|
At Last Jaswant Singh admitted the historical facts
Dear Quraishi, I read your this email entirely and decided to respond for two reasons, first, being a student of Political Science, I cannot remain silent on those events which took place and which are now the part of our history, good or bad, and secondly, I am interested more in highlighting the reality of the past in order to have a better approach for planning our programmes in the future.
According to you �the book argues that Mohammad Ali Jinnah did not want Pakistan as a first choice�. It is hundred percent correct. If we go back in the history we find that Muslim League was there but Mr. Jinnah joined Congress being a Muslim. He did not bother to think on the reasons of the establishment of Muslim League. He fully knew that Muslim League establishment was just for raising and conveying of the grievances of the Muslims to the British Government. No doubt, Congress Party was there for the rights of the Indians, both Hindus and Muslims but the Muslims were not aware of the political strategy of the Hindu Leaders. They were under the illusion that that Congress is sincerely working for the rights of all the communities of India but the reality was quite different. Not only Mr. Jinnah but also many Indian Muslim leaders were swayed by the spirit of Indian Nationalism and joined Congress for seeking the remedy of their grievances. I think that those leaders who worked for the establishment of Muslim League had long before realized that Indian National Congress was not a correct forum for the resolution of the grievances of the Muslims. Even they had no idea of having separate land or making of Pakistan. Their only headache was to convey the grievances of the Indian Muslims to the British Government in an effective manner. Mr. Jinnah then joined Muslim League but kept also his membership of the Indian National Congress which shows that he had no idea of a separate land for the Muslim. Historical events show us that he believed in the communal rights of different communities. He remained to a certain date the member of both the Indian National Congress and Muslim League but later on quit Congress and fully devoted his attention for the rights of the Muslims but even in united India. It is mainly attributed to his farsightedness and reading deeply the Hindu mentality of the apparently secular leaders of Congress that he long before decided to have a separate course for the struggle otherwise many leaders of Muslims were still under the false impression that Congress leaders were instrumental in giving them their rights. Even Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a Khudai Khidmatgar leader, from NWFP, very lately realized the betrayal of the Congress leaders in his own autobiography. We also find that Mr. Jinnah was not only a law expert of the highest calibre but also extremely shrewd to analyse the mentality of the Hindu Leaders of the Indian Congress and thus swiftly used both his legal and political knowledge for organising the Muslims and giving them an exact direction of goal to be achieved which is a highly commendable act of Mr. Jinnah and was rightly called long before Pakistan as Quaid-e-Azam (Great Leader). It is hundred percent true that his first choice was to liberate India from the British domination but when he realized that after independent, the system of western democracy would never enable the Muslims to get their rights from the Hindus. It is still unfortunate, that the creation of two Countries, India and Pakistan did not brought that financial and social happiness for which our ancestors gave so much sacrifices. Pakistani Muslims got independence from Hindu domination but they had no idea that they would fall prey to the Punjab Province domination. That is why people in Pakistan now cry for the sub-division of Punjab and equal rights to all the Provinces. A written Constitution is there since 1973 but the people have no access to the resources of their Provinces and injustice is at full swing. Even separatist movements are there in both countries which are totally against the spirit of the creation of two Countries. That mistrust which existed once between the Hindus and Muslims now exists between the Muslims of different Provinces. Even Constitutional bodies like National Finance Commission and Council of Common Interests have so far failed to satisfy the demands of the Provinces which show that someone is acting in hegemony. The follies which were committed by the Hindu leaders in the pre-partition India and which led to the creation of Pakistan should not be repeated by the Muslim leaders of Pakistan.
It is hundred percent true that unfair Indian politics led to the creation of Pakistan. Almost all the political leaders both Hindu and Muslims were not clear to have a separate homelands but many events which proved eye-opening events only for the Muslims which rendered them justified in demanding for themselves at least in that part of India where Muslims were in majority. If we study the purposes of the establishment of both Indian National Congress and Muslim League, their aims were, neither independence from the British nor creation of two separate countries on two-nation theory. Their aims were to protect the rights of the different communities within the British dominion. The establishment of Muslim League was on the right perception of the Muslim Leaders that Congress mostly dominated by hard core Hindu leaders having their own agenda for spreading Hinduism in the whole Sub-continent even through educational institutions by singing special kinds of Hindu songs having deep links to Hindu religion. If there had not been any contradiction in the sayings and deeds of the Hindu leaders, first Muslim League would have not been established and secondly, Mr. Jinnah and like him many leaders would not have quit Congress for striving an independent State in shape of Pakistan. Even leaders from North Western Province, lamented the behaviour of the Congress but at much latter stage of their lives when Pakistan had been created which suggest and testifies that Mr. Jinnah�s quitting of Congress at the beginning of the 20th Century was right.
I am very grateful to the Mr. Jaswant Singh for writing such a book and discussing the past events of the history and also confessing the follies of their leaders in the past and acknowledging the right decisions of our Nation�s Father Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah who can rightly be called a principled man and many have imitated him but failed and proved caricatures in their respective countries. The admission of L.K. Advani and Jaswant Singh have provided us another opportunity to think over the relations of both countries and especially to those who still believe that Indian leaders have changed their stance on many issues. Issue of Jammu and Kashmir and also of the construction of disputed Dams are yet to be resolved by these two Countries for which no mediation of any third Country is needed. Indian Independence Act 1947 is yet to be implemented fully regarding the fate of the Kashmir. Mr. Jaswant Singh, please convince your compatriots to accept the reality.
I love Quaid-e-Azam not for the reason that he created for us Pakistan but for his farsightedness and blending the legal knowledge with his political knowledge which does really a quality wanting in most of the leaders of the World, including India and Pakistan.
Manzoor Ahmad YousafzaiB.Sc; L.L.B. M.A. Political Science
Email: manzoorahmadjalalmallb@hotmail.com
Web:http://manzooryousafzai.multiply.com/
From: info.aq.com@gmail.com
To: paknationalists@googlegroups.com
Subject: PakNationalists - Jinnah's PakNationalism: 'Partition' Never Happened
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:07:42 +0600
Jinnah's PakNationalism: 'Partition' Never Happened
A book in India that praises Pakistan's founder is being celebrated in Pakistan. Pakistani commentators appear apologetic in trying to seek approval. The book argues that Mohammad Ali Jinnah did not want Pakistan as a first choice. This is a common mistake made both by Indian and western writers, and even some Pakistani intellectuals. Pakistan was destined to happen, a result of ten centuries of Pakistani cultural, political and military presence in the region located between India, Iran and Afghanistan. The Quaid-e-Azam, as Pakistanis reverently call their Great Leader, understood this and became the instrument for a cause larger than him. The Indians need to correct one more fallacy: there was no 'partition' in 1947.
By Ahmed Quraishi
Wednesday, 26 August 2009.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan�While we should thank India's former foreign minister for his courage in praising the charismatic leader of Pakistan's independence movement, we should stop behaving as if we are seeking validation and vindication. Mr. Jaswant Singh's book is not a Pakistani victory. It is a sincere attempt by an Indian citizen to probe what is commonly known as partition, which itself is based on the false notion that a sovereign India was wrongly divided. For us in Pakistan, we should realize that our independence � and not 'partition' � is steeped in both modern and old histories and requires no explanation. [Continued below the picture]
Nice of Jaswant. But he is wrong in concluding Pakistan emerged because of Indian politics. Pakistan was destined to happen. People like the Quaid-e-Azam and Allama Mohamed Iqbal were instruments in Pakistan's rise, not the cause. The cause goes deep in history.
Pakistani intellectuals continue to be afflicted with low self-esteem that prevents them from fashioning an interpretation of history supportive of the idea of Pakistani nationalism. In this, our intellectuals are far behind the thinkers in Israel, for example, who achieved the impossible by reviving a 2,000-year-old dead language to gel a nation of diverse peoples.
Our politicians and thinkers failed to make something out of Pakistan in the past six decades mainly because of the lack of pride that comes from a sense of being, a sense of destiny, a sense of history. This discussion is also important because we have seen brazen attempts during the last two years, especially in the US media, to promote the idea of Pakistan's balkanization.
Finding a nationalistic motivation, a sort of PakNationalism, is essential.
The first thing Pakistanis need to know is that Pakistan was destined to happen. Our leader, Mr. Jinnah, made it happen through his sheer brilliance because he was there. But Pakistan was going to happen anyway, in some shape or form and at an opportune time, because of the force of history. Pakistan was not a historical coincidence that the common historical version suggests and which Mr. Singh reinforced. There is no coincidence in the fact that a quarter of a century before Quaid-e-Azam's rise, a poet who wore a Turkish tarboosh (hat) and wrote Persian poetry predicted such a country. Pakistan's rise came exactly 90 years after the formal fall of the Mughal empire, Pakistan's predecessor, which was the only India the world had known for centuries. Except for that 90-year-long gap, Pakistan had existed in several shapes and forms and for at least ten centuries or more.
Our Indian friends have the right to debate the question of India's supposed division. But today�s India, born in 1947, was never divided or partitioned. It a historical fallacy to think that Pakistan was ever part of any united and sovereign Indian state. The only thing that was divided in 1947 was a British colony that in turn was based on a defunct Muslim empire. The Indian grievance about the 'partition' that is at the core of Indian animosity toward Pakistan is without base.
What is more surprising is how Pakistan's intellectuals were drawn by Mr. Singh's book to conclude that Pakistan's founding father was an 'Indian nationalist' who did not want Pakistan as a first choice. This is incorrect because it negates the force of history that favored Pakistan. Tens of millions of people wanted to be future Pakistani citizens before the country even existed. The timely and superb leadership of Mr. Jinnah was an instrument, not the cause.
Sixty-two years later, Pakistanis shouldn't be discussing details. We know there was a Pakistan independence movement. We know it was anchored in history. We know that the fourth and fifth generations of today's Pakistanis are more integrated than ever, sharing similar ethnic and cultural roots spread over three dynamic regions that surround Pakistan.
This is the reality of Mr. Jinnah's PakNationalism. And this is the only thing that matters.
Pakistan's Quaid-e-Azam was a Pakistani nationalist. He was the istrument that helped Pakistan fulfil its destiny, a destiny preordained by the force of history.
|