Sunday, December 16, 2018

You are not homo economicus

You (and I) are not homo economicus (the economic man/woman).
Homo economicus does not exist, has never existed, and is not likely ever to exist.
If homo economicus does not exist, do 'economy' and 'economics' have any meaning?
Considering that the concept termed 'economy' has been abstracted from another grotesque concept called 'polity', does 'homo politicus' exist?
What is that state of wholeness (i.e. un-abstract-ness) that needs to be named here, to which a human being has always belonged and will continue to belong?
How did we all come to be imprisoned in the twin bubbles of unreality, i.e. the abstract domains of the 'economic' and the 'political'?
How do we get out?
……….
This video features a puppet show in which three students challenge outdated economics by debating with their professor the nature of humankind.
If you prefer a briefer and plainer message (sans the puppet show), listen to Herman Daly in
this video clip. ------------------------------------------ This post contains hyperlinks with the following URLs in their order of occurrence. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx13E8-zUtA&t= 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXdQGgiKP5k

Thursday, December 13, 2018

India -- not Pakistan -- is the original cradle of Islam and Islamism, and the original exporter of Islamic terror

India has long been the cradle of Islam and the source of the problem that Pakistan has congenitally been. I'd argue that India has been the most virulently Islamist country in the world since the 19th century, creating such Islamic madrasas as Deobandi and Barelvi, and such Islamic propaganda organizations as Tablighi Jamaat.

Deobandi madrasa nurtured the Taliban and a host of other terrorist organizations that currently exist in India and Pakistan. Barelvi madrasa produced Mumtaz Qadri who killed Punjab Governor Salman Taseer. Tablighi Jamaat has been linked to a number of terrorist massacres in Europe and the US.

India also allowed Pakistan to be spun off itself through an ethnic cleansing of Hindus/Sikhs in West Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), Sindh, Balochistan, and several general massacres of Hindus in East Bengal.

In fact, India has been the epicenter of the evil that goes by the name of Islam.

Islam has not only been nurtured but made to thrive in India -- specifically in the northern province of Uttar Pradesh -- through a colonial-imperial system in which the pagans of India (who are labelled 'Hindus') are demonized as sustainers of an 'unequal' society and worshipers of false gods, and so requiring to be set right by the 'noble' effects of Judeo-Christianity and Islam.

This colonial-imperial system is inherently Abrahamic and ethnocidal in its make-up, disapproving the syncretism and diversity of the Indian cultural matrix and valorizing the fraudulent Abrahamic concepts and mythologies.

I hope to publish some pieces in the near future to expand on the points laid out above.

The story of how India -- the supposed Dev-Bhumi for the millions -- encouraged and nurtured a ridiculous and barbarian Arab thinking called Islam has never been told to the Indians!

NEVER!

Someone has got to tell this horror story, which in its entirety would add up to be a big research project. I can only contribute my humble mite in the telling of this shameful story, the shame being India's.

For now you could read the following article written by a Pakistani partisan to get a flavour of this horror story that this 'Dev-Bhumi' of ours has long been.

This Pakistani partisan (whose view that Jinnah was a secularist I don't agree with) tells you that it was Indian National Congress that created "the first real terrorist group of the subcontinent i.e. Majlis-e-Ahrar".
-------------------

https://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/the-short-and-sordid-history-of-majlis-e-ahrar-e-islam-subcontinents-first-islamic-extremist-political-party/

The Short And Sordid History Of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam – Subcontinent’s First Islamic Extremist Political Party

By Yasser Latif Hamdani, Pak Tea House blog, 15 Nov. 2009

The role of Majlis-e-Ahrar (truly the real grandfather organization of all Islamic Extremist Parties in the subcontinent and also of all anti-Shia and anti-Ahmadi agitation in Pakistan subsequently) is the most significant when it comes to Militant Islam in the subcontinent.

This was a pre-partition body of Nationalist Muslims who had sided with the Congress throughout the independence movement and had been part of satyagraha (this is significant) at the time they believed in secular nationalism and secular India and in 1931 formed itself as a Indian Nationalist Muslim body, separate from the Congress, but always in support of it and in staunch opposition to the Muslim League.

It started its anti-Ahmaddiya movement in 1933 … when it clashed with All India Kashmir Committee – a rival organization fighting against Dogra Rule in Kashmir. Besides Dr. Muhammad “Allama” Iqbal (who was till 1933 or so probably an Ahmadi and whose father and elder brother were staunch Ahmadis), the AIKC consisted of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud – the second caliph of Jamaat Ahmaddiya… the rivalry of these two organizations turned Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam against the Ahmadis altogether.

(Ironically Bashiruddin Mahmud’s presidency of the said organization turned Dr. Iqbal against Ahmadis as well but that is another story.)

Majlis-e-Ahrar is clearly the oddest Islamic movement in the subcontinent… it was for “secular” and “united India”, was extremely anti-Ahmadi and was also fighting for “Madh-e-Sahaba” (or the honor of Sahaba) against Shias while its president – another significant point- was a Shia Muslim by the name of Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar.

So it was an Indian Nationalist “Secularist” anti-Ahmadi, anti-Shia, anti-Jinnah Movement led by a Shia Alim!!!! Ironies never cease. I hope my Indian friends are taking note: the Majlis-e-Ahrar was part and parcel of the Quit India Movement launched by the Congress and denounced the Muslim League for not taking part in it. Majlis-e-Ahrar’s greatest propaganda was against Mahomed Ali Jinnah … who they denounced as “Kafir-e-Azam”.

Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar  wrote the famous couplet: “Ik Kafira kay peechay Islam ko chora, Yeh Quaid-e-Azam hai kay Kafir-e-Azam”

Repeatedly Pakistan was described as “Palidistan”, “Kafiristan” and “Khakistan” by the Majlis-e-Ahrar. In 1946…. it’s candidates were soundly defeated by the Muslim League’s candidates. This is when Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar said “Madhe Sahaba can be a weapon against the League”- an obvious reference to Jinnah’s own background as a Khoja Shia Mahomedan.

(It is worthwhile to remember that Madhe-Sahaba is very much being used against Pakistan and Sipah-e-Sahaba is a direct result of this line of thinking).

When the Muslim League launched its Direct Action especially in Punjab against the Unionist government, Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam logically remained completely aloof from it (This is also very significant- I’ll come to it later… because Muslim League’s short sighted policy in Punjab also met its come-uppance) .

The creation of Pakistan and partition of India in 1947 came as a complete shock to the Ahrar leadership. They went underground, resurfaced in May 1948, announced that they were disbanding as a political party and would continue as a religious group only. They also declared that in political matters they would take Muslim League’s lead but refused to join it on account of “unIslamic views” of Sir Zafrulla and Mian Iftikharuddin.

In Pind Daddan Khan in 1949, they raised two significant demands: 1. Ahmadis be declared Kafir. 2. No Non-muslims should be allowed to hold positions in the new state’s government (Please note above that till 1947, the same group was advocating a United Secular India and was completely fine with Hindus or any other group ruling India.

In 1949, the same year Sahibzada Faizul Hassan – another crook (who later hobnobbed with Ayub Khan) from the Majlis-e-Ahrar declared that: 1. All women without Purdah- especially Raana Liaqat Ali Khan- were prostitutes. 2. Muslim women were raped in East Punjab because Quaid-e-Azam wanted to be the governor general of Pakistan.

By 1950, Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam began to reinvent itself politically. Their objective was to gain state power…. for this purpose alone they formed Majlis-e-Amal (consisting of religious parties) …. which raised again the demand that 1. Ahmadis be declared Non-Muslim 2. Zafrullah being a Non-Muslim should be thrown out of the government.

By 1953… they gave Khawaja Nazimuddin – the Prime Minister and the leader of the Muslim League- an ultimatum- either accept the demands or face civil disobedience i.e. “Raast-Iqdaam”… the plan for Raast Iqdam was modelled on the “Satyagraha” of the Quit India movement… with individuals offering themselves for arrest and so and so forth.

But what is significant is the name “Raast Iqdam”… Raast Iqdam translates neatly into English as “Direct Action”… Muslim League was getting a taste of its own medicine and in this one stroke, Mullahs were about hijack the Pakistan idea… the same Mullahs who had not only stayed away from the League’s Direct Action but had opposed the Pakistan Movement tooth and nail. Khawaja Nazimuddin – himself a veteran of the League’s Direct Action- knew that civil disobedience in the subcontinent was never peaceful immediately arrested crooks in chief the leaders of the Majlis-e-Amal which led to open rioting in Lahore.

Munir Report is the most significant document in Pakistan’s history. It establishes the roots of Anti-Ahmaddiya movement in the erstwhile anti-Pakistan forces amongst the Muslim clergy who now used the age-old dispute to weaken the new state. It also exposes shameless opportunists like Daultana- a feudal politician with otherwise a largely secular and left-leaning world view (a Punjabi forerunner of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) and a Punjab Leaguer- who encouraged the Ulema to strengthen his own position and then even had the audacity to suggest that it was happening because of Ahmadis’ attitude and because Pakistan had a vague religious basis for creation which gave too much power to the Mullahs.

The last statement is significant, however. There was nothing vague about what Jinnah said on 11th August or repeatedly about the principle of equal citizenship… but the Muslim League leaders subsequently (including Sir Zafrulla himself) did deliberately create the vague religious basis legally when they passed the Objectives Resolution.

However Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly had also passed a resolution promising equal citizenship without any bar and the right to profess and propagate one’s religion without any fear. And there was nothing vague about Nehru-Liaqat Pact between India and Pakistan, wherein, largely on Pakistan’s suggestion, the same principle was embodied. The Munir Report’s statement that “a party even of the background of Ahrar could bring down a government in the name of religion in Pakistan” … shows how urgent it was for Pakistan to be declared a secular state.

Furthermore, I think the pre-partition politics of civil disobedience of both Congress and the League was totally disastrous… and here one must give Congress the credit of having spawned, funded and encouraged what in my opinion was the first real terrorist group of the subcontinent i.e. Majlis-e-Ahrar.

Given that LeT chief Hafiz Saeed is “intellectually and morally inspired” by Maulana Ataullah Shah Bokhari of the Majlis-e-Ahrar, not just Pakistanis but Indians are paying for the Congress’ encouragement of the Mullahs starting with the Khilafat movement and which continued throughout the 1930s and 1940s.

Khawaja Nazimuddin, who was a profoundly religious man himself, refused the demands saying that the issue of whether Ahmadis are Muslim or not is up to the constituent assembly and two that Zafrulla was appointed by Jinnah himself and there was no way a Muslim Leaguer would remove him.

Pakistan today faces the same old enemy yet again but on a much magnified scale.  Pakistan must make a clear break with the crooks, cranks and madmen who continue to stab it in the back.    This battle is one that has to be fought on an ideological plane much more than on a military front.

Today Pakistan’s very existence is at stake because these crooks, cranks and madmen and their ideologies strike at the root of Jinnah’s Pakistan- a return to which idea can alone save us from our humiliation.
------------

Towards a wipe-out of all cultures that exist in the world

Read this article by Iain Buchanan to get a better idea as to how Judeo-Christianity acts as the most evil ethnocidal force on Earth.

https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-the-north-sentinelese-question-2692916

The North Sentinelese Question

By Iain Buchanan, DNA, 07 Dec. 2018

The North Sentinel Island episode has been presented by the Evangelists and those supporting them mainly as another tragic case of missionary martyrdom at the hands of violent non-believers. There have been other such cases – for example, in China, Ecuador, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Somalia, and the Cameroons – and all have been presented as the deaths of innocents driven by love and peaceful intent.

But there is another perspective on such events. The martyred were not hapless do-gooders caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were knowing, willful, well-funded, and well-tutored agents of one of the biggest, richest, and most successful global industries to spring out of the Western world – the modern evangelical movement.

The modern evangelical movement has about half a million full-time workers, that sends out around three million short-term workers out every year. It has over 4,000 subsidiary agencies, an elaborate, highly developed, and tightly-integrated global management structure, a close partnership with the West’s most powerful governments, and the backing of the world’s largest corporations; and it has at its disposal at least $400 billion in liquid assets, a fleet of 200 aircraft, and over 300 million computers worldwide.

It has a computer intelligence system that has data-banked information on every community on earth down to the smallest village, and with this information – and all its associated resources – it targets every culture and every cultural sub-group on earth for conversion to evangelical Christianity. Much of its work is camouflaged, and to enable work within non-Western cultures most of its mission workers are now-white.

It is this enormous organization, and not John Allen Chau, that targeted the Sentinel Islands for special attention.

The North Sentinel affair raises a number of vital issues concerning human rights. Perhaps the most important is this: why is the Christian proselytisation of marginal communities still promoted, still possible, still indulged?

There are three answers - one political, one cultural, one religious. Politically, many marginal communities (especially remote tribal communities) live in strategically important areas – border regions, mineral-rich areas, timberlands, militarily significant zones, etc. Historically, Christian missions have been used to neutralize local opposition to imperial penetration.

Culturally, “civilization” abhors the survival of the “pre-civilized”– the nomadic, the pastoral, the Neolithic small tribe, etc. Civilized man is also an imperial man – subsistence alternatives must be co-opted, incorporated, controlled, and at the very least patronized. Part of the problem with complex industrial societies an intolerance of self-sufficient simplicity.

Religiously, the animism of such marginal communities poses a threat to theistic beliefs. This is a particular problem with evangelical Christianity, which has evolved a determined and doctrinaire response to “the other” – whether it be animist, secular, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist, “the other” must be converted. It is a tenet of evangelicalism that the Christian must spread the word: modern evangelicals have taken this a step further by creating a vast purpose-built industry for evangelizing each and every “unreached people group” on earth.

The North Sentinel Island residents are a particularly resistant example of such groups. As such, they challenge the certainty and the righteousness of the proselytizers.

There are many other resistant communities, large and small – from the major non-Christian religions to small tribes in the Amazon, the New Guinea uplands, or various Asian borderlands. The evangelical movement identifies over 3,000 cultural groups to be targeted for proselytization. Eventually, most of these will be penetrated and undermined – by a multitude of tactics, both overt and covert.

And they will be transformed for a very simple reason. Because the dominant global imperialism is still white and Christian – and because religious imperialism is always the handmaiden of secular imperialism.

And why the silence from the “Human Rights” industry? Because by and large, it is in cahoots with the proselytisers. Of course, there are local and independent activists fighting injustice in every country, but their voices are not widely broadcast or amplified. The loudest voices are those of the West’s “Human Rights” industry, which is closely embraced by a vast and complex machinery for shaping global and local activism to the West’s secular and religious agenda.

The two largest cogs in this machinery are World Vision and Youth With a Mission: both are deeply entrenched in the highest echelons of US politics (World Vision is effectively a branch of the US State Department, especially under the Democrats, and both groups are close to the Washington power-broking clique known as “The Family”); combined, the two agencies have almost 20,000 full-time workers working in over 170 countries in over 1,000 bases; both are extremely well funded (for years, World Vision’s budget exceeded the routine budget of the United Nations); and both have complex, diverse, and tightly-integrated corporate structures more powerful and more successful than many large global corporations.

Such agencies help define much of the “human rights” agenda through their close political connections, through their own “human rights” subsidiaries (such as World Vision’s International justice mission and Youth With A Mission’s Template Institute and International Reconciliation Coalition), and through a firm integration with the global corporate world.

In the case of the North Sentinel affair, these two agencies are organically linked to the main culprits in the field. The All Nations International ministry (of which John Allen Chau was an agent) was founded by Floyd Mcclung, one-time International Director of Youth with a Mission, and is now run by Mary Ho, who for many years was a World Vision manager in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

And the West has always been reluctant to enquire too deeply into the affairs of organised Christianity — both at home and overseas. Western culture is a deeply, subliminally Christian, and even committed secularists have trouble avoiding Christian parameters in their arguments, and often gloss over the Christian capacity for wrong-doing.

Among other things, this leads to a rather benign view of the behaviour of missionaries overseas — fed partly by ignorance, and partly by a sense that the Christian mission must be equated with civilisation. Such myopia has increased dramatically over the past 40 years, as the secular West has managed to define a global order largely in its own terms, with decisive help from its Christian missionaries. By contrast, of course, the behaviour of non-Christians (even other Abrahamic faiths like Islam) is scrutinised ruthlessly, misunderstood, and demonised.

India owes it to itself to go beyond the purely religious objection to Christian missionising, and examine the global forces which define it. These forces are subverting countries like India in a far more comprehensive and profound way than most people realise.

Most Western leaders (not just George W Bush and Tony Blair) have claimed in the past that they are inspired by their Christian beliefs. Sometimes, as with both Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush and even Trump they quote chapter and verse in support of their policy.

Certainly, deep in Washington, self-professedly Christian pressure groups (like the Fellowship Foundation and the Council for National Policy) have a highly influential membership and a powerful grip on policy. Of course, one can debate whether US strategy is manifestly Christian in inspiration — few Americans would say it is not, although most would probably insist that such strategy is guided primarily by secular concerns.

But there is no doubt at all that US strategy makes deliberate (and somewhat cynical) use of Christian agencies in pursuit of foreign policy — and that the distinction between the religious and the secular is deliberately blurred in the process. There are over 600 US-based evangelical groups, some as big as large corporations. Between them they constitute a vast and highly organised network of global influence, purposefully targeting non-Christians, and connecting and subverting every sector of life in the process.

Most of the major evangelical corporations (like World Vision, Campus Crusade, Youth With A Mission, and Samaritan’s Purse) operate in partnership with the US government in its pursuit of foreign policy goals. World Vision, which is effectively an arm of the State Department, is perhaps the most notable example of this. There is also the benefit of a custom-built legislation, with the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 providing necessary sanction to bring errant nations into line.

This means that evangelisation is an intensely secular pursuit, as well as a religious one. In turn, of course, the secular powers, whether they be departments of state or corporate businesses, find such evangelicals to be very effective partners.

Indeed, most missionaries are not obviously religious. A case in point is the Success Motivation industry. Many of the most popular ‘leadership gurus’ — Zig Ziglar, Paul Meyer, Os Hillman, Richard DeVos, John C. Maxwell, and Ken Blanchard, for example — are not just management experts, they are also evangelical Christians and conscious agents of US-style evangelisation.

Conversely, groups which, on the face of it, are primarily religious, may also serve a powerful secular agenda, such as the collection of intelligence, the grooming of political or commercial elites, or the manipulation of local conflicts.

So pity the poor Sentinelese. Like the Huaorani of Ecuador, or the Yanomami of Brazil, or the Hewa of New Guinea, or the Akha of Thailand or the Pashto of Afghanistan, they are now in the front lines of a war for the last few remnant souls of the unreached – and the “uncivilized.”
----------
The writer is the author of Sang Nila Utama and the Lion of Judah: Dominionism and Christian Zionism in Malaysia (2015) and The Armies of God: A Study in Militant Christianity (2011)
----------------

This blog post contains the following Web link.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/john-allen-chau-us-missionary-north-sentinel-killed-latest-india-a8659021.html

(A news-report headlined "John Allen Chau: US missionary killed by tribe on North Sentinel Island 'may not have acted alone'", filed by Adam Withnall of Independent, UK, reporting from New Delhi, 29 Nov. 2018.)


Wednesday, October 31, 2018

'Muslims are never grateful to those who do good to them,' says Pakistani-Swedish academic in a talk on Partition of India

Pakistani-Swedish academic Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmed gave a talk on Partition of India in Islamabad, as recorded in this video posted on YouTube on 31 Dec. 2017. 

The talk was delivered in Hindi/Urdu mixed with English. I have provided here an English transcript of the substantive part of that talk. 


To contextualize Pakistan’s demand, we start with Indian National Congress's demand which was always very clear, whether we agree with that or not.

In the Nehru Report of 1928 (outlining a proposed new dominion status constitution for India), Muslims had as much share as others. The chairman (of All Parties Conference whose committee drew up the Nehru Report) was Dr. M.A. Ansari. These people (proponents of Pakistan) forget all those things.
Nehru Report said there will be no state religion, men and women will have equal rights as citizens, and that India will be a federation with a strong centre.

So from there (Nehru Report) up until the drafting of India’s Constitution, you will find continuity.
They did their politics on that basis – which was challenged by the Muslim League, which asserted that: “Muslims are NOT Indians; they are Muslims. So as Muslims, we are a nation.” It was as simple as that.

The basis of the Two Nation Theory was that 'living on Indian territory does NOT mean that we (Muslims) are Indians'.
Well, in a sense we are Indians… if you read Sir Syed’s ‘Asbab-e-Baghawat-e-Hind’ (‘Reasons for the Indian Mutiny’), he calls both (Hindus and Muslims) Hindustani.

But that was 19th century's terminology; the 20th century terminology that they (Muslim separatists) used was: “No, we are NOT Indians; we are Muslims. And as Muslims, we are entitled to our own state”.
The basis of Pakistan that we got was that the Muslim-majority areas be taken from India and given to Pakistan.

There is one point that I have strongly emphasized in my book on Punjab's partition. When we asserted that Muslims are a nation and India should be divided on that basis, the Sikhs of Punjab responded by saying that if you insist on dividing the country on the basis of religion then Punjab must also be divided on the same basis – i.e. the Sikh-and-Hindu-majority areas be taken from (united) Punjab and either be vested in a separate Sikh state or be given to India.

In Bengal it was not clear, what will happen.
In 1946, the Muslims and Hindu leaders of Bengal said: ‘We will make a third state of independent Bengal.’ That was opposed by Congress which said if Punjab – indeed all of India – is being divided on the basis of religion, then so should Bengal be. Thus the demand for division was heard all over the place.

Now, what was the problem (with such a demand for division)?
The problem – linked to the moot question as to how Pakistan came to be a garrison state – was that Jinnah couldn’t get his wish of having the whole of Punjab and Bengal merged with Pakistan, in which case the International Border (IB) would have cut across Gurgaon, just 15 km from Delhi, for (united) Punjab extended as far as there.

Had that happened, it’s India that would have become the garrison state.
(However), they (Indians) got the International Border (IB) around Lahore (16 km from the IB), Sialkot (18 km), Gujranwala (28 km) and Shekhupura within striking distance too.

Bear in mind that Pakistan of those days was no more than Punjab for all practical purposes; Karachi was far off. So the whole of Punjab was within the reach of Indian Army in case of a land war.
Thus, right from the beginning, Pakistan came to be a state in which defence of the country was paramount; this should not be seen as morally, but be seen as realistically.

That (a garrison state) was thus the net result of the division.
It’s said that Pakistan was hard done by in Radcliffe Award (under which Punjab and Bengal were divided). I throw a bet. I can be taken anywhere and I can argue that Radcliffe Award was 99.9 per cent what the Muslim League demanded.

In the debate that took place in Punjab Boundary Commission, Muslim League said that Muslim-majority areas should simply be scissored off.
Hindus and Sikhs countered that, pointing out that it was they who had accounted for 80 per cent of the revenues of Punjab in the previous 100 years, and about 75 per cent of the properties/assets, including business assets, belonged to them.

In order to counter that, Muslim League quibbled with the terms of reference of the commission (which was ‘division on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims AND other factors’), contending that ‘other factors’ are only relevant in very specific situations.
So according to its interpretation, Muslim League wanted Lahore – to which Sikhs too staked claim on the grounds that it was the birth-place of Guru Arjan Dev. Sikhs (and Hindus) also wanted Sialkot in which Narowal has Sikh claim, and Hindu religion too has a relationship – a mythological connection – with Sialkot.

Sikhs wanted Shekhupura, Nankana Sahib, Gujranwala (Maharaja Ranjit Singh's birth-place). Sikhs said these places represented much of their history. They also wanted Montgomery or Sahiwal and Lyllpur where they held great amount of land.
Now you can see that under Radcliffe Award all of these places were given to Pakistan. So it is all nonsense to argue that Radcliffe Award was directed against Pakistan's demand; it’s actually the other way round.

It’s true that Wavell (Viceroy and Governor General of India from 1943 to 1947) favoured awarding three tehsils of Gurdaspur to India in order to allow the country a natural defence without which Amritsar would have been surrounded on all sides by Pakistani-Muslim areas.
However, there was no conspiracy in that allowance – no conspiracy that by getting the major part of Gurdaspur district, India was handed land access to Kashmir (thus making the Indian intervention in Kashmir possible). In fact, India also has access to Kashmir through Hoshiarpur. So it’s all mythology (that India was favoured). 

If at all, the curses that Pakistanis hurl at Mountbatten (who replaced Wavell as Viceroy in 1947) should be redirected at Wavell, but remember Wavell gave us everything (we wanted); Indians got none of what they asked for.
Gurdaspur was a very minor thing; (We) Muslims (on the other hand) are quite incapable of giving even a small thing to others, which is the fact of the matter.  

So we got a State where Muslims were in majority. And you all know what we did to the minorities. Had Sikhs and Hindus stayed in areas that Pakistan got, according to the Partition's original understanding, there population would have been 10-11 per cent.
So hardly a Hindu or a Sikh remained in Lahore, Sialkot, Rawalpindi (where they had big properties and other assets).

In fact, the epicentre of Punjab's partition was Rawalpindi whose villages witnessed a general massacre of the Sikhs in March 1947. My book has all the details. In those villages, I met the Muslims who were witnesses to that (massacre) and are still alive.
I also went to the other side (of the border) and found people who once belonged to those same villages; my book has the stories from both sides. Imagine, finding people 60 years after the event.

So the Partition took place and what should have been a very sizeable population of Hindus and Sikhs (in areas that became West Pakistan) was eliminated, except of course a small holdover in Sindh.
On the other hand, in East Punjab, they did not allow a single Muslim to remain. So it was equal: tit for tat.

But if you go beyond that – and this point we have to underline, the point being that Gandhi sacrificed his life (for Muslims) and Nehru discharged his responsibility.
At that time 9.5 per cent of Indian population was Muslim and today it has gone up to 14.4 per cent. So in India, Muslim population has increased, even though Muslims don’t get good treatment, but here in Pakistan we haven’t allowed a soul (of non-Muslims) to remain.

Those few who remained here, such as a small number of Christians, we all know what we have done to them, terrorizing them with blasphemy cases being one instance of our treatment of them.
(Some) Hindus remain in Sindh; here (in Punjab) we don’t see any, and if at all we see one it is like someone displayed in a museum and being pointed out with: ‘Here’s what a Hindu of Pakistan looks like’.

Otherwise they (Hindus) were very prominent part of Punjabi culture and society. Who can write about Punjab without Krishan Chander?
Krishan Chander has as much claim over this Punjab as you and I have. But today, he doesn’t even get a mention; (Saadat Hasan) Manto Day is celebrated here, but I have never heard anyone memorializing Krishan Chander.

We have a complete blank on our past.
So the problem is that (with non-Muslims cleansed) this came to be an overwhelmingly Muslim country. Here comes into play Jinnah’s speech of 11 August 1947 (made to Pakistan's constituent assembly) – one and only speech of this nature.

I throw a challenge: show me just one speech delivered before or after the 11 August 1947 speech in which Jinnah would have said what he said in the one-off speech – that “in this great state of Pakistan we are all free to go to our temples, mosques and churches and from now on we are all citizens of this great state; in due course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims...”.
Now if that is what you are saying, which is the same that the Nehru Report promised, then what on earth is the difference?

The only difference is that you wanted Pakistan and you got it. Let’s be fair about it.
Now all these people (in Pakistan) say that Jinnah wanted a secular state!

How can you have a secular state whose basis is religious nationalism?

As the saying goes: ‘One sunny day does not make a summer’. Shakespeare put it as: ‘One swallow does not make a summer’.
Do you think what Jinnah had been saying all along comes to naught on the basis of a single speech? Were the Muslims Ullu ke Paththe (fools) who listened to Jinnah and supported him – and (some of whom also) abandoned their home and hearth to come to this side?

What for?
For a secular state?

(But) they were offered a secular state (India). If you had remained in that secular state, you would have enjoyed 42 per cent of Muslim representation that was there in Indian Army.
Muslims also accounted for 73 per cent of Punjab police; they (Pakistanis) fudge the figures too. In UP (United Provinces), Muslims enjoyed 50 per cent of police force despite being only 14 per cent of the population.

In police recruitment in India's premier cities of Madras, Calcutta and Bombay, they used to give preference to Pakhtuns, Punjabi Muslims, and Sikhs for these men were considered strongly built.
So you (Muslims) had the whole of India. You go and see; (across India) up to Srirangapatna, you could see the green flags of Muslims even in this age of the rule of BJP which is to India what Pakistani Fascists are to Pakistan.

So if someone were to suggest Gandhi was an enemy of Muslims, it is nonsense; he was someone who gave his life for you (Muslims).
Spare a thought for Gandhi... but then Muslims are never grateful to those who do good to them; that’s the second point (about Muslims) that I want to remind you of.

Let us be true to the facts of history. Some say ‘God is truth’. I think it should rather be phrased 'truth is God'. So (let’s) learn to speak the truth.
So what’s the Pakistan story? It is that we got it (Pakistan) in the name of Islam.

The (Muslim League’s) campaign for the whole of Punjab and North-West Frontier Punjab (NWFP)… (was Islamist)… (as born out, among other things, by) the letter to Pir of Manki Sharif of NWFP (written in 1945 by Jinnah, in which he supposedly promised that Shariah will be applied to the affairs of the Muslim community).
In fact, there was an agreement (reached on 24 November 1945) in the NWFP legislative assembly (between Jinnah, who was accompanied by Liaqat Ali Khan, and Pir of Manki Sharif and other pirs) that when Pakistan comes into being, every law will be in line with Islamic Shariah and every bill will be legislated only after consulting the pirs.

This is all written down there.
(Jinnah had been going around, promising that) In Pakistan there will be ‘democracy’ (of the Islamic kind)… that Islam had achieved ‘democracy’ 1300 years earlier…

And then comes the 11 August 1947 speech (of Jinnah), causing a huge amount of confusion…
They say Chaudhry Muhammad Ali (a high-ranking bureaucrat who later had a brief stint as prime minister of Pakistan) and Liaquat Ali Khan (one of Pakistan’s ‘founding fathers’ and the first prime minister) orchestrated the suppression of Jinnah’s speech (of 11 August 1947, allegedly to prevent the public from knowing that Jinnah supposedly wanted a secular country)…

Now that is bullshit.
Jinnah was the Governor General of Pakistan; he was virtually the ‘prime minister’ of Pakistan; he presided over all cabinet meetings; he dismissed elected governments; he appointed people as he wished.

Would a man, who was totally in charge of Pakistan, let his speech be suppressed by his inferiors?
Not at all!

He delivered that one-off speech (of 11 August) in a certain (expansive and grandstanding) mood… surrounded by foreign dignitaries…
But there was also a practical reason for saying what Jinnah said in that speech, which they hide, but I have pointed out in my forthcoming book.

The practical reason was the fact that Sikhs and Hindus were being hounded out of here and they (Jinnah and his team) could see that in East Punjab too Muslims were being massacred – It (massacre of the Muslims in East Punjab) was basically organized by the Sikhs. 
And then somebody said: “Jinnah Sahab, imagine if Indian government were to send 30 million Muslims from there; Pakistan will simply collapse.”

Areas within Pakistan already accounted for 37.2 per cent of (united) India’s population. The North had then just acquired a little bit industry; so there was nothing here except agriculture.
So who helped Pakistan?

It’s the Indian government that helped Pakistan – Gandhi by giving his life and Nehru by doing his duty by stopping attacks carried out by RSS there… (thus controlling the situation that would have forced more Muslims to flee to Pakistan).
Those (Muslims) who wished could still cross the border, of course.

In fact, Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi (a staunch supporter of Pakistan movement, who later also became Pakistan’s education minister) has been quoted as saying something (that will bear me out).
He has written that Hindus and Sikhs who fled West Punjab arrived in Delhi to find that large numbers of Muslims were still around. This infuriated them and they began to harass and terrorize the Delhi Muslims who had to take refuge in Humanyun’s tomb’s premises.

And then a delegation of Muslims – which included Zakir Hussain (later president of India) and Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi – approached Gandhi for help.
Gandhi had just come to Delhi from Bengal after saving thousands of Muslim lives there. The massacre of Muslims in Calcutta was prevented by Gandhi who sat there and said: ‘Kill me before you kill the Muslims’.

In September (1947), Gandhi was in Delhi.
Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi says they (the delegation) went to Gandhi ji and pleaded: ‘Mahatma, only you can save the Muslims’.

Gandhi ji responded: Do you think I really can?
In fact, Agha Shorish Kashmiri (a leader of the Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam party) had said that the Muslim delegation had gone down on its knees before Gandhi ji, begging for help.

Gandhi promised to do what he could.
And then (with Gandhi’s volunteers getting the situation under control), Muslims who wanted to leave could do so, and those who wanted to stay in Delhi or elsewhere in India could stay, Qureshi writes.

And the RSS (man) who killed Gandhi has a statement – which you can check on the YouTube – that Gandhi championed the rights of the Muslims.
…So what I am trying to say is that creation of Pakistan had absolutely no clear vision…except the assertion that it would be a country for the Muslims…

Meanwhile, in the wake of the confusion arising from his (contradictory) speech of 11 August 1947, Jinnah goes to Karachi Bar Association in January 1948 and says: “Why is this question being asked as to whether our constitution would be in conflict with Shariat Laws? . . . 1300 years ago our constitutional principles had been laid down by Islam.”
Then Jinnah adds: “Islam gave us the grand ideas of democracy…” and all that jazz.

So the substantive point Jinnah made was that there would be implementation of Shariat in Pakistan.
Let me repeat that ‘One sunny day does not make a summer’.

After 11 August 1947, Jinnah never said that there would be “equal rights” (for the minorities), but merely stated that there would be “fair treatment” – that in Islam we extend “fair treatment” to the non-Muslims.
“Fair” is not the same as “equal”. And that is what, I think, are the Pakistan’s parameters.

And then Jinnah gave no other statement on the constitution (in the making).
So the Objectives Resolution (which permanently implanted Islam into the structure of Pakistani state) was presented in the constituent assembly on 07 March 1949 – and was deemed a violation of Jinnah’s 11 August speech by the Hindu members of the assembly.

Liaquat Ali khan, Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, Mahmud Hussain (brother of Zakir Hussain), Umar Hayat Malik (from Punjab)… all spoke (in support of the Objectives Resolution).
And then Miyan Iftikharuddin, who was a Leftist, spoke… Actually even he supported the Objectives Resolution, but he did it in a very different way.

He wondered, for instance, how could continuation of feudalism and exploitation be consistent with an Islamic system? … and said “I am disappointed”. So he spoke in support of sorts, but in the form of criticism.
Thus none of them (i.e. the Muslim members of the constituent assembly) opposed the Objectives Resolution.

Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (the Deobandi cleric from UP who belonged to the Muslim League)… very interestingly… did not take a fundamentalist stand, while quoting Quran… He basically said that we’d advance the idea of welfare state.
And he (Usmani) quoted Mahatma Gandhi as exhorting newly elected Congress legislators in Bihar in 1937 to adopt the Congress way of simplicity by wearing Khadi and sitting on the floor.

“…I can give you examples of neither Rama not Krishna for they are not historical figures” --- (Imagine) it’s a Hindu (Mahatma Gandhi) who is saying it!!
“The example is that of Abu Bakr (the first of the four caliphs after Muhammad’s death, the four being known as ‘Khulafa-e-Rashida’ or the ‘rightly guided caliphs) and Umar (who succeeded Abu Bakr) as ideal rulers,” (Usmani quoted Gandhi as saying).

He (Gandhi) said there is no dispute that Abu Bakr and Umar were very powerful rulers, but they lived a very simple life… Umar wore coarse cloth and ate coarse grains…
So that was the speech delivered by Usmani… and it did not reflect the kind of Islamism that has come to prevail today…

Then speaks Sir Zafarullah Khan (Pakistan’s first foreign minister, who belonged to the Ahmadi community that would later be persecuted in Pakistan and constitutionally deemed non-Muslims) – and it’s very interesting (read ‘ironical’) that, in the manner of ‘more royal than the king,’ he went on and on about Islam, liberally quoting Quran.
And then he (Zafarullah Khan) made the statement that Islam covers every aspect of human society – that religion can never be separate from politics in Islam.

Statecraft, foreign affairs, rules of war and peace… everything is covered in Islam… i.e. Zafarullah Khan presented a model of an ultra-Islamic state.
And then (surprise! surprise!) Zafarullah Khan even refers to Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani and cites the latter’s utterances in extolling the great virtues of Islam…

The irony is that the same Zafarullah had earlier (in Sep. 1948) refused to take part in Jinnah’s funeral prayer on the ground that the prayer was led by Usmani who deemed Ahmadis non-Muslims…
In the constituent assembly he (Zafarullah) was virtually deferring to Usmani!

Keep in mind that we are talking about the important principle that religion and politics must remain separate (which was negated by the Objectives Resolution without any of the Muslim member, including Ahamadis, posing any worthwhile resistance).
And then, the constitution that we get --- the 1950 report (‘interim report’ of the basic principle committee introduced in the constituent assembly), 1952 report (first basic principle committee report), 1954 (second basic principle report), and then 1956 constitution --- gives us “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” whose president will be a Muslim and all laws in Pakistan would be brought in consonance with Quran and Sunnah.

And when that ended (i.e. constitution was abrogated in 1958), Field Marshall General Ayub Khan (first military dictator of Pakistan) comes into power.
He, for the first time, dares to bring half-heartedly a bit of secularism by changing in 1962 the name of the country to “Republic of Pakistan” (which name was later reverted to “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” owing to the protest of the religious parties).

I was 15-16 years old then and I remember the curses hurled at Ayub Khan by not just Mullahs but also ‘normal people’.
So Pakistan again became the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” (in 1963) – and the same constitutional provisions that only a Muslim can be the president and all laws will be brought into consonance with Quran and Sunnah (were brought back).

So where is secularism (in the make-up of the State of Pakistan)?
Where are we going to look for secularism?

Where?
In 1973 constitution, we go even further – that not only the president but the prime minister will also be a Muslim and they will have to take the oath that they believe in the finality of the prophet-hood of Muhammad (doctrine of ‘Khatm-e-Nabwat).

And in 1974, the same Assembly declared the Ahmadis to be non-Muslims (through a constitutional amendment, on the ground that their beliefs are a violation of ‘Khatm-e-Nabwat’).
Then in 1984, General Zia-ul-Haq (Pakistan’s military dictator who ruled from 1978 until his death in 1988) imposed further restrictions on Ahmadis (through an ordinance that effectively prohibited Ahmadis from preaching or professing their beliefs).

After that ordinance, they brought in the blasphemy law (in 1986 through Sections 295 B and 205-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, dealing with ‘anyone who desecrates the Quran or defiles the name of prophet Muhammad’).
Zia’s blasphemy law prescribed heavy fine or life imprisonment or capital punishment.

So there were three possibilities, but in 1990 when the elected government of Nawaz Sharif (i.e. not a military dictatorship) was in power, the Federal Shariah Court said the punishment for blasphemy should only be capital punishment.
…So I very seriously question any suggestion that Jinnah wanted and intended to set up a secular state.

And if he really had wanted a secular country, then his must have been a one-man constituency for no one else ever talked about that (secularism).
It’s only some of the crackpot Leftists like us, who talk about that because we live in delusions; we have spent virtually our lives in delusions and this happens to be our grand delusion.

The Communist Party bragged a lot about its plans (for the new State of Pakistan), but the very first statement of Governor General Muhammad Ali Jinnah, on 17 August 1947, was that there was a fifth column in the country looking towards Moscow and “we have to take care of them”.
So Marxists have been under fire in Pakistan right from day one. It’s a place that has never seen even ordinary democracy; where is the question of freedom for communist ideas?

Pakistan was NEVER a democratic state – not even for a day.
If at all Pakistan was a “democracy”, it was a “majoritarian democracy”. Don’t forget it was the elected government – not a dictator – that declared Ahmadis non-Muslim. (Dictator) Zia-ul-Haq only capitalized on that; he did not first do it.

So how can you say that he (Jinnah) wanted a secular state?
That’s the sad story.

Now, what is the way out?
As a political scientist, I suggest we go back to the Objectives Resolution…

Regarding the clauses like the one about “exemplary punishment,” affecting minorities… we need to ask them: Is this reasonably “exemplary punishment” that you catch hold of an Asia Bibi (the Christian woman from an underprivileged background, who was convicted of blasphemy by a Pakistani court and received a sentence of death by hanging in 2010) or other miserably poor people…
Even if she did say something (objectionable), where on earth is your forgiveness?

Don’t unlettered people engage in loose talk? In fact, the educated people are worse than them…
What’s all this? You are pouncing on an unfortunate and desperately poor woman… Where’s your sense of pity?

…So if you are serious about (dealing with) the Objectives Resolution, forget Jinnah and his 11 August speech – it means nothing.
What matters in terms of constitutional theory is what happened in the constituent assembly. That’s how constitutional theory is understood, not by a statement made by a great man.

So my dear friends, we have a Pakistan in which the battle is between Muslim modernism and Muslim fundamentalism.
The modernists have been losing because… it has come to be a rule that ‘wherever in trouble, invoke Islam’… whenever we get into trouble we take the cover of Islam and legislation in a manner so as to silence everybody…

(Dictator) Zia did that (Islamization) in a clumsy manner, but didn’t (democratically elected) Bhutto do it too?
(Zulfikar Ali Bhutto served as the 9th Prime Minister of Pakistan from 1973 to 1977, and prior to that as the 4th President of Pakistan from 1971 to 1973.)

(As a youngster) I used to run along with his truck at Lahore Railway Station (whenever Bhutto would visit Punjab)… thinking he was the man who would bring socialism in Pakistan.
(Ironically) The same Bhutto was responsible for declaring Ahmadis non-Muslim.

I think it’s morally wrong. You may not accept their (Ahmadis’) belief. That’s OK. Many of us don’t. But there are many things we don’t like.
I may be a staunch Sunni who may not like Shias’ mourning (of Muharram). So should we mete out the same treatment to Shias?

It doesn’t make any sense.
Belief (read ‘religion’) is something you are born into, mostly. Had I been born in an Ahmadi family, I would have had all that baggage in my…

…Having been born in a Sunni household, I have that (Sunni) training… (But) a human being is after all a human being…
So in my opinion these are the values we should talk about… that even Objective Resolution has been betrayed.

Jinnah’s speech was not betrayed because he had said many things – even telling Shabbir Ahmad Usmani that every bill would get their (Ulema’s) approval before being passed.
But what they (constituent assembly) said is what we have to consider.

Thank you very much.
-------
I have written and published an article, based on Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmed's talk whose English transcript is given above. That article can be read here.
-----------
This post contains the following Web-links.

1.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg0BOlb5HJE
2. https://kbforyou.blogspot.com/2018/10/jinnahs-secularist-speech-of-11-august.html

'Jinnah’s secularist stance of 11 August was a con trick; Indians saved his Pakistan project from certain collapse,' says Pakistani-Swedish academic

Muslim League's poisonously communal campaign since 1940s rebounded on them – within Jinnah's lifetime. It's Indians who bailed them out!

By Kapil Bajaj
Jinnah’s 11 Aug. 1947 speech embracing secularism was a stratagem to get Nehru and Gandhi to help stem the tide of Muslim exodus from India to Pakistan amid a raging communal conflagration which, he feared, would cause a “collapse” of the inchoate State through a flood of in-migration, says a Pakistani-origin Swedish academic.

“The practical reason (for the secularist stance taken by Jinnah in his 11 Aug. speech) was the fact that Sikhs and Hindus were being hounded out (of West Punjab) and they (Jinnah and his team) could see that in East Punjab too Muslims were being massacred,” says Ishtiaq Ahmed, professor emeritus of political science at Stockholm University, who is also a visiting professor at the Government College University, Lahore.

“And then somebody said: ‘Jinnah Sahib, imagine if Indian government were to send 30 million Muslims from there; Pakistan will simply collapse.’”
“Areas within Pakistan already accounted for 37.2 per cent of (united) India’s population. The North had then just acquired a little bit industry. So there was nothing here except agriculture,” Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmed said in a talk he gave in Islamabad that can be watched in this video posted on YouTube on 31 Dec. 2017.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was so desperate to prevent the possibility of an uncontrolled Muslim exodus overwhelming the new-sprung Pakistan that he delivered a grandiloquent vision of a State that will have “nothing to do” with a citizen’s “religion or caste or creed,” suggested Prof. Ahmed, whose book on the partition of Punjab has so far won three awards.
‘Secularism’ the con trick

Jinnah presided over the constituent assembly of Pakistan until his death on 11 Sep. 1948.

He delivered his first address to the constituent assembly in a grandstanding manner with an eye on the foreign dignitaries present in the gathering, says Prof. Ahmed.
In that address, on 11 Aug. 1947, Jinnah had said: “We are starting with this fundamental principle: that we are all citizens, and equal citizens, of one State… and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus, and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”

The cruel irony was that it was the same Jinnah whose party had since 1942 been running – as Prof. Ahmed has emphasized in his writings – a poisonous campaign, “telling the Punjabi Muslims that their economic liberation will be guaranteed if they were to get rid of the Hindus and Sikhs,” – not to mention Muslim League’s direct involvement in carrying out murder, rape and plunder of the non-Muslims.
In fact, Jinnah himself had been going around promising Muslims that Pakistan would be a “democracy”, predicated on “democracy” that Islam had already achieved 1300 years earlier, Prof. Ahmed said, citing a letter that Jinnah had written as early as 1945 to the Pir of Manki Sharif of North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) in which he supposedly promised that Shariat would be applied to the affairs of the Muslim community.

So the speech of 11 August 1947 was an anomaly – a bolt from the blue – rather than a reflection of an essentially secular temperament that was eventually betrayed by the Islamists.

Prof. Ahmed says Jinnah’s apparent embrace of secularism was a one-off event in contrast to Indian National Congress’s (INC’s) consistent vision – enunciated as early as 1928 in the Nehru Report – for India as a polity with no state religion and equality of all citizens.
“I throw a challenge: show me just one speech delivered before or after the 11 August speech in which Jinnah would have said what he stated in that one-off speech.”

“One sunny day does not make a summer. Do you think what Jinnah had been saying all along comes to naught on the basis of a single speech?”
The 11 August speech caused “a huge amount of confusion” among Muslims who already had an offer from the INC of a secular State (India) right since 1928, but who had chosen rather to listen to Jinnah’s rhetoric about a State that was eventually obtained in the name of Islam, says Prof. Ahmed.

“Were the Muslims Ullu ke Paththe (fools) who listened to Jinnah and supported him... who abandoned their home and hearth to come to this side?”
“What for? For a secular state?

If Jinnah was saying in the 11 August speech what had long been there in the Nehru Report of 1928, then what on earth was the difference, demands Prof. Ahmed.
“Well, the only difference was that you wanted Pakistan and you got it. Let’s be fair about it.”

The Liberal mythopoeia
Prof. Ahmed pooh-poohs Pakistani liberals’ narrative, built largely on the 11 Aug. speech, which portrays Jinnah as a great statesman who always wanted his country to be a secular and liberal democracy, a vision betrayed after his death by the civil and military rulers of Pakistan who took turns to enmesh the State in Islamism and bigotry.

According to the liberal narrative (developed by historians such as Ayesha Jalal) Chaudhry Muhammad Ali (a high-ranking bureaucrat who later had a brief stint as prime minister of Pakistan), Liaquat Ali Khan (the first prime minister), and such other worthies, suppressed the 11 August speech in order to prevent the wider public from learning that ‘Quaid-e-Azam’ (the ‘Great Leader’) had favoured the formation of a secular State.
“That is bullshit,” counters Prof. Ahmed.

“Jinnah was the Governor General of Pakistan. He was virtually the ‘prime minister’ of Pakistan; he presided over all cabinet meetings; he dismissed elected governments; he appointed people as he wished.”
“Would a man, who was so completely in charge of Pakistan, let his speech be suppressed by his inferiors?”

“No way!”
What transpired subsequent to that one-off speech – i.e. more of Jinnah’s utterances favouring Shariat and the constituent assembly permanently implanting Islam into the State structure by adopting the Objectives Resolution on 12 March 1949 – goes on to show the flimsiness of the liberal narrative, argues Prof. Ahmed.

For instance, Jinnah stated at Karachi Bar Association in January 1948: “Why is this question being raised as to whether our constitution would be in conflict with Shariat laws . . . (when) Islam had already laid down our constitutional principles 1300 years ago.”
The substantive point Jinnah made (at Karachi Bar Association) was that there would be implementation of Shariat in Pakistan, says Prof. Ahmed.

“After 11 August 1947, Jinnah never said that there would be ‘equal rights’ (for the minorities), but merely stated that there would be ‘fair treatment’ – that in Islam ‘we extend fair treatment to the non-Muslims’.”
“’Fair’ is not the same as ‘equal’. And that is what, I think, are the Pakistan’s parameters.”

“And then Jinnah gave no other statement on the constitution (in the making).”
Prof. Ahmed says the men in charge of the State of Pakistan have sought to “hide” the “practical reason” behind Jinnah’s bogus avowal of secularism and non-discrimination towards minorities in his 11 Aug. speech – the “practical reason” being the need to get Indians to somehow stop uncontrolled Muslim exodus into Pakistan.

Communal, craven and deceitful
Prof. Ahmed’s research shows that Indians played a phenomenal role in rescuing Jinnah’s Pakistan from collapse by controlling violence against Muslims, but the same cannot be said about the separatist leadership of the Muslims in its treatment of the Hindu and Sikh victims of violence, who were simply left to fend for themselves.

“It’s the Indian government that helped Pakistan – (Mahatma) Gandhi by giving his life and (Jawahar Lal) Nehru by doing his duty in stopping the attacks … (on Muslims, thus controlling the situation that would have forced more Muslims to flee to Pakistan),” he says.
Prof. Ahmed says a delegation of ‘Muslim’ leaders had virtually thrown themselves at Mahatma Gandhi’s feet in Delhi in Sep.1947, begging him to help save Muslims from being attacked by the Sikh and Hindu refugees from West Punjab and NWFP streaming into the city.

“Mahatma, only you can save the Muslims,” they pleaded, he says, citing Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, a staunch supporter of the Pakistan Movement from United Provinces (UP), who was a member of that delegation (which also included Zakir Hussain who would later become the President of India).

Gandhi, who had then just come to Delhi from Bengal after saving thousands of Muslim lives there, promised to do what he could, says Prof. Ahmed.
“And then with Gandhi’s volunteers getting the situation under control, Muslims who wanted to leave could do so, and those who wanted to stay in Delhi or elsewhere in India could stay,” he says, citing Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi.

Jawahar Lal Nehru too discharged his responsibility well in helping to control violence against Muslims, he says.
Prof. Ahmed does not have much to say, however, in the talk being reported here as to whether Gandhi and Nehru sought to obtain reciprocal assurances from Jinnah and other separatist leaders that violence against Sikhs and Hindus in Pakistani areas would similarly be controlled – or whether the Muslim leadership made such an assurance to the two Indian leaders.

In an email exchange with this writer, Prof. Ahmed addressed this question by merely saying that: “This was the gentleman’s understanding as well as what was stated in the Three June Plan.
(A gentleman’s agreement/understanding is one based on mutual trust rather than being legally binding. Three June Plan refers to the British government’s plan for India’s partition, announced on 03 June 1947).

What is clear from Prof. Ahmed’s research is that Jinnah and other separatist Muslim leaders were not only primarily responsible for whipping up communal polarization in Punjab which led to ethnic cleansing of Sikhs and Hindus in West Punjab and NWFP and counter-ethnic cleansing of Muslims in East Punjab, but were also cowardly and cunning in the way they dealt with the cataclysmic consequences of the conflagration they had started themselves.
Once they succeeded in getting Indians to prevent those consequences from ruining their Pakistan project, they once again betrayed their non-Muslim minorities by supporting the Objectives Resolution, which produced an Islamic republic rather than a liberal democratic state with equal rights for minorities that Jinnah had conjured up in his 11 Aug. speech.

Two faces of ‘Muslim’ identity
Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, for instance, was a member of the delegation that had in Sep. 1947 begged Gandhi to help save Muslims in Delhi from being attacked by Sikhs and Hindus, whose ethnic cleansing in West Punjab and NWFP was a direct consequence of the Pakistan Movement he ardently supported.

He took part in that delegation only a few weeks after listening in the constituent assembly (whose member he was) to Jinnah’s 11 Aug. speech in which the latter promised that “religion or caste or creed has nothing to do with the business of the State” which would start with the “fundamental principle that we are all citizens, and equal citizens, of one State”.
Subsequently, the same Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi strongly supported the passage of Objectives Resolution in the constituent assembly, thus betraying and permanently marginalizing the leftover minorities of Pakistan.

Far from Jinnah’s grand vision of a secular democracy, the Objectives Resolution, presented in the constituent assembly on 07 March 1949 and adopted on 12 March 1949, envisioned “equality as enunciated by Islam” and “adequate provision” for the minorities.
So going by the playbook of people like Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, non-Muslims everywhere must reconcile to the ‘rights’ of the ‘Muslims’ as a majority and as a minority, including the right to secede, but ‘Muslims’ will guarantee non-Muslims nothing more than sham “equality” and “adequate provision”!

The duplicity of ‘Muslim’ identity is also evident in the conduct of two brothers: Zakir Hussain and Mahmud Hussain.
While the former pleads with Gandhi in Sep. 1947 for the safety and security of ‘Muslims’ and subsequently goes on to become the President of India as a member of the so called “minority” – his brother Mahmud Hussain sits in Pakistan’s constituent assembly trashing the rights of Pakistan’s own minorities by voting for the Objectives Resolution!

An Islamic state from the start
Prof. Ahmed says “no Muslim member” of the constituent assembly of Pakistan – not even one with Leftist leanings – opposed the Objectives Resolution, which was denounced by the Hindu members as a violation of Jinnah’s 11 August speech.

“Liaquat Ali khan, Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, Mahmud Hussain (brother of Zakir Hussain), Umar Hayat Malik (from Punjab)… all spoke (in support of the Objectives Resolution).”
“And then Mian Iftikharuddin, who was a Leftist, spoke… Actually, even he supported the Objectives Resolution, but he did it in a very different way.”

“He wondered, for instance, whether continuation of feudalism and exploitation was consistent with an Islamic system… and said he was disappointed. So he spoke in support, but in the form of criticism.”
Prof. Ahmed says the Objectives Resolution was also supported by Zafarullah Khan, Pakistan’s first foreign minister, who belonged to the Ahmadi community that would later be severely persecuted in Pakistan and constitutionally deemed non-Muslim.

“In the manner of ‘more royal than the king,’ he (Zafarullah Khan) went on and on about Islam, liberally quoting Quran. He said Islam covers every aspect of human society and does not allow religion to be separated from politics – presenting a vision of an ultra-Islamic state.”
The vital principle that religion and politics must remain separate was thus negated by the Objectives Resolution without any of the Muslim members of the constituent assembly, including a Leftist, putting up any worthwhile resistance, says Prof. Ahmed.

“So the constitution that we got in 1956 gave us ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’ whose president would be a Muslim and all laws in Pakistan would be brought in consonance with Quran and Sunnah.”
Deeper slide into Islamism

The constitution of 1956 was abrogated by Field Marshal Ayub Khan in 1958 when he became Pakistan’s first military dictator through coup d'état, says Prof. Ahmed.
“Ayub Khan, for the first time, dares to bring half-heartedly a bit of secularism by changing (in 1962) the name of the country to ‘Republic of Pakistan’.”

“I was 15-16 years old then and I remember the abuse hurled at Ayub Khan by not just Mullahs but also ‘normal people,’” says Prof. Ahmed.
The protests led to restoration in 1963 of the ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’ – and of constitutional provisions that only a Muslim can be the president and all laws will be brought in harmony with Quran and Sunnah.

“So where is secularism (in the make-up of the State of Pakistan)? Where are we going to look for secularism? Where…,” demands Prof. Ahmed.
After suffering constitutional crises in the 1970 and a civil war in 1971, resulting in the secession of East Pakistan, the country adopted a new constitution in 1973; it was drafted by the government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

The 1973 constitution further enmeshed Pakistan in Islamism, prescribing that not only the president but the prime minister will also be a Muslim and they will have to publicly affirm their belief in the finality of the prophet-hood of Muhammad (doctrine of ‘Khatm-e-Nabwat), says Prof. Ahmed.
“In 1974, the same National Assembly (during Bhutto’s premiership) declared the Ahmadis to be non-Muslims (through a constitutional amendment, on the ground that their beliefs were a violation of ‘Khatm-e-Nabwat’).”

In 1984, military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq (who ruled from 1978 until his death in 1988) imposed further restrictions on Ahmadis through an ordinance that effectively prohibited them from preaching or professing their beliefs.
“After that ordinance, they brought in the blasphemy law (in 1986 through Sections 295 B and 205-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, dealing with ‘anyone who desecrates the Quran or defiles the name of Prophet Muhammad’,” says Prof. Ahmed.

Zia’s blasphemy law prescribed heavy fine or life imprisonment or capital punishment.
“There were thus three possibilities, but in 1990 when the government of Nawaz Sharif (i.e. a democratically elected government rather than a military dictatorship) was in power, the Federal Shariat Court said the punishment for blasphemy should only be capital punishment.”

This brief history shows clearly that neither Jinnah nor any of the civilian or military governments since his death intended to set up a secular State, says Prof. Ahmed.
He says Jinnah and his successors also never allowed socialist and communist thinking to grow in Pakistan.

“The Communist Party bragged a lot about its plans (for the new State of Pakistan), but the very first statement of Governor General Jinnah, on 17 August 1947, was that there was a fifth column in the country looking towards Moscow and ‘we have to take care of them’.”
“Marxists have been under fire in Pakistan right from day one. It’s a place that has never seen even ordinary democracy; where is the question of freedom for communist ideas?”

Pakistan was NEVER a democratic state – not even for a day, asserts Prof. Ahmed.
“If at all Pakistan was a “democracy”, it was a “majoritarian democracy”. Don’t forget it was the elected government (of Bhutto) – not a dictator – that declared Ahmadis non-Muslim. (Dictator) Zia-ul-Haq only capitalized on that; he did not first do it.”

The garrison State
Prof. Ahmed also seeks to explain in his talk as to how Pakistan came to be a “garrison state” – i.e. a state consumed by security concerns and dominated by the military – and debunks another Pakistani myth that Radcliffe Award favoured India.

He says Pakistan became a garrison state because Jinnah could not get his wish of having the whole of Punjab and Bengal merged with Pakistan, in which case the International Border (IB) would have cut across Gurgaon, just 15 km from Delhi, for (united) Punjab extended as far as there.
Had that happened, it’s India that would have become the garrison state.

However, India got the International Border (IB) around Lahore (16 km from the IB), Sialkot (18 km), Gujranwala (28 km) and Shekhupura within striking distance too, says Prof. Ahmed.
“The whole of Punjab was within the reach of Indian Army in case of a land war. Thus, right from the beginning, Pakistan came to be a state in which defence of the country was paramount.”

The garrison state was thus the net result of the division of Punjab.
“It’s said that Pakistan was hard done by in Radcliffe Award (under which Punjab and Bengal were divided). I throw a bet. I can be taken anywhere and I can argue that Radcliffe Award was 99.9 per cent what the Muslim League demanded,” he asserts.

In the debate that took place in Punjab Boundary Commission, Muslim League said that Muslim-majority areas should simply be scissored off.
“Hindus and Sikhs opposed that, pointing out that it was they who had accounted for 80 per cent of the revenues of Punjab in the previous 100 years, and about 75 per cent of the properties/assets, including business assets, belonged to them,” says Prof. Ahmed.

In order to counter that, Muslim League quibbled with the terms of reference of the commission (which was ‘division on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims AND other factors’), contending that ‘other factors’ are only relevant in very specific situations.
“So according to its interpretation, Muslim League wanted Lahore to which Sikhs too staked claim on the grounds that it was the birth-place of Guru Arjan Dev. Sikhs (and Hindus) also wanted Sialkot in which Narowal has Sikh claim, and Hindu religion too has a relationship – a mythological connection – with Sialkot.”

Sikhs wanted Shekhupura, Nankana Sahib, Gujranwala (Maharaja Ranjit Singh's birth-place). Sikhs said these places represented much of their history. They also wanted Montgomery or Sahiwal and Lyllpur where they held great amount of land.
“Now you can see that under Radcliffe Award all of these places were given to Pakistan. So it is nonsense to argue that Radcliffe Award was directed against Pakistan's demand. It’s actually the other way round,” says Prof. Ahmed.

He says it’s true that Wavell (Viceroy and Governor General of India from 1943 to 1947) favoured awarding three tehsils of Gurdaspur to India in order to allow the country a natural defence without which Amritsar would have been surrounded on all sides by Pakistani-Muslim areas.
However, there was no conspiracy in that allowance – no conspiracy that by getting the major part of Gurdaspur district, India was handed land access to Kashmir (thus making the Indian intervention in Kashmir possible). In fact, India also has access to Kashmir through Hoshiarpur.   

“If at all, the curses that Pakistanis hurl at Mountbatten (who replaced Wavell as Viceroy in 1947) should be redirected at Wavell, but remember Wavell gave us everything (we wanted); Indians got none of what they asked for.”
“Gurdaspur was a very minor thing; (We) Muslims (on the other hand) are quite incapable of giving even a small thing to others.”  

No comparison
While Muslims in India have increased their share of the population from 9.5 per cent in 1947 to 14.4 per cent today, Pakistan continues to present a bleak picture of the ethnic cleansing that was carried out during Partition and ill treatment of minorities since that time, says Prof. Ahmed.

Had Sikhs and Hindus been allowed to stay in areas that Pakistan got, in line with the Partition's original understanding, there population would have been 10-11 per cent today, he says.
“Some Hindus remain in Sindh. Here (in Punjab) we don’t see any, and if at all we see one it is like someone being displayed in a museum and introduced with: ‘Here’s what a Hindu of Pakistan looks like’.”

“Otherwise they were very prominent part of Punjabi culture and society. Who can write about Punjab without Krishan Chander, who has as much claim over this land as you and I have.”
“But today, he doesn’t even get a mention; (Saadat Hasan) Manto Day is celebrated here, but I have never heard anyone memorializing Krishan Chander.”

“We have a complete blank on our past.”
----------
This article was first published on 23 Sep. 2018 by PGurus.com.

I have transcribed into English the substantive part of Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmed's talk, which was delivered in Hindi/Urdu and on which this article is based. The transcript can be read here.  
Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmed’s book ‘The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned Cleansed’ has been published by Oxford University Press as well as by Rupa Publications. 
An overview of this book can be found in this PDF containing the text of a lecture that Prof. Ahmed delivered at the India International Centre (IIC), New Delhi, in Feb. 2013.
-----------

This post contains the following Web-links.

1.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg0BOlb5HJE
2. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_jinnah_assembly_1947.html
3. https://www.amazon.com/Punjab-Bloodied-Partitioned-Cleansed/dp/8129129612
4. http://www.iicdelhi.nic.in/ContentAttachments/Publications/DiaryFiles/542711May162013_Occational%20Publication%2046.pdf

Haripur Hazara and its Pashtun son who sowed the wind

This is the town -- named after Hari Singh Nalwa (1791-1837) -- where my father was born. It's in a district (with the same name) wher...