Articles Comments

Pak Tea House » History, India, Jinnah, Partition » SPLITTING INDIA: A Corrective of Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed’s Inaccuracies

SPLITTING INDIA: A Corrective of Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed’s Inaccuracies


This article is in response to the so called “myth busting” series on partition by Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, published in The Friday Times.  Tragically the so called “myth busting series” is fraught with errors, concealment and special pleading. In this first rebuttal I will only address the factual inaccuracies so far. I do intend to write more rebuttals as the good dr continues his “myth busting” reinforcement of nationalist narratives of India and Pakistan.  

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

I have read with interest the various parts of Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed’s “Splitting India” published in the print edition of the Friday Times. There are some glaring historical errors that need to be corrected at the outset before one considers the thrust and the merits of Dr. Ahmed’s argument, of which I submit there are none.

Muslim League and Adult Franchise:

In the third part Ishtiaq Ahmed makes this extraordinary claim:

But if instead universal adult franchise had been adopted, as the Congress proposed – I have not seen any Muslim League document supporting universal adult franchise – the Muslim majorities in north-western and north-eastern India would have been permanent and irrevocable and thus the advantage the Hindus enjoyed in these areas because of greater ownership of property would have become redundant and obsolete. Scholars have not looked into this aspect of the conflict between Mr Jinnah and the Congress leadership. – See more at:

It is tragic that Ishtiaq Ahmed has not seen “any document” of the Muslim League asking for universal adult franchise. It reflects badly on him as a researcher because Muslim League had been committed constitutionally to adult franchise since 1934.

In the Bombay Session in March 1936, the following four points formed part of the resolution that Muslim League passed:

  1. A democratic responsible government with adult franchise to take the place of the present system.
  2. Repeal of all exceptionally repressive laws and the granting of the right of free speech, freedom of the press and organization.
  3. Immediate economic relief to the peasantry, State provision for educated and uneducated employment with fixed minimum wage for workers
  4. Introduction of free compulsory primary education.

(For reference See Page 140 of Jinnah of Pakistan by Stanley Wolpert)

Bengal Muslim League had asked for Universal Adult Franchise as early as 1929. In 1931, Muslim League first passed an all India level the resolution to consider Adult Franchise, which was then considered and approved in 1932 session. Universal Adult Franchise was also part of the Punjab Muslim League manifesto in 1944. (For reference see page 108 of Radical Politics in Colonial Punjab: Governance and Sedition by Shalini Sharma).

So it is clear that Ishtiaq Ahmed either hasn’t researched the issue properly or has chosen to conceal these facts to fit in with his narrative.

Zafrullah Khan

Ishtiaq Ahmed’s sinister implication that Sir Zafrulla Khan (because ZK was Ahmadi and therefore is a perfect target – as he was of Majlis-e-Ahrar in his lifetime) was “secretly” asked by Lord Linlithgow to ask the Muslim League to demand a separate Muslim state is a gross oversimplification at best and completely inaccurate at worst.  First of all Zafrulla’s advice was sought not secretly and but very publicly.

To understand how Zafrulla’s memorandum that forms the basis of League’s Lahore Resolution came about one has to understand the various exigencies that had played a part in the temporary British and Muslim alignment in the aftermath of hostilities in Europe. Let us first the Muslim League. Muslim League had contested the 1937 election as an ally of the Congress Party. Indeed it was funded in the election by Hindu financiers who hoped, as did Jinnah, that the elections would throw up a Congress-League alliance. This is a very significant part of history that is overlooked by those who seek to paint the Muslim League in reactionary colours and at worse want to make Muslim League look like the handmaiden of British Imperialism. Contrary to the oft repeated claim that Muslim League badly lost the 1937 elections, Muslim League fared rather well in UP and Bombay where its main constituency lay. It was in Punjab and Bengal that it did rather poorly. It was not trounced by the Congress there but by the Unionists in Punjab and regional parties in Bengal, which then joined the big tent of the Muslim League through Sikandar Jinnah Pact in 1937. A similar arrangement was reached with A K Fazlul Haq the premier of Bengal. In UP however the Muslim League managed to get a majority of Muslim seats. Congress did poorly on the Muslim seats, winning only one seat in UP.  It did however win an overwhelming majority of the general seats. After winning a clear majority, Congress went back on its promise to share power with the Muslim League, choosing instead to collaborate with Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind and Majlis-e-Ahrar.

In 1939 the war in Europe broke out and the world was faced with the prospect of Nazi aggression. The Congress chose that point to blackmail the British by suggesting that it would like to keep India neutral. This was an untenable position as the Indian troops formed the mainstay of British military strategy in Asia. It was also untenable because the legal position was that India was part of the British Empire. For Muslim League, Congress’ position was untenable because it claimed to represent all of India which was just not true. The Unionists in Punjab and AK Fazlul Haq in Bengal had thrown their lot with the Muslim League. The Lahore Resolution itself was a counter-proposal born out of the need for the Muslim League to present a united Muslim front. The British sought to use this need to counter Congress’ illogical claim that power should be transferred to its representatives without any safeguards (such as a provincial governor’s right to interfere on behalf of minorities in a province).

Zafrulla’s memorandum was an extraordinary feat of bringing divergent interests on one platform. Neither the memorandum nor the Lahore Resolution called for partition. Indeed it was a document that left much room for bargaining. It did however lend credence to the British claim that Congress did not speak for all of India, which the plain truth was that it did not.

Now coming to Ishtiaq Ahmed’s claim that the demand for a separate Muslim state was born in the Viceroy’s office in 1940; it is patently untrue. Rahmat Ali had come up with his Pakistan proposal in 1933.  Mian Kifayet Ali’s scheme for a Muslim India under the name “A Punjabi” had been sponsored by Mamdot in 1938.  Sindh Assembly had also passed a resolution for Pakistan in 1938.  Mian Kifayet Ali’s scheme requires the attention of historians. Originally the scheme was called Pakistan. When presented to Jinnah in 1939, Jinnah telegrammed Mamdot to have the name changed to Confederacy of India. The late K K Aziz whose essays were published by Vanguard Books has written an illuminating piece on Mian Kifayet Ali’s scheme which proves that the sentiment for a separate Muslim majority state had existed long before 1940. Indeed he counts upto 88 such schemes. For reference see See KK Aziz’s papers on “A 1939 Scheme for Confederacy of India Part I and Part II” published in “Studies in History and Politics” – published by Vanguard – pages 100-142 and pages 143-187. Therefore there is no merit in Dr. Ahmed’s claim.

Gandhi and Religion

Much has been written about this. Suffice to say I will quote Congress Leader A Patwardhan when he wrote:

‘It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE ‘HIMALAYAN ERROR’ of Gandhiji’s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League’


Partition of India or Partition of Punjab and Bengal?

There is no question that partition of Punjab and Bengal did not serve anyone’s interests, least of all the Muslim League.  It is also an undeniable fact of history that partition of Punjab and Bengal was sought by the Congress. Within the Congress, Maulana Azad was a vociferous supporter of the Cabinet Mission Plan which he said preserved the best elements of Muslim League’s Pakistan scheme without the inherent flaws.  It is also a fact of history that Jinnah had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. One needs only read Maulana Azad’s “India Wins Freedom” in its uncensored form to see who was to blame for the partition of Punjab and Bengal. Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed’s own book on Punjab’s partition confirms, perhaps unwittingly, that it was the Congress which incited the Sikhs to call for a partition of Punjab.

To this Ishtiaq Ahmed springs up the defence that if India had been partitioned but Punjab and Bengal hadn’t Sikhs and Hindus would retain their properties and that would not have resolved the issue of Muslim poverty. First of all partition of Punjab and Bengal (which Jinnah had opposed by saying that a Bengali and a Punjabi is a Bengali or a Punjabi before he is a Hindu or a Muslim) was the consequence of Congress’ de facto rejection of Cabinet Mission Plan. Second if India had been divided without Bengal and Punjab being partitioned, it would have solved the Muslim poverty problem faster, not by confiscation of Hindu and Sikh properties, but because Hindus and Sikhs formed the mainstay of the capitalist class. What division would have done was to create a mutually symbiotic relationship between the backward Muslim classes and the capitalist Hindus. A Muslim majority Pakistan with a strong Hindu business base would have to be a secular state where real economic basis for Hindu-Muslim unity would have preserved the state. So here too Dr. Ahmed’s logic falls flat.

Hindu-Muslim Dichotomy? Or Consociationalism?

H V Hodson wrote in clear terms very soon after the Lahore Resolution that every Muslim Leaguer from Jinnah down to the last one interpreted the Pakistan idea as consistent with the idea of a confederation of India. Hodson believed that “Pakistan” was a “revolt against minority status” and a call for power sharing and not just defining rules of conduct how a majority (in this case Hindu) would govern India. He spoke of an acute realisation that the minority status with all the safeguards could only amount to a “Cinderella with trade union rights and radio in the kitchen but still below the stairs.” Jinnah’s comment was that Hodson had finally understood what the League was after, but that he could not publicly come out with these fundamental truths, as these were likely to be misunderstood at the time.

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.

That said let us not wage a war against history.  The latter day supporters of a United India (which ironically was a British creation) should come to terms with the fact that Pakistan exists, just as Pakistan’s enthusiastic supporters need to accept that partition of Punjab and Bengal was an inevitable consequence of the division of India, regardless of the logic against it.  Pakistan is an accident of history just like India is an accident of history. This idea that India was some sort of divine unity revealed by God which should not have been broken may appeal to some but is counterproductive both for Pakistan’s future and for the future of a peaceful Indo-Pakistan conciliation on matters that continue to divide us.

Written by

Filed under: History, India, Jinnah, Partition · Tags: , , , , , , ,

136 Responses to "SPLITTING INDIA: A Corrective of Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed’s Inaccuracies"

  1. kaalchakra United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    beej bhaiyya, ram ram. Sab kushal mangal? Stop wasting time on that bakwas site and get where the cool dudes are. Did you finally overcome your Gandhi obsession, or is that still the same as before? :)

  2. kaalchakra United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    PCM bhai, don’t knock the parliament. Many would see it as the home of Islamic ijtehad in Islamic countries. If it does not always settle in your favor, it does not mean it is wrong.

  3. bjk United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Kaal, a strong argument can be made that “that buckwaas site” (which is at least pretense-free) is more genuine than THIS buckwaas site!

    There is only one person who is truly obsessed on this site and naming him (or her) is a surefire way to get one’s post deleted, unfortunately. :(

    Thanks for the inquiry, all is indeed well! Hope it is the same with you. :)

  4. romain United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    BJK Mian,

    that desibukbuk site is really boring. Soz man you need to liven up your life by moving here. :) Bring tahmed32 with you. I miss dumping on him

  5. RHR Pakistan Google Chrome Windows says:

    hhahaha Romain and BJK

    Where are HamidM and Salim Chohan?

    Bring them here also!


  6. yasserlatifhamdani Pakistan Google Chrome Windows says:

    Welcome Back BJK.

  7. Vish United Kingdom Google Chrome Windows says:

    @lord of the rings,says:
    “YLH and his shenanigans”. To be fair this is YLH’s court where he is judge,jury and executioner rolled into one. And like any competent lawyer resorts to character assassination, name calling and shouting down opponents (in this case deleting posts), when he knows that he has no sound counter-arguments. Don’t take him too seriously, just a wannabe historian who thinks that opinions can substitute facts.

  8. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    VISH…Probably won’t be long before Indian Hindus place HIM right at the top of their pantheon of 330 million gods,one more avatar for Hindus





  9. romain United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Tajender Mian,

    It will be difficult to topple Krishna. But the real question is why are you so angry all the time?

  10. akb Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:




  11. akb Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:


  12. akb Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @ MUG-YOU


    It is one of the most beautiful compensations of this life that no man (or woman) can sincerely try to help another without helping himself.

    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  13. romain United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    So I take it that this is the new way Pakis talk to women!!!

  14. akb Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    How do you know ‘it’ is a woman?? Even RHR doubted its sex.
    If you read ‘her’ comments you would find more filth in them than any man can hurl at that vampire!

  15. Maggu India Google Chrome  GT-N7100 Build/JZO54K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/30.0.1599.82 Mobile Safari/537.36 says:

    AKB: YOU??!!! That’s rich, you talking of filth?
    I am a human being first. My being a man or a woman or anything else is not really relevant for posting here. Or is it?

  16. YLHisM United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Checked this site after a long time time to see if YLH is still at it. Yup, like a dog holding on to his fake bone, he is.

  17. Ronuq shah Canada Google Chrome Windows says:

    The biggest Blunder of Jinnah was to SURRENDER 36 muslim states to India
    Double the land size of Pakistan Hyderabad,Junagadeh,Awedh,Rampur,Bhopal etc
    And please tell me IF ALL this is based on TRUTH
    We can not find any solution for present situation in Pakistan until we find real facts
    Behind Partition of India 1947
    1. He accepted a country divided apart thousands of miles into east and west Palkistan
    Even a child would not had accepted this handicap country.
    2. He was a lawyer demanded a country without any constitution???
    3.He founded Pakistan a new country without any BANK
    4. He demanded a country for muslims but for law and legislature appointed a HINDU
    First Law Minister of Pakistan was Mr. Mandel a Hindu …Amazing
    5.He opted to take tritle of Governor General means representing British Raj not
    Muslims of Pakistan
    6. He asked a HINDU to write National Anthem of Pakistan Mr. Jagan Nath wrote first
    Qaumi Tarania of Pakistan.
    7. He claims to have founded a Muslim country but appointed all GORAS in the Army
    And those Goras Generals were enjoying killiing of millions of innocent muslims no ARMY
    Action was taken Over Quarter a Millions Muslim Girls were kidnapped ove a million
    Muslims got killed like cats and dogs.
    8.He claimed muslims of India are a NATION but agreed to leave millions of Muslims at the Mercy of Hindu extremists
    9.He was not a child why he signed on Boundary map of Pakistan when all the RIVERS
    Were given inthe control of India. Last year India released water from its Dams and created Flood in Pakistan.
    10.He calimed to be man of principles but dissolved DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED ASSEMBLY OF NWFP…was he a democratic man or a British agent cum Dictator
    Jinnah a Goras agent ordered Bombing on Waziristan NWFP to fight against Faqir of IPPI who knew Jinnah was a Pork Eater British agent
    Who helped British Goras Kick Out Muslims from INDIA most populated Homeland of Muslims in the world.

  18. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    creation of pakistan was a shia lanlord conspiracy which hurted general muslims of india.brhmns wanted some weak muslims to continue muslim bashing hindutva game without any fear.jinnah was coverted shia hardly had any knowledge of islam or sympathy for muslims..muslim clergy waas against creation of pakistan.islam is message.they had plan to convert pakistan into new state of iran.
    and threw the remaining muslims to wolves.
    that is why rulers ofpakistan use the hard working pakistanis as heap of garbage.sucked their blood to maximum.use it as chance.creation of pakistan was an act of gaddari.allah protects muslims and islam.

  19. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:


    Today, a Mr. Nadeem F. Paracha tells us (and the entire world) the truth about so called a Swat Valley girl the world recognizes as Malala Yousafzai and millions of Pakistanis would have no ambiguity about whatever he’s stated in a very detailed article, published in DAWN under the title “Malala: The real story (with evidence),” considering the author ‘Somebody.’

    Earlier, the author of this story (also Nadeem, Nadeem Iftekhar actually) also scribbled down a report on Malala but being, perhaps, ‘Nobody’ in their eyes; most of the readers may have dubbed me as ‘crazy’ or ‘biased’ or even ‘senseless.’ However, today almost everyone having gone through reading Nadeem F. Paracha’s article, may believe ‘my claims’ ……… coming from the mouth of a ‘Renowned Author.’ Anyway, the article in question is, however an eye-opener, especially for those who ‘blindly’ trusted the ‘innocent’ looking girl; who ‘portrayed’ Malala Yousafzai.

    Yes, she simply portrayed Malala whereas the fact of the matter is; a Caucasian (apparently from Poland), she was actually a Hungary-born girl, named Jane who was born to Christian missionaries parents in 1997. According to a DNA contained (and later provided as evidence) by a Pakistani doctor Imtiaz Ali Khanzai, Jane was neither born in Swat Valley nor was she a Pashtoon (Pathan) girl. Anyway, the then 15-year-old Malala was attacked and shot in the face and head in September 2012 in the Swat Valley, allegedly by a Taliban activist.

    As the ‘Masterminds’ behind the ‘shooting drama’ planned and anticipated, the ‘cowardly’ attack caused hatred and outrage within Pakistan as well as around the world. The ‘news’ received widespread coverage in both the local as well as international media, giving pretty gloomy insight that the ‘poor victim’ had barely survived after following multiple surgeries performed by doctors in Pakistan and then England, on her face and head. Sympathetic, wasn’t it?

    Now living in the UK, Malala has repeatedly vowed not to withdraw from her ‘mission’ to continue working for the cause of Pakistani women’s education; especially in areas where girls’ schools are believed to have been blown up by extremists and militant outfits! Since both sides of the whole story are there for all of us, are there still some doubts in Malala’s ‘loyal’ supporters’ minds whether it was not the Western Media; that actually weaved the narrative about what in reality took place the day; when this Jane-Malala was allegedly shot?

    If the answer is yes, if still there are people who are not ‘convinced’ yet that it was a fabricated plan of anti-Pakistan elements to plant Malala in Swat Valley, just what should be done to change their minds now? However, the best word of advice for them is; they should first read Nadeem F. Paracha’s article ‘very thoroughly’ and only then share their respective opinion about Malala – The Fraud!

  20. Arun United States Mozilla Firefox Mac OS says:

    Back on January 3, 1941, Mr. Jinnah said, in an interview with a London newspaper that the British Government, the Parliament and the public would be making the greatest mistake if they believed the Congress “propaganda” that the demand for Pakistan was merely put forward as a counter for bargaining.

    In his address to the Special Pakistan Session of the Punjab Muslim Students Federation, on March 2, 1941, Jinnah again reiterated that partitioning India was a matter of life and death to Mussalmans and was not a counter for bargaining.

    Yet we have this constant drama that Jinnah did not want Pakistan.
    To the Ahmedabad Muslim Students Union, reported in the Dawn on January 16, 1945, Jinnah said that British statesmen “encouraged the theory of united India….so that they can play the role of arbitrator and mere[sic] cut the kind of justice which the monkey dispensed to the two cats. Opposition to Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah said, might be due to false notions or sentiments or because it was a new idea. Some said that it was a hoax and worse still it was a bargaining counter because Mr Jinnah was an astute politician. He asserted that it was neither a hoax nor a slogan for bargaining.”…”By division of India and the establishment of two governments, Pakistan and Hindustan, Mr. Jinnah said, distrust would have gone”.

  21. Gul India Safari iPad says:

    Jinnah asked USD 2Billion from US threatening to go to USSR but White House told him to F.O sending him a petty cheque instead.- Tareq Fatah

  22. Satyam United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Margaret Bourke-White was a correspondent and photographer for LIFE magazine during the WW II years. In September 1947, White went to Pakistan. She met Jinnah and wrote about what she found and heard in her book Halfway to Freedom: A Report on the New India,Simon and Schuster, New York, 1949. The following are the excerpts:-

    Of course it will be a democratic constitution; Islam is a democratic religion.”
    What plans did he have for the industrial development of the country? Did he hope to enlist technical or financial assistance from America?

    “America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America,” was Jinnah’s reply. “Pakistan is the pivot of the world, as we are placed” — he revolved his long forefinger in bony circles — “the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves.” He leaned toward me, dropping his voice to a confidential note. “Russia,” confided Mr. Jinnah, “is not so very far away
    In the weeks to come I was to hear the Quaid-i-Azam’s thesis echoed by government officials throughout Pakistan. “Surely America will build up our army,” they would say to me. “Surely America will give us loans to keep Russia from walking in.” But when I asked whether there were any signs of Russian infiltration, they would reply almost sadly, as though sorry not to be able to make more of the argument. “No, Russia has shown no signs of being interested in Pakistan.”
    This hope of tapping the U. S. Treasury was voiced so persistently that one wondered whether the purpose was to bolster the world against Bolshevism or to bolster Pakistan’s own uncertain position as a new political entity. Actually, I think, it was more nearly related to the even more significant bankruptcy of ideas in the new Muslim state — a nation drawing its spurious warmth from the embers of an antique religious fanaticism, fanned into a new blaze.

  23. Maggu India Google Chrome  GT-N7100 Build/JZO54K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/30.0.1599.82 Mobile Safari/537.36 says:

    Jinnah was a great supporter of the Hindu cause and his daughter is rightly claiming recourse to Hindu law for disposal of his properties in India. He created Pakistan as a favor to hindus to act as a buffer zone between Afghanistan and Iran and India. He was a visionary who could forsee these threats to India and sell the vision to Hindus.
    He knew that the people who lived in that geographical area were suckers who would kill each other and those bozos who came from India. He gave Hindu india two great outcomes: cleansing and buffer zone.
    his photo should be on our currency notes.

  24. Kamath. Canada Safari iPad says:

    Satyam says:

    Why should Pakistan depend on Hand-outs from USA ?
    Now China is the new lover who is wooing the country. All they need is few markets and the right to establish Confucious institutes in Karachi and the capital.

  25. Ronuq shah Canada Google Chrome Windows says:

    Oh Ya that is right Maggu but that was a wrong plan and wrong vision.
    Jinnah ,Nehru,Sardar Patel and Ganduji were all Traitors of INDIA and
    Their tactics of hypocritical manipulation of Indopak people have created enough destruction for the benefits of Goras that one day again
    India will be united with Pakistan.80% of INDIANS are Malnourished No
    Food No water and future Prime Minister Modi is claiming WE NEED Toilets
    Not Mandirs.That is the plight of INDIA with Full of corruption and no
    Success in 67 years for the development of country.INDIA and Pakistan lost their Culture,traditions,language because of Goras plans and ideology of DIVIDE and Rule.Still in Indopak the Presidents and Prime Ministers Have to be approved by Goras.Goras Rule We are Fools

  26. Heartnesia Indonesia Google Chrome Linux says:

    Tajender :

    That article is a satire / fiction, originally published at

    Please take down your comment to avoid further misunderstandings. And please be more careful next time.

  27. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    hearnesia…….u are right.i came to same conclusion.thanks.

    maggu india was divided by by brhmn bania nexus.for total loot u need total power.30%muslims were big obstruction in achieving this they divided country gave unproductive part of india to muslims.but now future is dark as other hindu races want equal share in power and wealth.marwaris and gujratis are biggest obstruction in growth of other races in india.their anti-muslim dance is also expose
    d.corporate india want peace for growth.this was succesful during socialism.rss parrots sing same song with same decible in same tune at same time from kashmir to kayakumari.these dumb mindless fools always copy their cousins in west.actually their bhagwans(barring asaram)are the carbon copy bhagwans of central asia and egypt.stories attached to them are also very much same.
    future of muslims is very bright.we are best and best always rule.

  28. Arun United States Mozilla Firefox Mac OS says:

    There is this, too: “In 1939 the war in Europe broke out and the world was faced with the prospect of Nazi aggression. The Congress chose that point to blackmail the British by suggesting that it would like to keep India neutral.”

    Fact is that even pacifist Mahatma Gandhi supported the British in World War I with the hope that India “would become the most favored partner in the Empire, and racial distinctions would become a thing of the past”. The British promises however were broken. At the start of World War II the Congress was quite aware of that. (Later Gandhi was to term British promises as a blank cheque on a failing bank.) The condition was that only an independent India would decide on its involvement in the war.

    ” It was also untenable because the legal position was that India was part of the British Empire.”

    At any time, asking for Indian independence was untenable because the legal position was that it was against the law to do so. This is the sad mentality of the lawyer.

  29. さいふ China Internet Explorer Windows says:

    ブルガリ ディアゴノ プロフェッショナル さいふ

  30. Contact royalrefrigerations for more information about our products like Washing machine Spare parts suppliers.
    Washing machine Spare parts supplier In India..

  31. It’s appropriate time to make some plans for the future
    and it’s time to be happy. I have read this
    post and if I could I desire to suggest you few interesting things or suggestions.
    Perhaps you could write next articles referring to this article.
    I desire to read more things about it!

    michael kors handbags outlet

  32. Generally I don’t learn article on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up
    very forced me to try and do it! Your writing taste has been amazed me.

    Thank you, quite great post.

  33. Unquestionably believe that which you said.

    Your favourite reason appeared to be at the net the easiest thing to be mindful of.
    I say to you, I certainly get annoyed whilst folks consider issues that they plainly don’t understand
    about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the top
    and defined out the entire thing without having side effect
    , folks could take a signal. Will probably be again to get more.

    Thank you

    Here is my blog post … cree un site gratuitement

  34. google United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    The handset comes out of the box unlocked, so you can choose any network you wish
    with it, and also offers both a rear-facing 5 megapixel camera for video and phhoto capture and a front facing camera forr video calls.
    They might keep visiting it over and over or a lot of them might mention it to their friends and relatives.
    What drew me in about this offer was the price – oonly ten dollars.

  35. I read this paragraph fully regarding the comparison of newest and preceding technologies, it’s remarkable article.

Leave a Reply


3 − = two

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