’s fascinating to see the superb revision of history here in the last 2 years I have followed. We are not far away from the theory that Congress had decided on the division of the Punjab and Bengal in 1937 itself!
Yasser Latif Hamdani: With respect, I doubt if anybody in Pakistan subscribes to your interpretation of the two-nation theory. I would appreciate if you could name a few people who agree with you on this?
According to you, ‘Not just Ahmadi Muslims, but all communities, did fairly well in the early years of Pakistan right up to 1973-1974. So long as East Pakistan with its significant non-Muslim minority remained in the federation, religious extremism was kept under check.’
Everything was not honky dory before 1974. According to Britannica, an estimated one million people—Hindus from East Pakistan and Muslims from West Bengal—crossed the borders during 1950. This is what necessitated the Liaqat-Nehru Pact.
What signal did the passage of the Objectives Resolution send to the minorities? Why did Sir Zafarullah Khan support it? Why did Jogendra Nath Mandal defect to India? Why was a movement against the Ahmadis launched? Why did Dr Fazlur Rahman flee Pakistan in the 1960s? Were these not manifestations of religious extremism? Were only anti-Pakistan mullahs against the Ahmadis? Wasn’t Shabbir Ahmad Usmani also not against them?
You say that in the aftermath of the Lahore resolution Jinnah said that Muslims were proud to be Indians and their demands were made on the principle of India for Indians. It would be great if you could add reference to this statement.
A nice monster ylf in a pure monster land was sad so I asked him what was the reason.
Mtg – what happened buddy – why you sad?
Ylf – my monster buddies are fighting and killing and consuming each other.
Mtg – that is very sad. Why don’t you do something?
Ylf – We need some fries. We are out if it.
Mtg – fris? (I was confused)
Ylf – sorry you probably don’t understand monste-rabic – this is sacred monster language. It means nice little non-monster like you.
Mtg – yes of course fries I know that. Monsters love fries. But what happened to your fries?
Ylf- err.. – for last 1000 years we were doing fine. We had plenty. We will consume at one place and then move to the next but that’s not things are any more theses days. We are confined to the pure monster land and can not go to the land of fries.
Mtg – that’s really sad – so what happened to fries in pure monster land?
Ylf – o that’s another story – we had a good stable supply 70 years back and we were growing them nicely too but then we started overeating and we scared some away and then some fries converted to monsters – so here we are with no fries and All monsters consuming each other.
Mtg – well that’s very sad. I wish I could help. Btw what’s your name?
Ylf – that is so nice of you – see that’s why we like fries – o my name is ylf – Yasser Low on Fries…
Mtg – o yes of course you mentioned that – well it was nice talking to you and happy fries hunting…
The way i uderstand, Paki objections to Partition (Which BTW is not compelete yet) MAJ, the great leader of Indian Musalmans was understood only by the white man and not by the leaders and Kaffir people of India when he repeatedly not only thretened buy actually demonstrated throwugh his followers that in Joint India Musalmans will neither play nor will let any one play but as they say in Punjabi “will keep doing the moot in Khooti”. Well now they are sad and disappointed that they were given a big Khooti of their own in which they have been doing Moot for the last 65 Years. The complaint now is that Khooti is overflowing with moot but cant spill over the border because Indians wont allow it . The onlee solution is to keep throwing the bait in that Moot and hope one day you might catch a fish.Partiton was costly but good event to check the ganagarine. Now the religious syphlis have captured the “upper storey” of 99.99% of Paki people, only thing we can do is to watch and see how it end.
Lets say Jinnah was right and had good intention but then how do you xplain the same religious mayhem phenomenon in almost all of the Muslims societies .Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others cant cure this sickness, more pristine islam is the solution to this problem. All of the monorities need to migrate to india before good religious pakistani people settle the matter within.
ylh
i apologize for the GOIA of 1935. I had no idea that Pakistan had accepted it too. although i do not see any need for an ‘apology’, since it was an honest mistake on my part.
but based on this trivial mistake if you are going to disregard everything else i have said from an ideological standpoint, then that only loks like trying to find a reason.
i would really appreciate it if you could reply to my view of the ideological standpoint of the Congress and therefore its rejection for safeguards. That is all important as far as the narrative is concerned.
as far as the CMP is concerned, you said and i quote, “So no communal and you can go on arguing about the intent behind the 6 June resolution but the point is that the League would not have the numbers to ALTER THE CONSTITUTION so as to allow secession.”
did you or did you not say this? is using this statement by you, not using the chain of reasoning?
what does this statement of yours mean?. they did NOT have the numbers to alter the constitution. but that the Congress DID. They therefore also potentially had the ability of undoing the entire grouping clause which was the entire premise of the league. Do you not think that the league realized this fear? Seeing how vehemently against the grouping the Congress was, is it not likely that they would use the electoral power to undo it at some point? would that go down well with the league and would that then mean peaceful united India?
plus the reason i am against the grouping itself is that it stems from the concept of safeguards for Muslims against Hindus which is inherently divisive in itself as a demand. once the demands were met and a grouping created. do you honestly think that the communities would ever be the same again? their interactions? how can the interactions of two communities be cordial where a system exists where a minority community has safeguards for protection in the same of groups from the majority community?!
is this really so hard to see? or are you accepting this as wishful thinking to build a stronger case for Jinnah who said that Hindu’s and Muslims are two separate civilizations?
Chote miyan,
Do find my post on Azad and the Cabinet Mission Plan and then comment. Apparently Fingolfin has given up his claim that Azad was prescient altogether after Azad seemed to agree with the idea that Cabinet Mission Plan was the best solution.
Shakil Chaudhry,
I am well aware of the incidents you point out. Objectives Resolution was a grave mistake. But before 1974 – Pakistani state would interfere to protect minorities. 1953 Movement did not get Ahmadis declared Kafir, because Khawaja Nazimuddin (and Ghulam Muhammad) had the gutts to stand up and tell Mullahs that they did not care.
Since you raised the issue of Ahmadis, surely then you must concede that you were wrong… before Mr. Bhutto, the Ahmadis did rather well in Pakistani society and institutions… I ask you again if Sikhs had stayed with Pakistan, even if 1971 would have happened the way it did, would Bhutto be able to pass or even need to pass the 1973 constitution with its Islamic provisions?
Given that Sikhs have faced massive tensions with the Indian state, I am sure, that the deal that Sikhs would have worked out for themselves in Pakistan would have been much better for both the Sikhs and us Pakistanis.
Fingolfin,
Read my statement again. The provisions of the Cabinet Mission Plan were binding… therefore Congress would not be able to change the agreement. However, in terms of re-negotiating the constitution, it would have a majority and it work within the parameters of the consociationalist compact that CMP was.
“Yasser Latif Hamdani: With respect, I doubt if anybody in Pakistan subscribes to your interpretation of the two-nation theory. I would appreciate if you could name a few people who agree with you on this?”
Amazing… first people like Shakil Chaudhry and other well placed bureaucrats distort history and impose on the nation mythology with nothing but lies… then when people begin to buy their nonsense, they turn around and ask people like me “can you name a few people who agree with you on this?”
Well… let me put it this way… most people who are willing to think these things through agree with me. Ayesha Jalal for example. I doubt that you have ever read what she wrote.
Debating with muslims is useless.
Be it rex, tajender, AKB … or even ylh.
What is in islam that causes muslim brains to decay so thoroughly?
“We muslims never did any mistakes or crimes, and if we did, then certainly not as bad as the ones done by non-muslims and that too only as a reaction/retaliation to what the evil non-muslims did to us innocent noble muslims since the days of little Mohammad in Makkah. We were provoked by non-muslims into doing them. Or it was a brahmin-jewish conspiracy.”
When will the debates with muslims come out of this trench with a quick-sand bottom?
My conclusion is: Islam is a imperialist fascist ideology and muslims will never come out of this trench. That is the only safe place for them.
Whether it is low-intelligence rex and tajender or high-intelligence ylh – it is all the same.
Yaseer low on fries
What makes you think Sikhs could keep you In check – is it because of their past track record of keeping Mughals in check?
Bengalis kept you in check too. Now Bengalis are doing much better or else they would have the same problems as Pakistan.
Now balochis are keeping you in check.
Ahmedis and shias can not keep you in check because they don’t slap back.
It’s like saying I am a prone to doing bad things and I need someone with me who can slap me and keep me sane.
Looks like you have become disoriented – take a break – go to beach and reboot your brain – its a free advise –
These posts on record will destroy your career as a liberal…
Yasser Pai,
I ask you again if Sikhs had stayed with Pakistan, even if 1971 would have happened the way it did
You have a point. Had Pak Muslims the good sense to remain in peace with Sikhs till then, Aurora sahib wud have been shoving the bamboo up the Bong gandhijis than on his fellow Punjoos.
Regards
1. TARA SINGH did not agree (Punjab Border).
2. SARAT BOSE’s warmth dissipated (BANG-SAM.. Bengal+Assam b/w. Fazlulhaq and Sarat Babu. BC Roy impressed upon Sarat Babu to fall in line with Marwari-Bania plan).
It is after 65 years… that we are able to discuss the BARE TRUTHS about the Partition of India – the other (and most often neglected) side of the story ! Ayesha Jalal was the first to say it publicly (and commit it to writing) in so many words.. what people uttered during private conversations. This was Jalal’s work-of-a-lifetime ! Even L.K. Advani was shocked at Jalal’s piercing scholarship.
Jalal gave others the confidence to come out. Then we had a host of people presenting the “other version” to the narrative.
It is not that Jinnah did NOT try ! He tried THE MOST. But he was pushed to the wall. It was possible to abandon Pakistan… but by then… the stakes were raised too high…It would certainly have led to a blood-bath (and it eventually did happen).. but i would say.. the harm could have been reduced by atleast 50%.
Pakistan did not achieve its purpose. Though 65 years is too short a time to pass a final verdict, i am afraid the signs are not encouraging. There is the example of Japan Post WW-I. I hope a miracle does take place in Pakistan too., that puts that country and its people on the pathway to progress, worldly success and honor. Unfortunately with the establishment of a Muslim Pakistan., India de-facto became a Hindu Raj ! So what if the sign-board does not say so. It did become a Hindu Raj. Without going into the merits and de-merits of THAT… unfortunately it benefited only the 3% Brahmin. The common Aam Aadmi.. the common Aam-Hindu was completely crushed when RSS became the Sole Selling Distribution Agency of HINDUISM ! India fell like a ripe Sitaphan into the lap of RSS.
Savarkar became the Real father of the Indian Nation. Gandhi was just a mask.
India needs to learn from Pakistan how to achieve progress. May be we can invite jinnah’s ghost to Delhi for a lecture.
Drona
Even 3% Brahmins are not happy. 97% are shitting in open so the stink makes the lIves of 3% miserable.
You probably don’t know but there is a secret raw program to move those 3% to moon and leave India in a pile of shit.
Once on moon those brahmins will convert to Islam – you probably already know that. Moon is under allah’s control.
Even Zaid hamid is worried about stink traveling to pure land.
As the former ruler of Punjab, Sikhs should have been the decider of of fate of this territory in 47. But It is still not too late.As a goodwill gesture, Pakistan should hand over the Pakjab governence to Sikhs and reopen the negotiations for the federal structure of union. YLH and others can be rest assured that as long as Sikhs govern, the secularism will be guaranteed in Punjab and latter can be extended to other parts of the region. IMHO, this can be a good start to solve the current Pakistani problem. Shias , Ahmadis, Christians and all others will be under the protection of Khalsa to live free and prosperous life without fearing any Ghazi, Waazi or Shaazi. It is a historical truth that Punjabi Muslamans are incapable of governance. It is a historical fact that islam is not capable of being secular in any true sense. IMHO, Khalsa trusted with the governance of Pakjab is the best solution to provide much desired Sikh presence to practice secularism and live desired normal life so absent in that land right now.
Added benefit of this will be the remergence of many charitable high educational institutes and hospitals so neglected after the Kuffar migrated from the area in 47.
Dronacharya
Hardly any Indian lament the partition, Yes the loss of land life is sad and regretted but the Kaffirs are in agreemnet that partition is one of the best things happend to indians. Had MAJ no demanded it , indians would have to invent one. But Partition is not complete yet. Many Musalmans have been unable to migrate to Islamic Pakistan and denied entry to their dream land . Once again, the burden have fallen on Kaffirs to open the door for them so they can enjoy their rightful owenership over Pakistan . As a Muslamans, you should appreciate the free help provided by Kuffar.Sooner the migration happen better for their social, cultural, religious health and advancement . You never know one day Kuffar might tired of picking up the tab and stop providing freebies.
YLH:
“Not just Ahmadi Muslims, but all communities, did fairly well in the early years of Pakistan right up to 1973-1974. So long as East Pakistan with its significant non-Muslim minority remained in the federation, religious extremism was kept under check….”
.
Dear Yasser, you have a lot of admirers and sympathizers here. I am chief among those but please take a moment to think not as a lawyer but a historian. In the court of law, you have to win a case and insist the court consider only the evidence that supports your reasoning. A historian OTOH must look at ALL evidence, big and small before formulating a hypothesis that still leaves room for an alternative line of reasoning. What you say would have happened is possible but the evidence is otherwise.
I respectfully submit the following as one such bit of evidence that disputes the above argument. This letter is a historical document and a strong indictment of the AIML by no less a personality than an associate of Jinnah and a cabinet minister.
As you know, no action was taken by any AIML leader, no inquires held and Mandal was hounded out:
.
Excerpts from the JN Mandal letter (It is heavily edited due to space constraints, I recommend that as a lawyer and historian you read the whole document:
.
“SOME INCIDENTS
“The armed police came and the local Muslims also joined them. They not only raided some houses of the Namasudras but mercilessly beat both men and women, destroyed their properties and took away valuables. The merciless beating of a pregnant woman resulted in abortion on the spot”
WOMEN FOR MILITARY
“The atrocities perpetrated by the police and military on the innocent Hindus, especially the Scheduled Caste of Harbinger in the Dist. of Sleet deserve description. Innocent men and women were brutally tortured, some women ravished, their houses raided and properties looted by the police and the local Muslims. Military pickets were posted in the area. The military not only oppressed these people and took away stuffs forcibly from Hindus houses, but also forced Hindus to send their women-folk at night to the camp to satisfy the carnal desire of the military. This fact also I brought to your notice. You assured me of a report on the matter, but unfortunately no report was forthcoming…”
“The S.P. of Khulna with a contingent of military and armed police appeared on the scene in the afternoon of the following day. In the meantime, the assailants fled and the intelligent neighbours also fled away. But the bulk of the villagers remained in their houses, as they were absolutely innocent and failed to realise the consequence of the happening. Subsequently the innocents of the entire village encouraged the neighbouring Muslims to take away their properties. A number of persons were killed and men and women were forcibly converted. House- hold deities were broken and places of worship desecrated and destroyed. Several women were raped by the police, military and local Muslims…”
CAUSES OF THE FEBRUARY DISTURBANCE
It must be noted that stories of a few incidents of communal disturbance that took place in West Bengal as a sort of repercussion of the incidents at Kalshira were published in exaggerated form in the east Bengal press. In the second week of February 1950 when the Budget Session of the East Bengal Assembly commenced, the Congress Members sought permission to move two-adjournment motion to discuss the situation created at Kalshira and Nachole. But the motions were disallowed. The congress Member walked out of the Assembly in protest. This action of the Hindu Members of the Assembly annoyed and enraged not only the Ministers but also the Muslim leaders and officials of the Province. This was perhaps one of the principal reasons for Dacca and East Bengal riots in February 1950….”
OFFICIALS HELPED LOOTERS
“The riot started at about 1 p.m. simultaneously all over the city. Arson, looting of Hindu shops and houses and killing of Hindus, wherever they were found, commenced in full swing in all parts of the city. I got evidence even from the Muslims that arson and looting were committed even in the presence of high police officials. Jewellery shops belonging to the Hindus were looted in the presence of police officers. They not only did not attempt to stop loot, but also helped the looters with advice and direction…”
BACKGROUND OF THE RIOT
( 21 ) The reasons for the Dacca riot were mainly five:
(i) To punish the Hindus for the daring action of their representatives in the Assembly in their expression of protest by walking out of the Assembly when two adjournment motions on Kashira and Nachole affairs were disallowed;
(ii) Dissensions and difference between the Suhrawardy Group and the Nazimuddin in the Parliamentary Party were becoming acute;
(iii) Apprehension of launching of a movement for re-union of East and West Bengal by both Hindu and Muslim leaders made the East Bengal Ministry and the Muslim League nervous. They wanted to prevent such a move. They thought that any large scale communal riot in East Bengal was sure to produce reactions in West Bengal were Muslims might be killed. The result of such riot in both East and East Bengal, it was believed, would prevent any movement for re-union of Bengals.
(iv) Feeling of Antagonism between the Bengalee Muslim and non-Bengalee Muslim in East Bengal was gaining ground. This could only be prevented by creating hatred between Hindus and Muslims of East Bengal. The language question was also connected with it and
STAGGERING DETAILS – NEARLY 10,000 KILLED
NO EARNEST DESIRE TO IMPLEMENT DELHI PACT
MOULANA AKRAM KHAN’S INCITATIONS
( 24 ) My suspicion about the intention of League leaders was confirmed when I read editorial comments by Moulana Akram Khan, the President of the Provincial Muslim League in the “Baisak” issue of a monthly journal called Mahammadi. In commenting on the first radio-broadcast of Dr. A.M. Malik, Minister for Minority Affairs of Pakistan, from Dacca Radio Station, wherein he said, “Even Prophet Mahammed had given religious freedom to the Jews in Arabia”, Moulana Akram Khan said, “Dr. Malik would have done well had he not made any reference in his speech to the Jews of Arabia. It is true that Jews in Arabia had been given religious freedom by Prophet Mahammed; but it was the first chapter of the history. The last chapter contains the definite direction of prophet Mahammed which runs as follows :-”Drive away all the Jews out of Arabia”. Even despite this editorial comment of a person who held a very high position in the political, social and spiritual life of the Muslim community, I entertained some expectation that the Nurul Amin Ministry might not be so insincere. But that expectation of mine was totally shattered when Mr. Nurul Amin selected D.N. Barari as a Minister to represent the minorities in terms of the Delhi Agreement which clearly states that to restore confidence in the mind of the minorities one of their representatives will be taken in the Ministry of East Bengal and West Bengal Govt.
GOVT. PLAN TO SOUEEZE OUT HINDUS
( 27 ) I would like to reiterate in this connection my firm conviction that East Bengal Govt. is still following the well-planned policy of squeezing Hindus out of the Province. In my discussion with you on more than one occasion, I gave expression to this view of mine. I must say that this policy of driving out Hindus from Pakistan has succeeded completely in West Pakistan and is nearing completion in East Pakistan too. The appointment of D.N. Barari as a Minister and the East Bengal Government’s unceremonious objection to my recommendation in this regard strictly conform to name of what they call an Islamic State. Pakistan has not given the Hindus entire satisfaction and a full sense of security. They now want to get rid of the Hindu intelligentsia so that the political, economic and social life of Pakistan may not in any way be influenced by them.
DISMAL FUTURE FOR HINDUS
( 29 ) Coming now to the present condition and the future of Hindus in East Bengal as a result of the Delhi Agreement, I should say that the present condition is not only unsatisfactory but absolutely hopeless and that the future completely dark and dismal Confidence of Hindus in East Bengal has not been restored in the least. The Agreement is treated as a mere scrap of paper alike by the East Bengal Government and the Muslim League.
That a pretty large number of Hindu migrants, mostly Scheduled Caste cultivators are returning to East Bengal is no indication that confidence has been restored. It only indicates that their stay and rehabilitation in West Bengal, or elsewhere in the Indian Union have not been possible. The sufferings of refugee life are compelling them to go back to their homes. Besides, many of them are going back to bring movable articles and settle or dispose of immovable properties. That no serious communal disturbance has recently taken place in East Bengal is not to be attributed to the Delhi Agreement. It could not simply continue even if there were no Agreement or Pact.
( 30 ) It must be admitted that the Delhi Pact was not an end in itself. It was intended that such conditions would be created as might effectively help resolve so many disputes and conflict existing between India and Pakistan. But during this period of six months after the Agreement, no dispute or conflict has readily been resolved. On the contrary, communal propaganda and anti-India propaganda by Pakistan both at home and abroad are continuing in full swing. The observance of Kashmir Day by the Muslim League all over Pakistan is an eloquent proof of communal anti-India propaganda by Pakistan. The recent speech of the Governor of Punjab (Pak) saying that Pakistan needed a strong Army for the security of Indian Muslims has betrayed the real attitude of Pakistan towards India. It will only increase the tensions between the two countries.
WHAT IS HAPPENING IN E. BENGAL TODAY
( 31 ) What is to the condition in East Bengal? About fifty lakhs of Hindus have left since the partition of the country. Apart from the East Bengal riot of last February, the reasons for such a large-scale exodus of Hindus are many. The boycott by the Muslims of Hindu lawyers, medical practitioners, shopkeepers, traders and merchants has compelled Hindus to migrate to West Bengal in search of their means of livelihood. Wholesale requisition of Hindu houses even without following due process of law in many and non-payment of any rent whatsoever to the owners have compelled them to seek for Indian Shelter, Payments rent to Hindu landlords was stopped long before……
HINDUS VIRTUALLY OUTLAWED
( 32 ) Commission of thefts and dacoities even with murder is going on as before. Thana office seldom record half the complaints made by the Hindus. That the abduction and rape of Hindu girls have been reduced to a certain extent is due only to the fact that there is no Caste Hindu girl between the ages of 12 and 30 living in East Bengal at present. The few depressed class girls who live in rural areas with their parents are not even spared by Muslim goondas. I have received information about a number of incidents of rape of Scheduled Castes Girls by Muslims.
Full payment is seldom made by Muslim buyers for the price of jute and other agricultural commodities sold by Hindus in market places. As a matter of fact, there is no operation of law, justice or fair play in Pakistan, so far as Hindus are concerned.
FORCED CONVERSIONS IN WEST PAKISTAN
Leaving aside the question of East Pakistan, let me now refer to west Pakistan, especially Sind. The West Punjab had after partition about a lakh of Scheduled Castes people. It may be noted that a large number of them were converted to Islam. Only 4 out of a dozen Scheduled Castes girls abducted by Muslims have yet been recovered in spite of repeated petitions to the Authority. Names of those girls with names of their abductors were supplied to the government. The last reply recently given by the office-in-Charge of recovery of abducted girls said that “his function was to recover Hindu girls and stat “Achuts” (Scheduled Castes) were not Hindus”…..
PAKISTAN ‘ACCURSED’ FOR HINDUS
NO CIVIL LIBERTY EVEN FOR MUSLIMS
( 35 ) And what about the Muslims who are outside the charmed circle of the League rulers and their corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy? There is hardly anything called civil liberty in Pakistan. Witness for example, the fate of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan then whom a more devout Muslim had not walked this earth for many years and of his gallant patriotic brother Dr. Khan Sahib. A large number of erstwhile League leaders of the Northwest and also of the Eastern belt of Pakistan are in detention without trial. Mr. Suhrawardy to whom is due in a large measure the League’s triumph in Bengal is for practical purposes a Pakistan prisoner who has to move under permit and can’t open his lips under orders. Mr. Fazzul Huq, that dearly loved grand old man of Bengal, who was the author of that now famous Lahore resolution, is ploughing his lonely furrow in the precincts of the Dacca High Court of Judicature, and the so called Islamic planning is as ruthless as it is complete. About the East Bengal Muslims generally, the less said the better. They were promised at Lahore of an independent State. They were promised of autonomous and sovereign units of the independent State. What have they got instead? East Bengal has been transformed into a colony of the western belt of Pakistan, although it contained a population, which is larger than that of all the units of Pakistan put together. It is a pale ineffective adjunct of Karachi doing the latte’s bidding and carrying out its orders. East Bengal Muslims in their enthusiasm wanted bread and they have by the mysterious working of the Islamic state and the Shariat got stone instead from the arid deserts of Sind and the Punjab.
MY OWN SAD AND BITTER EXPERIENCE
Leaving aside the overall picture of Pakistan and the callous and cruel injustice done to others, my own personal experience is no less sad, bitter and revealing. You used your position as the Prime Minister and leader of the Parliamentary Party to ask me to issue a statement, which I did on the 8th September last. You know that I was not willing to make a statement containing untruths and half-truths, which were worse those untruths. It was not possible for me to reject your request so long as I was there working as a Minister with you and under your leadership. But I can no longer afford to carry this load of false pretensions and untruth on my conscience and I have decided to offer my resignation as your Minister, which I am hereby placing in your hands and which, I hope, you will accept without delay. You are of course at liberty to dispense with that office or dispose of it in such a manner as may suit adequately and effectively the objectives of your Islamic State.
8th Oct. 1950
Yours Sincerely,
J. N. Mandal
J N Mandal was a kuffar, hence his testimony does not carry any weight. We will have to experiment and test it out. Lets export some kuffar to Pakistan in the hope that it will become secular.
Lets start with Manmohan Singh.
SUNDARLAL REPORT SEPT 19, 1948. Can i have a copy of the report on Internet, please.. or is still under “Official Secrets Act”. But 50 yrs have passed.. so..
It pertains to the genocide of 5 LAKH MUSLIMS. And yet how many… how many people know about it… How many are willing to discuss about it !
Such is the level of awareness/discourse !
If distortions in history-writing are corrected then islam will collapse, all of islam’s grand claims/promises will be found to be mendacious. Muslims will allow only such history-writing that glorifies islam and ridicules, humiliates or vilifies non-islam and non-muslims. That is proved over 1400 years. A mendacious history-writing is a necessity for the survival of islam.
SUNDARLAL REPORT (SEPT 19, 1948) KAHAN HAI ?
KAHAN HAI ?
to drona
What about the genocide of 1.5 million armenian christians by turkish muslims? Are you discussing that honestly in your madarassas already? Your muslim worldview is: muslims are always the innocent victims and non-muslims always the evil-doers.
Here is the executive summary of the Sunderlal report.
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1805/18051140.htm
Hindus killed upto 40,000 muslims in Nizam territory. It all started after the Razakars killed many hindus. It was started by the Razakars.
ylh
ya well that is probably why it fell through( the CMP). Point is that on ALL issues that the COngress and the league did not see eye to eye, the leagues fear was that the Congress would always outvote them. they were not wrong in thinking that and that would beg the question about what they could possibly do in such an existing framework.
plus, you still have not answered my question about the demand itself and how the congress could not give into it ideologically and how the demand was an affront to the Hindu community.
Dear Mr. Hamdani: Please explain how you can reconcile your rose-tinted views of Mr. Jinnah with the following:
a) It was Khizr Hayat Khan, the chief minister of un-divided Punjab who led a truly consociationlist government with the support of Hindus and Sikhs. Mr. Jinnah destroyed that delicate Hindu-Sikh-Muslim balance by bringing the All-India Muslim League party into the Punjab even though he knew that Hindus and Sikhs hated an exclusively Muslim party (just like Muslims would hate if someone wanted an exclusively Hindu Mahasabha party ruling in Punjab).
b) “Speaking about the fate of Muslims in the non-Pakistan zone, Mr. Jinnah said that in order to liberate 7 crores of Muslims where they were in a majority he was willing to perform the last ceremony of martyrdom if necessary and let two crores of Muslims be smashed.”
This was quoted in “The Civil Military Gazette” of April 1, 1941
You can read more details at:
http://observingliberalpakistan.blogspot.com/2010/07/fate-of-muslims-in-partitioned-india.html.
c) Jinnah was quite clear about his goal. This is what he said:
What is the goal of the All-India Muslim League? What is its ideology and what its policy? Let me tell you as clearly as I can possibly define it, that the goal of the All-India Muslim League is this: We want the establishment of completely independent states in the North-West and Eastern zones of India, with full control finally of defence, foreign affairs, communications, customs, currency, exchange, etc. We do not want in any circumstances a constitution of an All-India character with one government at the Centre. We will never agree to that. If we once agree to that, let me tell you, the Muslims will be absolutely wiped out of existence. We shall never be tributaries of any power or any government at the Centre so far as the North West and Eastern zones of our free national homelands are concerned.[These are excerpts from his Presidential Address at the 28th Annual Session of the All-India Muslim League, Madras, April 15, 1941.
You can read more at:
http://www.oocities.org/sadna_gupta/Extra1A_Jinnahspeeches1940s.html
Mr. Hamdani: how long do you want to fool yourself and the rest of us ?
[...] It goes without saying that Hamid Mir is in a long line of people who have taken liberties with distorting history. For example I received another email from Waseem Altaf, who had earlier fallaciously argued that Jinnah had converted to Shiism in 1921 from Ismaili faith to “further his political career” only to be proved wrong when I showed that in fact Jinnah had converted to Shiism in 1901 long before he was in politics and that converting to Shiism as a matter of fact would not have helped Jinnah’s career either in the League or the Congress. It turns out that Altaf Hussain of MQM has recently shown that in fact the conversion was in 1898. The ignorant arguments of Waseem Altaf – amongst the new illiterate lot who want to criticize Jinnah to prove themselves enlightened except they don’t know enough to criticize him for right reasons- were exploded in my post here. [...]
@ YLH
see how poor Quaid faced his end. Is this the way a nation treats its founder?? Is this the way he would be followed by his people later>>???
Doesn’t his last days foretell how he would be held by his people later on??
.
Try not to fool people by your babbling about him….that will go in the making of you as a bigger fool indeed,,,,take account of how he met his last days which go to predict how he would be treated in later days of Pakistan. And that has come to be true.
@ YullooLullooHulloo aks YLH
here is the link narrating Jinnah’s end ,,,,khatam, khalaas, finish!!
Does his KHATIMA means he ”sealed” all leaders before him??? Khatam means finish….just as Jinnah finished leaving NO dynasty. Much unlike you Mirjai’s think……..wrongly.
.
http://jinnah.pk/2010/12/25/last-days-of-quaid-i-azam/