Posted on: May 3, 2012

When the media feel free to publish anything and everything critical of Pakistan, indeed its very basis and cast doubts on Jinnah and his motives in the name of freedom of the press but refuses to honour the journalistic ethic to print a piece like this to balance it, there is good reason to ponder and worry:

(K. Hussan Zia)

Much has been written and spoken of late about partition of the subcontinent in some sections of the media that questions Jinnah’s motives and doubts if a separate country was indeed called for or good for the Muslims. The claim of the subcontinent’s Muslims to a separate identity is denounced as obscurantist, retrogressive and a folly.

In the process historical facts are often distorted and misrepresented. The ghosts of thoroughly discredited politicians, rejected by the masses at the time and whose only call to fame was that they had opposed the idea of Pakistan, are resurrected and glorified. There is a conscious attempt to re-write history that could potentially undermine the belief and faith of unwary Pakistanis.

To put things in proper perspective, after 1857 Muslims were singled out for the worst kind of retribution by the British. The prevailing sentiment was summed up in a letter to his father by A. C. Lyall, a British civil servant, ‘If the Musalman could by any means be entirely exterminated, it could be the greatest possible step towards civilizing and Christianizing Hindustan’.

At the same time a decision was made to drive a wedge between Muslims and Hindus. The Viceroy, Lord Canning, wrote to the Board of Control in London, ‘The men who fought us at Delhi were of both creeds. —- As we must rule 150 million people by a handful (more or less) of Englishmen, let us do it in the manner best calculated to leave them divided’.

Since Hindus were in overwhelming majority, they were favoured and patronized. A nexus developed between the two that resulted in the Muslims becoming, in the words of Sir William Hunter, commissioned to enquire into the effects of this policy, ‘a race ruined under British rule —- there is now scarcely a Government office in Calcutta in which a Muhammadan can hope for any post above the rank of porter, messenger, filler of inkpots and mender of pens’ (‘The Indian Musalmans: Are They Bound in Conscience to Rebel Against the Queen?’ p.19).

To quote some examples of this discrimination, in Bengal where Muslims were in a majority, out of the 160 Fellows at Calcutta University in 1918 only seven were Muslims. The university Senate and Syndicate did not have even one Muslim member. Out of the 895 examiners, there were only nine Muslims. Similarly, in the Punjab University out of a total of sixty-eight professors in 1933 only nine were Muslim. In 1945, it was sixteen out of a total of eighty-two. In the first half century of the university’s existence not a single Muslim was appointed to the key Registrar’s position.

The same sorry state for Muslims existed in every government department and private organization, with the exception of the lower ranks in the Indian Army and police. There were a total of 957 judges and magistrates officiating in the Bengal courts in 1901 out of which only 98 were Muslims. In the five major railway companies, EBR, EIR, GIP, NWR and Burma Railways, that operated in India in 1933, out of a total of 1,048 gazetted officers there were only 45 Muslims. In the Telegraph Department of the Government of India in 1910 there were a total of forty Divisional Officers. Not one of these was a Muslim. Among the lower staff, there were 12 Muslims in a total of 429 (Do Kaumi Nazria, by Professor Ahmed Saeed, Nazria-e-Pakistan Foundation, Lahore).

Hindus regarded and treated the Muslims in social matters as ‘Untouchables’. At most official functions, the tables for Hindus were laid out separately to the rest. Most Hindu shopkeepers would not hand over merchandise directly to a Muslim customer. It was placed at the end of a paddle and dropped into his hands or a sack to avoid any contact with the maleech.

They dressed differently, followed a different calendar and lived in segregated areas, even stayed in separate hotels where Muslims and Christians were not welcome. Separate vendors provided water to Hindus at railway stations. Their food, social mores and traditions, indeed entire ethos was different. Inter-marriages were taboo. They did not co-exist peacefully either. Bloody riots broke out with regular monotony. In the face of this the claim that Indians constituted a single unified nation can only be described as a ludicrous and delusional myth.

Perhaps the most telling contrast in the situation of Hindus and the Muslims in India was in the economic field. Hindus under the British dominated commerce, banking and industry. Any Muslim venturing into the commercial arena was denied credit and systematically squeezed out. The areas that comprised Pakistan produced eighty per cent of India’s jute and cotton crops but virtually all of the processing plants and facilities were owned by the Hindus.

Their domination became starkly evident at the time of Partition after Hindus and Sikhs moved out. The cities appeared like ghost towns. In Lahore, all the shops in Anarkali and The Mall were closed. Houses in the more affluent areas were abandoned. The number of cars left on the roads was probably less than half a dozen. The railways ceased to operate and road transport was minimal. It was the same with the Post and Telegraph and other service departments. Virtually all the banks were close and economic activity brought to a grinding halt.

Compare this with the situation today to appreciate the blessing that is Pakistan. We were told that the country would not survive economically. Now, it has a vibrant middle class that constitutes forty per cent of the population, as against twenty-five per cent next door. The share of Muslims, who constitute about fourteen per cent of the population in India today, is no more than one per cent in the white collar jobs and about three per cent in the blue collar jobs. In the armed forces it is less than half per cent. According to Sachar Commission, set up by the Indian Government recently to enquire into the state of minorities, Muslims are now worse off than the Untouchables.

In effect this is exactly what people like Abul Kalam Azad, Abdul Ghaffar Khan and their ilk had stood for would have achieved. It is a worrisome question, why is it that a significant section of our media today euologises these figures and champions their cause while sparing no opportunity to castigate and ridicule Jinnah?

What transpired at the time of Partitition can never be forgotten. Close to a million innocent people were brutally murdered —- more than ninety-five per cent of them Muslims. East Punjab was turned into a picture of Dante’s Hell. Village after Muslim village was burnt to the ground and unsuspecting inhabitants struck down in the cruelest ways imaginable. Pregnant women had their bellies ripped open; others had their breasts sliced off. Many jumped into wells and killed themselves rather than fall into the hands of murdering Sikhs. Babies were cut in half or had their skulls smashed before throwing them back to their dying mothers. Children were burnt alive in fire pits. It went on for four months without let until there was no Muslim left in the province.

Members of a supposedly cohesive nation do not go on rampages and orgies of slaughter and mayhem against their own. The victims may have belonged to a different religion but like the rest they too had become citizens of free and professedly secular India. Yet the State did little to protect them. In many cases it actively participated in the blood-lust. There were numerous cases in which local officials accompanied the bands of killers to facilitate their grisly work. No man was ever put on trial for the horrendous atrocities. We have to ask, would the reaction have been the same if the victims had been Hindus?

There are memories that continue to haunt. Each night when the alarm was sounded I, only thirteen at the time, would pick up the shotgun and rush to the roof to take position next to my father. As we lay there in the stillness of the dark night waiting for the attack to materialize, he would remind me that if he died first not to use up all of the cartridges but save at least one each for my mother and sisters to make sure they would not fall into the hands of the Sikhs alive. Try as one might, it is impossible to get rid of the image of what might have happened had we been overrun. Only Allah saved us from the tragic fate that befell a million others whose luck had run out. He also gave us a safe haven for the future.

This is what makes Pakistan so precious for without it the future would have been very bleak. Freedom can’t be taken for granted. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. There are enemies both external and within. It is the latter that are most dangerous. The threat can take many forms. It is for each of us to guard against it. There is no better way than to follow the Quaid’s dictum and maintain our unity, faith and discipline.

The writer is author of ‘Pakistan: Roots, Perspective and Genesis’ and ‘Muslims and the West: A Muslim Perspective’.



The British outwitted the Great Indian Nation by dividing them so that they rule this huge population with a handful of Englishmen since the mid 19th century. Obviously Muslims, the rulers, had to be the first victims. Result is still visible even after they had gone. The divided India just cannot merge as one nation, retarding the development of this region, which would have been a great threat, not only to the “West” but also to any other great powers. The Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Parsis and Christians of India were outclassed by the masters.

Mr. Jinnah was the kingpin for Pakistan’s future and development as a nation. After his demise, no leader of any consequence emerged from among the Muslims to even follow up on what he built. All subsequent leaders were mediocre at their best, intellectual pygmies, corrupt, extremely self-centered and rode on the slogan of “democracy” without understanding even its meaning! Pakistani people deserve what they have got from their “elected” leaders.

Great pity that Pakistan lost its founding father and the only leader so soon after its birth.

But let not the present mess lead to doubting the wisdom of seeking to establish as an independent entity. There is every need to stay reminded of the rationale for our struggle for an independent Pakistan. Even though it occupies some space, it is MUST read stuff what Mr. Jinnah had to say to Beverly Nichols back in 1944 for the book he (BN) was writing!

From a book, “Verdict on India” by Beverly Nichols, written in 1944.

The most important man in Asia is sixty-seven, tall, thin, and elegant, with a monocle on a grey silk cord, and a stiff white collar, which he wears in the hottest weather. He suggests a gentleman of Spain, a diplomat of the old school; one used to see his like sitting in the window of the St. James’s Club, sipping Contrexe-ville while he read Le Temps, which was propped against a Queen Anne toast rack stacked with toast Melba.

I have called Mr. Jinnah the most important man in Asia. That was to ensure that you kept him spotlight in your mind. Like all superlatives the description is open to argument, but it is not really so far from the truth. India is likely to be the world’s greatest problem for some years to come, and Mr. Jinnah is in a position of unique strategic importance. He can sway the battle this way or that as he chooses. His 100 million Muslims will march to the left, to the right, to the front, to the rear at his bidding, and at nobody else’s, that is the point. It is not the same in the Hindu ranks. If Gandhi goes, there is always Nehru, or Rajagopalacharriya or Patel or a dozen others. But if Jinnah goes, who is there?

By this I do not mean that the Muslim League would disintegrate—it is far too homogeneous and virile a body—but that its actions would be incalculable. It might run completely off the rails, and charge through India with fire and slaughter; it might start another war. As long as Jinnah is there, nothing like this will happen.

And so, you see. a great deal hangs on the grey silk cord of that monocle.

I first met him on December 18th, 1943. He said he could give me half an hour, and gave me nearly three. In that space of time he surveyed a very wide field; the gist of his remarks, however, the living essence, is in the following dialogue, which he has been good enough to edit.

Here we are then, sitting in a quiet room looking out on to a garden, discussing one of the most important problems in the world, with the man most competent to solve it.


SELF… The most common accusation of your critics is that you have not defined Pakistan with sufficient precision—that there are many details of defence, economics, minorities, etc., which you have left deliberately vague. Do you think that is a just criticism?

Jinnah… It is neither just nor intelligent, particularly if it is made by an Englishman with any knowledge of his own history. When Ireland was separated from Britain, the document embodying the terms of separation was approximately ten lines. Ten, hues of print to settle a dispute of incredible complexity which has poisoned British politics for centuries! All the details were left to the Future—and the Future is often, an, admirable arbitrator. Well, I’ve already given the world a good deal more than ten lines to indicate the principles and practice of Pakistan, but it is beyond the power of any man to provide, in advance, a blue-print in which every detail is settled. Besides, Indian history proves that such a blue-print is totally unnecessary. Where was the blue-print, when the question of Burma’s separation was decided at the Round Table Conference? Where was the blue-print when Sind was separated from Bombay? The answer, of course, is * nowhere. It didn’t exist. It didn’t need to exist. The vital point was that the principle of separation was accepted; the rest followed automatically.

Self… How would you describe the ‘vital principles’ * of Pakistan?

Jinnah…. In five words. The Muslims are a Nation. If you grant that, and if you are an honest man, you must grant the principle of Pakistan. You would have to grant it even if the obstacles were a hundred times more formidable than they actually are. Of course, if you do not grant it, then,.. . He shrugged his shoulders and smiled.. .Then, there is an, end of the matter.

Self….. When you say the Muslims are a Nation, are you thinking in terms of religion?

Jinnah…. Partly, but by no means exclusively. You must remember that Islam is not merely a religious doctrine but a realistic and practical Code of Conduct. I am thinking in terms of life, of everything important in life. I am thinking in terms of our history, our heroes, our art, our architecture, our music, our laws, our jurisprudence…

Self….. Please, I would like to write these things down.

Jinnah (after a pause). In all these things our outlook is not only fundamentally different but often radically antagonistic to the Hindus. We are different beings. There is nothing in life which links us together. Our names, our clothes, our foods—they are all different; our economic life, our educational ideas, our treatment of women, our attitude to animals.. we challenge each other at every point of the compass. Take one example, the eternal question of the cow. We eat the cow, the Hindus worship it. A lot of Englishmen imagine that this cow-worship is merely a picturesque convention, an historical survival. It is nothing of the sort. Only a few days ago, in this very city, the cow question became a matter for the police. The Hindus were thrown into the greatest agitation because cows were being killed in public. But the cow question is only one of a thousand. (A pause) What have you written down?

Self… I have only written ‘The Muslims are a Nation’.

Jinnah…. And do you believe it?

Self…… I do.

Jinnah … What other questions have you got there?

Self…. The first is economic. Are the Muslims likely to be richer or poorer under Pakistan? And would you set up tariffs against the rest of India?

Jinnah…… I’ll ask you a question for a change. Supposing you were asked which you would prefer…a rich England under Germany or a poor England free, what would your answer be?

Self ….It’s hardly necessary to say.

Jinnah…. Quite. Well, doesn’t that make your question look a little shoddy? This great ideal rises far above mere questions of personal comfort or temporary convenience. The Muslims are a tough people, lean and hardy. If Pakistan means that they will have to be a little tougher, they will not complain. But why should it mean that? What conceivable reason is there to suppose that the gift of nationality is going to be an economic liability? A sovereign nation of a hundred million people—even if they are not immediately self-supporting and even if they are industrially backward is hardly likely to be in a worse economic position than if its members are scattered and disorganized, under the dominance of two hundred and fifty million Hindus whose one idea is to exploit them. How any European can get up and say that Pakistan is ‘economically impossible’ after the Treaty of Versailles is really beyond my comprehension. The great brains, who cut Europe into a ridiculous patchwork of conflicting and artificial boundaries, are hardly the people to talk economics to us, particularly as our problem happens to be far simpler.

Self ….And does that also apply to defence?

Jinnah…. Of course it applies to defence. Once again I will ask you a question. How is Afghanistan defended? Well? The answer is not very complicated. By the Afghans. Just that. We are a brave and united people who are prepared to work and, if necessary, fight. So how does the question of defence present any peculiar* difficulties? In what way do we differ from other nations? From Iran, for example? Obviously, there will have to be a transition period. We are not asking the British to quit India overnight. The British have helped to make this gigantic muddle, and they must stay and help to clear it up. But before they can do that, they will *have to do a lot of hard thinking. And that reminds me—I have something I would like to show you.

He excused himself and left the room. I lit a cigarette and waited. And suddenly I realized that something very remarkable was happening, or rather was not happening. I was not Iosing my temper. Jinnah had been almost brutally critical of British policy (though I have not quoted his remarks in the above dialogue), but his criticism had been clear and creative. It was not merely a medley of wild words, a hotchpotch of hatred and hallucination, in the Hindu manner. It was more like a diagnosis. The difference between, Jinnah and the typical Hindu politician was the difference between a surgeon and a witch doctor. Moreover, he was a surgeon you could trust, even though his verdict was harsh.

“The British must realize”, he had said to me before we tackled the problem of Pakistan, “that they are not a friend in the country. Not a friend”. A Hindu politician would have said that at the top of his voice, with delight. Jinnah said it quietly, with regret. Here he was again. In his hand he carried a book.

Jinnah… You will remember I said, a moment ago, that the British would have to do a lot of hard thinking. It’s a habit they don’t find very congenial; they prefer to be comfortable, to wait and see, trusting that everything will come right in the end. However, when they do take the trouble to think, they think as clearly and creatively as any people in the world. And one of their best thinkers—at least on the Indian problem—was old John Bright. Have you ever read any of his speeches?

Self: Not since I left school.

Jinnah ….Well, take a look at this. I found it by chance the other day.

He handed me the book. It was a faded old volume, The Speeches of John Bright, and the date of the page at which it was opened was June 4th, 1858. This is what the greatest orator in the House of Commons said on that occasion:

“How long does England propose to govern India? Nobody can answer that question. But be it 50 or 100 or 500 years, does any man with the smallest glimmering of common sense believe that so great a country, with its 20 different nationalities and its 20 different languages can ever be bound up and consolidated into one compact and enduring empire confine? I believe such a thing to be utterly impossible”

I handed back the book.

Jinnah…. What Bright said then is true to-day. In fact, it’s far more true — though, of course, the emphasis is not so much on the 20 nationalities as on the 2 — the Muslim and the Hindu. And why is it more true? Why hasn’t time brought us together? Because the Muslims are awake, because they’ve learnt, through bitter experience, the sort of treatment they may expect from the Hindus in a ‘United India’. A “United India” means a Hindu dominated India. It means that and nothing else. Any other meaning you attempt to impose on it is mythical. “India is a British creation…it is merely a single administrative unit governed by a bureaucracy under the sanction of the sword. That is all. It is a paper creation, it has no basis in flesh and blood.

Self….. The ironical thing is that your critics say that Pakistan itself is a British creation—that it is an example of our genius for applying the principle of ‘divide and rule’.

Jinnah (with some heat) …..The man who makes such a suggestion must have a very poor opinion of British intelligence, apart from his opinion of my own integrity. The one thing which keeps the British in India is the false idea of a United India, as preached by Gandhi. A United India, I repeat, is a British creation—a myth, and a very dangerous myth, which will cause endless strife. As long as that strife exists, the British have an excuse for remaining. For once in a way, ‘divide and rule* does not apply.

Self… What you want is “divide and quit *?

Jinnah…. You have put it very neatly.

Self… You realize that all this will come as something of a shock to the British electorate?

Jinnah ….Truth is often shocking. But why this truth in particular?

Self…. Because the average, decent, liberal-minded voter, who wishes Britain to fulfill her pledges, and grant independence to India, has heard nothing but the Congress point of view. The Muslims have hardly a single spokesman in the West.

Jinnah (bitterly) …..I am well aware of that. The Hindus have organized a powerful Press and Congress—Mahasabha are backed up by Hindu capitalists and industrialists with finance which we have not got.

Self …..As a result they believe that Congress is “India” and since Congress never tires of repeating that India is one and indivisible, they imagine that any attempt to divide it is illiberal, reactionary, and generally sinister. They seriously do believe this. I know that it is muddle-headed, but then a democracy such as ours, which has to make up its mind on an incredible number of complicated issues usually is muddle-headed. What they have to bar is that the only liberal course, the only generous course, the only course compatible with a sincere intention to quit India and hand over the reins of government…

Jinnah…. And the only safe course, you might add, is…

SELF: Pakistan!

JINNAH: The essence of Pakistan—at least of its spirit—is found in the foregoing dialogue. To give a complete exposition, of the details of the plan, in a book of this size, would be quite impossible. It would need a sheaf of maps and pages of statistics, and it would carry us far afield, over the borders of India, and involve us in a great deal of unprofitable speculation.

It is fairly certain, however, that the reader who takes the trouble to go really deeply into the matter, with a mind unwrapped by prejudice, will come to the conclusion, that Pakistan offers no insuperable difficulties, economic, ethnographic, political or strategic, and is likely, indeed, to prove a good deal easier of attainment than a large number of similar problems which the world has successfully resolved in the past fifty years. It is, of course, a major surgical operation, but unfortunately there are occasions in the lives of nations, as of individuals, when major surgical operations are not only desirable but vitally necessary. And this is one of those occasions. The constant friction between the Hindu and Muslim nations has produced something which strongly resembles a cancer in the body politic. There is only one remedy for a cancer, in its advanced stages and that is the knife. Gandhi’s faith cures, British soothing syrup, the ingenious nostrums which are proffered by eager hands throughout the world—all these are useless. They only aggravate the patient’s condition and make his ultimate cure more difficult. To the knife it will have to come in the end, and surely one knife, used swiftly and with precision is better than a million knives, hacking in, blind anarchy, in the dark?

What is strange, in the whole Pakistan controversy, is not the support which it is slowly gaining among all realistic men but the opposition which it still evokes from sincere well-wishers of India. This is, of course, due to the strength and persistence of Congress propaganda, backed by Hindu big business. The Hindus have almost a monopoly of propaganda. By subtle and persistent suggestion they have managed to persuade the world that they are ‘India,’ and that any attempt to divide ‘India’ is a wicked ‘plot on the part of the British, acting on the well-established principle of divide and rule.

Most liberals of the West have fallen for this propaganda, hook, line, and sinker. Consequently we have the extraordinary spectacle of ‘advanced’ British politicians rising to their feet in the House of Commons, and solemnly and sincerely pleading the cause of Indian ‘Unity’ in the joint cause of Indian independence—sublimely ignorant of the fact that their insistence on this so-called ‘United’ is the one and only thing that keeps the British in the saddle!

Unite and Rule.

Divide and Quit.

Those words should be prominent on the desks of all those who offer their opinions on India and her problems.

And even more remarkable aspect of the success of Congress propaganda is that it has been accepted by vast bodies of men and women who really are genuinely disturbed by the grievances of oppressed minorities in any other part of the world but India. They will call urgent committee meetings to discuss a fancies slight to the Slovaks, they drive themselves nearly crazy worrying over the Hungarians in Romania or the Austrians in Northern Italy, but they remain completely apathetic to the wrongs of 100 million Muslims, whose claims to nationality and independence are far more ancient and far more urgent. If these people were not so obviously sincere, they might well be accused of perfidious Albionism on a scale almost unparalleled in history.

I wish that there were space to speculate on the probable results to the world of the adoption, by the British Government, of the policy of ‘Divide and Quit’. I myself believe that it would be salutary not only for India, but for Britain and all mankind. It would be a natural step forward in the March of Time. It would cleanse the world’s bosom of much perilous stuff. And if it were done quickly, cleanly, and without compromise, it might reap for Britain golden rewards, not only in the things of merce but in the things of the spirit, by reminding us of our kinship with the great Muslim world, with which, if we would only admit it, we are so proud an affinity.


A friend who has read this chapter made the following comment : Jinnah, as you have enunciated him, sounds convincing, but to what extent does he really represent Muslim opinion? Is the Muslim League, in actual fact, identical with Muslim India? If it is, then Pakistan wins; if it is not, and if there is any considerable body of Muslims who oppose the League, your whole argument falls to the ground.

This is an important point, and it deserves an, answer. It can be given very briefly.

If the Muslim League does not represent Muslim India, one may politely inquire who does? If there is any other organization challenging its right to speak for the Muslim masses, what is it? Where is it hiding itself? And why, if there were even the faintest shadow of opposition to the League in the Muslim ranks, why, oh why is even the Congress unaware of its existence? Why does Congress confine all its complaints, so loudly and bitterly, to the League? Why does Congress proclaim, day in and day out, that it is with the League that they must reach a settlement? Why does Gandhi address all his pleas, his admonitions, and his scoldings to Jinnah, the leader of the League?

The answer, surely, is sufficiently obvious; it is because the League is Muslim India. There are no discordant voices for the simple reason that the League is the complete expression of the Muslim Trill.

For those who like statistics, the figures are overwhelmingly convincing. With only one exception, every single by-election FOUGHT BY THE MUSLIMS ANYWHERE IN INDIA DURING THE LAST SEVEN YEARS HAS BEEN WON BY LEAGUE CANDIDATES.

They were cent per cent pro-Pakistan, their programmes contained not the faintest shadow of the suggestion of compromise or prevarication, and they swept the board, every time, everywhere.

*A curious case is the United Provinces, where local and personal prejudices confused the issue. In Bengal, in Assam, in the North-West Frontier, in Sind, in all the provinces, in fact, which Pakistan will eventually absorb. In the Central Legislature itself, out of 80 Muslim seats, 28 are held by vehement Leaguers.

If that is not the expression of the Muslim people’s will, it would be legitimate to inquire what was!

While reading this chapter from Beverly Nichols’ Book, it at once clears up one’s mind why Qaid -e- Azam who was once declared an apostle of Hindu Muslim Unity was forced to take a great leap forward to demand for a separate nationhood for the Muslims of India and ask for what was then and even now aspired as a land of the pure.
I thank Zahid Majid, who has done a good job by reproducing this piece. Though Nichols called this a verdict [on India] back in 1944, yet this VERDICT on the history of the subcontinent still holds as true as it was in the mid 1940′s.
The anti Pakistan forces, individuals, groups and parties may think whatever they have in mind as their truth but the facts stand to approve the statesman-vision of the Qaid.
Zahid Majid is right when he says, “Mr. Jinnah was the kingpin for Pakistan’s future and development as a nation. After his demise, no leader of any consequence emerged from among the Muslims to even follow up on what he built. All subsequent leaders were mediocre at their best, intellectual pygmies, corrupt, extremely self-centered and rode on the slogan of “democracy” without understanding even its meaning! ”
This is the very dilemma that we as a nation have been facing right after the Qaid departed from here to eternity.
Zahid Majid calls these post Jinnah politicos [what to speak of the fauji jernails, who in their fortified offices and cantonments are always embedded in their strong disciplinary rotes and ‘order is order’ culture] as intellectual pygmies. But I think they were mere pygmies and no intellectuals for had these nincompoops the slightest semblance of intellect in them, we would never have come to the impasse we are in now.
But again to equate this state of affairs with a question mark on the vision of the Qaid or on the very basis of Pakistan’s creation as an independent, sovereign nation state, is like putting the circle of history back to the point from where we started our journey as a nation.
Pakistan was bound to emerge this way or that way. Its geographical contours might have been different than what they are today. But the way the history was unfloding in those turbulent and last days of the Raj, Pakistan was bound to appear on the surafce of this earth. Jinnah accelerated its momentm and became the prime vehicle to bring such a change in the geopgraphical boundaries of the apparently ‘united’ but intrinsically ‘ununited’ Hindustan.
The problem arose only when that visionary, that great leader Jinnah left us and we as a nation were orphaned.
Now having spent almost 65 years in this wildeness, we are encountering another very serious challenge to our national fabric in the form of this religious intolerance. A psyche that slowly but steadily is creeping into our very national character. Again the reason for this has been lack of vision that characterised the post Jinnah leadership in Pakistan [if at all those bunch of nincompoops can be called a leadership] [Nayyar]
Note: This comment alongwith some related posts on this subject are available on Wonders of Pakistan weblog. Readers who are interested further to read about this most relevant subject on raison d etre, emergence and current state of affairs of our state can simply take the link to this comment and then interlink via this post to other related articles as well.

Apropos the article by K. Hussan Zia, ‘Significance of Pakistan’, readers who are interested to further delve into this subject, I would recommed them following post with a note from my behalf. It appeared in bloggers spot and can be accessed by taking the following links:
The Prevailing Western View On Pakistan Part 1 of 2
The Prevailing Western View On Pakistan Part 2 of 2

With due regard to Mian Aziz’s views on creation and significance of Pakistan, am constrained to comment as follows:-

To call creation of Pakistan as a blunder is the biggest blunder in itself. He should better equip himself with historical facts. Once he delves deep into the circumstances that led to the development of a demand and then a movement for a separate homeland for the majority Muslim areas of undivided Hindostan, it would then dawn upon him that it took Muslims years to come to this conclusion. As I already have said, Pakistan was bound to emerge this way or that way Qaid-e-Azam became the prime mover and shaker of this concept because:

(1) he became an ardent advocate for the rights of Muslims not per se but because of what All India Congress had practically demanded of him i.e. accept what Congress gives to your community or otherwise you may not even get what we are offering you now. As a man of honour, intellect and vision, Qaid-e-Azam refused to accept such a draconian offer. He defiantly stood in the way of the Congress [which in any way was a Hindu dominated party which included such Muslim haters as Sardar Valab Bhai patel]. Even Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru who claimed himself a secular and a liberal Indian nationalist and totally unbiased as far as religious orientation was concerned, almost tip towed the line of Hindu fundamentalists like Patel.

(2) Qaid-e-Azam was a man f law. His intellect, manouverability and interpretation of law was so perfect and sharp that even his opponents could feel the punch. Having had personal frustration at the hands of the Congress to muster proper rights for his fellow Musiims, he articulately used all his personal strength and traits to get Pakistan for his people.

Separation of East Pakistan was a tragedy. The people of Bangladesh decided to secede from Pakistan because the the bureaucracy which wa then dominated by the Mohajirs and the Punjabi Baboos who looked down upon the Bengalis as something of an inferior type, thus depriviing them of their due rights as citizens of Pakistan.These Baboos in cahoots with the military generals [who governed this land of the Qaid one after another] denied the East Pakistanis [present Bangladeshis] the due rights, even though they were a majority in the federal set up.

And then we are having bad governanve ever since the great Qaid left us.

K. Hussan Zia in his insightful post followed by a very pertinent comment by Zahid Majid have very expressly stated how these nincompoops who appeared one after another on the political scene of Pakistan all did their blunders to bring us to the present impasse. But Mian Aziz should better undestand if a part of your body has gone seriouslydiseased, it doesn’t mean you should condemn your whole corpus as a blunder because it is terribly diseased. You don’t commit suicide because you have serious malaise in your body politics. Instead you go for a proper surgery, as my Great Qaid would have said at this most critical juncture of our contemporary history “Do the Knife” and this is exactly what we need. This time we don’t need the knife against the Hindus but against our own Mafiosis. This is exactly what we need. Do the knife: to get rid of these kleptomanics, Do the knife to get rid of those generals who molest our constitution and grab power through barrel of the gun. Do the knife against politicos who have prostituted the sacred soil of Pakistan, its people, its honour and its glory.


From: Mian Aziz
None of worthy contributors have understood the COST of BLUNDER of making of Pakistan. Millions of innocents suffered. Half the Pakistanis are proud BANGLADESHIS. Half million BIHARIS(non-Bengali Muslims) are not accepted in Pakistan, and also BANGLADESHIS do not accept them for collaborating with Pakistan army. QAID E AZAM was an able, honest and dedicated person, but, except for PROPHETS, all great men have made BLUNDERS with best of intentions. This BLUNDER has already cost Muslims of sub-continent great suffering. HATE breeds hate. SAND CASTLE of Pakistan was a BLUNDER. Let us pray that present Pakistan stays and prospers despite ………

Baluchis want freedom from Pakistan. Karachi: TARGET KILLING continues. SUNNIS are killing SHIAS. Terrorists out-number army and are free to explode bombs as they please. THE TEST IS WHAT GOOD CAME OFGREAT BLUNDER except a few thousands got out of turn promotions, few hundreds became rich due to no competition.
Best wishes

All renowned historians, right from Gibbon to Toynbee, agree on one point, that nations fall when they stop thinking as a nation. Or when they loose confidence and pride as a nation or they fail to self respect. The very first symptom of such fall is the affliction that befalls such people, such nations, such communities is the indifference, the apathy which they have over their nation’s resilience. Doubts are cast on their leader’s vision and they start eulogising the opponents of their founding father / s.
Let’s have a look over the events that were taking shape before creation of Pakistan, an event declared a miracle then, and a great miracle indeed it was. It has had no parallel in history.
Our great Quaid who became colossal instrument of this great change has been paid tribute as follows:
” Few individuals significantly alter the course of history, fewer still modify the map of the world; and hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah DID ALL THREE.
Hailed as great leader [Quaid-e-Azam] of Pakistan and its first Governor General, Jinnah virtually conjured up the country into statehood by the force of his indomitable will”. [Stanley Wolpert in Jinnah of Pakistan].
One might here ask, could the Quaid succeed in his endeavour without the support and confidence of his people? The answer is a definite No. The Quaid proved in his 50 years career this point and, therefore, in him, his people had unflinching faith. They were so convinced of his veracity, his vision, his steadfast character and his style, that they had firm conviction of Jinnah’s incorruptiblity, that he has no match either in the Congress or in any other party whatsoever and of whosoever. So Muslims of Hindostan were convinced that he, Jinnah is the redeemer of their national spirations. No wonder that Muslims from Ras Kumari to Khyber chanted in one voice, “Millat ka paasban hae Mohammad Ali Jinnah”.
The confidence that Jinnah had of his people was reflected in the 1945-46 elections which were contested on the issue of Pakistan or no Pakistan; when Muslim League, the party Jinnah was leading had all the Muslim seats of the Legislative Assembly. Even such provinces that had Muslim minority populations, overwhelmingly voted for Jinnah’s Pakistan.
History has termed this achievement by India’s Muslim as a great miracle but regrettably, NOW after 65 years, some of our thinkers and pseudo intellectuals try to cast doubts on this great achievement. Some time they doubt the vision of the Quaid, another time they accuse him of dividing the Muslims of the subcontinet and then again some even cast their doubted aspersions on the very raison d’etre of Pakistan as a nation state.
These pseudo intellectuals not only try to downplay the monumental task completed by the Quaid, but also endeavour to smear the towering persona of the father of the nation. In so doing not only do they demonstarte their ignorance of historical facts but also give air to their disappointment over their favourite leader/s’ rejection by Muslim masses, who to their frustration believed in Jinnah and Jinnah alone.
The pseudos have an objective: Our youth who haven’t seen the ways the Muslims were stung by the All India Congress, didn’t see Pakistan emerge on the world map, nor they had chance to watch the greatness of the Quaid and his vision through which he steered the course of his nation from the clutches of the Hindu led Congress, that they, our youth, get disgusted with the concept of a nation of Pakistan. To achiev their nefarious approach, their vey first target is the Quaid, a leader whom the whole world pays tributes, including his arch enemies. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was once watching a programme telecast by the BBC. Titled as ‘End of the Empire’ there was a clip where Lord Mountbatten was being interviewed. And so said Mountbatten, “I persuaded Jinnah to accept a united India and used all my tricks, all my intellect, all my persuasive power but to no avail”. So continued the last Viceroy of India, “Jinnah was a cold man, once he was convinced of something, no power on earth could make him change his stance”.
As we all know, in the very first phase of his political life, the Quaid was acclaimed as an apostle of Hindu Muslim unity. He was one of the leading figures of the All India Congress. But when he recognised the true motives, the true designs of the AIC, which by then had almost become a party of the Hindus, he parted his ways. After this juncture, he devoted his programme wholely and solely, his political ideals and his career in the service of his people.
Here we cannot overlook the fact that the Quaid had spent almost quarter of a century struggling in the AICC to secure rights for his community, but once he concluded that the Hindu leadership in the AICC would never agree to give rights to his people, he left the Congress and started advocating for a separate homeland for India’s Muslims.
Those who cast doubts on Quaid’s vision, need to have a look on the plight of Muslims in the present day Bharat, where even after 65 years of independence, even though they are one fourth of India’s population, have a meagre 4 percent share in India’s civil service, a miniscule 2 perecent in the police and slightly above 1 percen in the finance and banking sector. Let’s not speak of the education sector which on its own is a highly dismal story altogether.
Though there are Muslims who reach the higher echelons of managment or power in India, but they are mostly such who have imbibed themselves in India’s Hindu culture, and copy their approach as far as possible.
Those amongst us who day and night sing Shining India mantra merely to convince our masses that were there no partition, no Pakistan, we too would have been part of this “shining” process in India, just should look how the present day Muslims are faring in the shine and glitter of Bharat.
The majority of Muslims in India even today are dirt poor, they are uneducated and are a text book definition of ignorant masses. As cited above their share in the Indian political life, in social, economic, and military sectors is a dismal low. Those who still believe that in an undivided India we too as Muslims would have enjoyed the same standard of living as the majority Hindu populace is enjoying there in India, need to read some of the brilliant articles Shobhan Saxina of the Times of India has put up in his newspaper.
By writing this, I do not mean to say that India should be taken as our enemy. Instead of playing ‘the enemy, enemy game’ both of us need to work in close collaboration. This objective stands in full understanding of the Quaid’s mission too, who wanted same relation to exist between India and Pakistan as one that exists between the USA and Canada. Both have the same geographical location, both have same culture, same language [barring the French speaking province of Quebec], same history, yet both are sovereign independent states and still they are highly fiendly. Instead of going into the whimsical if and buts, yun hota tau wun na hota, wun hota ta yun nah hota, we better shoud face the realities of today. Both are independent sovereign nations. Why not they act just as good neighbours and good friends as the USA and Canada are!
I do not doubt the intellect and sincerity of all those in Pakistan who go into these semantics of ifs and buts, yet they cannot demonstrate the wisdom to match that of the Quaid. As said, the Quaid struggled for many decades within the ambit of a United India to secure the rights for his community. But in spite of all his effort, all his endeavours, all his struggles, the Hindu leadership of the AICC did not agree for Muslims’ rights within the framework of a United India. Then and only then did he conclude that the only way to come out of this impasse was Pakistan.
And as I said in my earlier comment, Quaid was not the only one to steer the course of India’s Muslims towards a separate homeland, the fact is that right from 1857 till 1947 lot of other Muslims had experienced similar indifference from the leaders of the All India Congress. These included amongst others, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Allama Iqbal and finally the Quaid-e-Azam himself.
If the cognizance of Muslims in undivided India did not dawn on somebody, it was Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. I have a deep repsect for Maulana, he indeed was an ocean of knowledge. Without any iota of doubt he was Abul Kalam, but as far as the demand for Pakistan is concerned his stand did never satnd in sync with what Muslims in that turbulent days of our history wanted. A man as staunch an Indian nationalist as Sheikh Abdullah of Kashmir admits in his autobiography “Aatish-e-Chinar” that when he was removed from Kashmir’s premiership, he apprached Maulana for help but Maulana said he too was helpless because the decison making was in the hands of people like Sardar Walabh Bhai Patel. At another occasion he also cites Maulana as saying that of course he opposed the creation of Pakistan, but once it has come into being, we should accept it as a fait accompli.
Our present plight, our predicaments and our crisis apart, what the great Quaid had envisioned in pre-partition days, even today when we see the events unfolding right before us, events that confirm what Quaid had foreseen years years ago. Maulana like some other Muslim scholars opposed the idea of Pakistan. These included leaders like Maulana Maudoodi and Allama Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi. However, the later two were not against the creation of Pakistan per se, but they opposed the Quaid and his Muslim League, so they cannot be equated with Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who under the spell of Indian nationalism staunchly opposed Pakistan.
A question props again in my mind. How do we rank Jinnah or Iqbal in history and where does Maulana and such similar lot stand. It then dawns to every body that whereas Jinnah and Iqbal stand tall in the history of nations, Maulana on the other hand is hardly known perhaps not beyond the borders of present day India. So when I see some pseudos comparing Jinnah and Iqbal to such minions I just smile on such comparisons. Maulana A.K. Azad, Allama Inayat ullah Khan Mashriqi or even Maulana Abul Aala Maudoodi were great scholars but you cannot compare their vision, their genius, their foresight with that of Jinnah. Once again I quote Stanley Wolpert:
” Few individuals significantly alter the course of history, fewer still modify the map of the world; and hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah DID ALL THREE.”


Re: Significance of Pakistan
Three years back, I uploaded an article on my WordPress blog. The article was written by an Indian author (not a Muslim) and had described the conditions, which even the Bollywood Mussalman celebrities have to face (what to speak of a common Muslim), while going for purchase or take on rent a property in Mumbai. The article in particular mentioned the case of Emraan Hashmi, a popular hero of Hindi cinema.


After publication of the article, I received many derogatory remarks from Indian readers, who defended the actions/reactions of their fellow Hindus vis-a-vis Muslims, who intend to take on rent or purchase property in Mumbai’s posh localities, which of course are mainly populated by Hindus.

With the efforts that the Indian authorities make to create a homogenous environment (and they are doing this ever since the 1947 partition of the Indian subcontinent) between the Hindus and the Muslims (though without much success), so as to present their secular image to the outside world, I conjectured that in the meanwhile the situation might have improved. But as the latest news are coming up, it appears that the situation aeven after three years has not only remained unchanged, but to some extent, has worsened.

I’m writing these lines, not to blame India, as to what’s happening in their secuar society even today (in this regard many bad things are happening in our society as well,and to say so, they are much more here than they have there). But am writing this mainly to emphasize the point which started with the publication of that remarkable article by K. Husan Zia, which was simultaneously published in my WordPress blog as well as in ZJeddy’s TreasureChest.

By every passing day the Quaid’s vision is becoming manifest through the events that take place now and then in India and it strengthens our conviction in Quaid’s foresight as well as in the blessing that we have in the form of Pakistan.

I write these lines in particular for respected Mian Zia Sahib and Mr. Asghar Vassanwala who believe that had there ben no Pakistan, Muslims would have fared much better than they have now in Pakistan or in India. In this context I once again repeat what the Quaid had said to India’s last viceroy Lord Mountbatten. The latter had tried to bait the Quaid into certain concessions for the Muslims (if he was ready to revoke his demand for an independent state called Pakistan). The Qiad had then replied to the viceroy, No no. Mr. Mountbatten, with these concessions, my community will pay the price in form of being swamped by the vast Hindu majority. So no more revoking fom the demand for an independent Pakistan. Time has proved that Muslims indeed have been swamped by Hind majority in today’s India.

The two articles, one by the noted Indian op-ed writer (based in Dubai) and another one again by a Muslim writeress from India can be viewed here. These are titled as:-
1. The New Untouchables of India
2. No Muslims! please.

The first is available on my WordPress blog at the following link:
and the second one has been published on my Blogger’s spot at


Sorry, while pasting the link to the second part of the post ‘The Prevailing Western View on Pakistan’ the link got truncated. Hence the second part has not been ccessible via this link. Though in the post, the first part itself is interlinked to the second part and it works fine. Nevertheless, for convencience of your readers, I reproduce below once again the [complete] link, which should enable readers access the post directy from the link itself.
I regret the inconvience that might have been caused to Treasure Chest readers.


Two wrongs do not make a right.

” India’s Partition in the Face of Opposition: An Unveiled Perspective”
by Nasim Yousaf

The partition of British India has come to be viewed as inevitable. It is widely believed today that there was no other practical option for the nation of Muslims and Hindus, but to divide the country. Over time, this view has been endorsed by many writers, including those in the West, and indeed become virtually synonymous with a universal truth.

A closer re-examination of the facts, however, reveals a complex picture of the partition episode. While the two-nation theory certainly had its share of supporters, what seems to have been overlooked by many is that there was a tremendous amount of opposition to the division of India. Moreover, evidence substantiates that there was an intriguing alliance which was one of the key forces that ultimately led to partition.

As the traditional view on British India’s partition has been explored at length, this article examines the latter elements, analyzing the opposing view — with a focus on Allama Mashriqi as a case study — as well as some of the reasons behind the division of the nation in the face of such opposition.

More articles by this author:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Quran Explorer

Click on image


Click on OLDER ENTRIES or NEWER ENTRIES at bottom of page


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 76 other followers

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 76 other followers






%d bloggers like this: