What's new

Jinnah VS A.Kalam Azad

COMMENT: Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and his legacy — Yasser Latif Hamdani
Azad’s role for two decades after partition was one of the token Congress Muslim ‘show boy’ as Jinnah famously called him

As Pakistan continues to dangle on the brink of failure and India thrives, there are many who have begun to ask whether Maulana Azad, the great Indian leader and Islamic scholar, was right and Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah was wrong in those final days of the British Raj. Both Azad and Jinnah were extremely intelligent leaders and were contenders for the leadership of Muslims. The westernised Jinnah managed to win the support of the Muslim masses while the religious scholar, Maulana Azad, was sidelined.

In his autobiography, Azad made a prescient observation about Pakistan breaking into two, which came true of course. There are however, a number of predictions, all seemingly accurate, which are associated with Azad that seem to reinforce further his image as the sage of the age. He is said, amongst other things, to have predicted Pakistan’s dependence on western powers and growing discord between the religious right and liberals in Pakistan in an interview conducted in April 1946. The only problem is that the latter list of predictions has been transmitted to us through a dubious source. This source was Agha Shorish Kashmiri, a committed Ahrari leader who opposed the creation of Pakistan (and ironically, played an important role in fomenting sectarian trouble against Ahmadis and Shias in Pakistan). No one other than Kashmiri seems to have seen a record of this interview and there is no primary source to confirm this interview. The said interview does not appear in any of Azad’s papers or in any record of his life as preserved in India. In the view of this writer therefore, that interview was a concoction and a distortion invented by Agha Shorish Kashmiri in the 1970s when he wrote an Urdu biography of Azad. TV shows like Khabarnaak have recently referenced these predictions and the myth therefore, is now fully under way as being accepted as the gospel truth.

What is equally bothersome about this attempt to re-invent Azad as a latter day Nostradamus, staring into his crystal bowl and predicting the future is that it completely disregards his own role in the first five decades of the 20th century. The Khilafat Movement brought Azad, who was a well-respected Islamic scholar in Sunni circles, into prominence, where he used fiery Islamic rhetoric to galvanise the religious Muslim masses behind the movement to save the Caliphate in Turkey. Mahatma Gandhi and other Hindu leaders who, naively, assumed that deploying the abrasive theocratic logic of the Caliphate could somehow paradoxically bring Hindus and Muslims together on one platform, supported this movement. Azad repeatedly denounced the Aligarh school and chastised Muslims for following the timid and pro-western ways of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, when Islam was a complete code of life. He also gave the famous fatwa for Hijrat, which declared that India under British rule was Dar-ul-Harb and that it was the religious duty of every Muslim to either resist the government or migrate to Afghanistan. It is noteworthy that Jinnah repeatedly warned Gandhi to stay away from this pseudo-religious approach, which would ultimately divide Hindus and Muslims as well as Muslims and Muslims. The consequences of the Khilafat Movement and the rhetoric of Azad and Maulana Mohammad Ali were that Muslim professionals left government service and other material benefits of the British rule and were led onto a path of self-destruction. Gandhi, Azad and other leaders of this movement went on to ask even Aligarh University to refuse British patronage (while paradoxically failing to ask the same of Benaras Hindu University). Since the entire movement was built on a theological foundation, i.e. Pan-Islamism, it was bound to turn on itself. The Moplah Muslim uprising in the south completely shattered the façade of Hindu-Muslim unity created by the movement. In retaliation, Hindus started the Shuddhi (which was aimed at re-converting Muslims to Hinduism) and Sanghtan (organising and arming Hindus). In reaction to the Shuddhi and Sanghtan movements, Muslims came up with the Tabligh (propagation of faith) and Tanzeem (organisation) movements. This militant and hostile communal atmosphere laid the foundation for open communal warfare, leading to mass rioting and violence. The Khilafat Movement, which had temporarily united Hindus and Muslims for an illogical cause, rendered religious identities non-negotiable. That Jinnah had predicted this in his letters to Gandhi is a matter of record. Azad’s role for two decades after partition was one of the token Congress Muslim ‘show boy’ as Jinnah famously called him. In his book, India Wins Freedom, Azad blames Jawaharlal Nehru for not coming to an arrangement with the Muslim League after the 1937 elections, completely sidestepping his own role in the horse trading that weakened the Muslim unity board and led to the final break between the Muslim League and the Congress. Similarly, Azad concedes, rightly, that the Cabinet Mission Plan would have kept India united and that Congress was wrong in how it handled the Muslim League in the aftermath of the 1946 elections. It is also true that Azad wrote a letter to Gandhi, which suggested exactly that and which probably caused Azad to lose his place as president of the Congress. However, what Azad forgets is that he publicly justified and remained wedded to Congress’ erroneous interpretation of the groupings clause, which led to the collapse of the Cabinet Mission Plan.

Therefore, the myth of Azad’s prescience is problematic because it papers over facts leading to partition. It is a well-known fact now that Jinnah’s own idea of Pakistan was in a treaty arrangement with India, a sort of a European Union type arrangement, and not of complete partition. In fact, according to Mountbatten, Jinnah had to be forced into accepting partition. Therefore, the Jinnah-Azad binary itself is perhaps a distortion of history and should be avoided in any serious investigation of partition.

The writer is a practising lawyer. He blogs at http://globallegalorum.blogspot and his twitter handle is therealylh

Home | Editorial
 
COMMENT: Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and his legacy — Yasser Latif Hamdani
Azad’s role for two decades after partition was one of the token Congress Muslim ‘show boy’ as Jinnah famously called him

.........................

Yasser Latif Hamdani has been on this unsubstantiated "crusade" against the Shorish Kashmiri interview without being able to prove that it is in fact a fudge. Anyone who either listened to Azad's speeches (available on internet btw) or has read what is written in "India Wins Freedom" would be left in no real doubt about the truth of the Shorish Kashmiri interview. The rest of his rubbishing of Azad & the Congress is standard fare for any believer of the two nation theory & YLH's comments are unfortunately par for the course. The fact that some 65 years after partition that some Pakistanis feel the need to still rubbish those Muslims who didn't share their view of the 2NT as "Show-boys" is a sad reflection of the frustration felt by many when they see what Pakistan is today as opposed to the dream of 1947.

Time to move on!
 
The only problem is that the latter list of predictions has been transmitted to us through a dubious source. This source was Agha Shorish Kashmiri, a committed Ahrari leader who opposed the creation of Pakistan (and ironically, played an important role in fomenting sectarian trouble against Ahmadis and Shias in Pakistan). No one other than Kashmiri seems to have seen a record of this interview and there is no primary source to confirm this interview. The said interview does not appear in any of Azad’s papers or in any record of his life as preserved in India. In the view of this writer therefore, that interview was a concoction and a distortion invented by Agha Shorish Kashmiri in the 1970s when he wrote an Urdu biography of Azad. TV shows like Khabarnaak have recently referenced these predictions and the myth therefore, is now fully under way as being accepted as the gospel truth.


wowwww!!! eye opener people swallow nonsense without confirming it!! this really did make me research & surely there is NO RECORD of MUALANA's preidcition.

Azad repeatedly denounced the Aligarh school and chastised Muslims for following the timid and pro-western ways of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, when Islam was a complete code of life. He also gave the famous fatwa for Hijrat, which declared that India under British rule was Dar-ul-Harb and that it was the religious duty of every Muslim to either resist the government or migrate to Afghanistan. It is noteworthy that Jinnah repeatedly warned Gandhi to stay away from this pseudo-religious approach, which would ultimately divide Hindus and Muslims as well as Muslims and Muslims. The consequences of the Khilafat Movement and the rhetoric of Azad and Maulana Mohammad Ali were that Muslim professionals left government service and other material benefits of the British rule and were led onto a path of self-destruction.

this is another very interesting point that alot of people prefer to over look!

That Jinnah had predicted this in his letters to Gandhi is a matter of record. Azad’s role for two decades after partition was one of the token Congress Muslim ‘show boy’ as Jinnah famously called him. In his book, India Wins Freedom, Azad blames Jawaharlal Nehru for not coming to an arrangement with the Muslim League after the 1937 elections

so MUALANA blamed NEHRU of being arrogant & not willing to share power.


In fact, according to Mountbatten, Jinnah had to be forced into accepting partition.

??????????????????????????????????????? when did mountbatten say that!!!
 
In fact, according to Mountbatten, Jinnah had to be forced into accepting partition.

??????????????????????????????????????? when did mountbatten say that!!!

Actually the only partition that Mountbatten forced on Jinnah was that of Punjab & Bengal by pointing out that if he(Jinnah) did not want Muslims to live as a minority in a united India, he should certainly not expect Hindus & Sikhs to agree to live in a united Punjab & Bengal within Pakistan where they would be a minority ( Jinnah's "A man is a Bengali/Punjabi before he is a Muslim/hindu was countered by Mountbatten's "That man is an Indian before being a Punjabi/Bengali" and if you insist on partitioning India, then partition of Punjab/Bengal follows). Hoisted on his own petard if you will; Jinnah finally had to accept that particular partition.
 
Actually the only partition that Mountbatten forced on Jinnah was that of Punjab & Bengal by pointing out that if he(Jinnah) did not want Muslims to live as a minority in a united India, he should certainly not expect Hindus & Sikhs to agree to live in a united Punjab & Bengal within Pakistan where they would be a minority ( Jinnah's "A man is a Bengali/Punjabi before he is a Muslim/hindu was countered by Mountbatten's "That man is an Indian before being a Punjabi/Bengali" and if you insist on partitioning India, then partition of Punjab/Bengal follows). Hoisted on his own petard if you will; Jinnah finally had to accept that particular partition.

so basically you agree that Mountbatten was working in FAVOR of india! that should debunk alot of people's myth that Brits were on pakistan's side!

why wasn't this logic applied for kashmir by mountbatten?
 
so basically you agree that Mountbatten was working in FAVOR of india! that should debunk alot of people's myth that Brits were on pakistan's side!

Mountbatten gave Jinnah a "Pakistan" & he took away smaller parts of Bengal & Kashmir (which he had to if he accepted the 2NT & created Pakistan), does it look like he worked for India?
why wasn't this logic applied for kashmir by mountbatten?

Err...maybe because it was a princely state & could make its own arrangements? Btw, it amuses me to see Pakistanis bringing up Kashmir as some sort of a betrayal when Mr. Jinnah did & offered everything possible to the Maharaja of Jodhpur (a Hindu majority state) to go into Pakistan. It was only V P Menon who persuaded the Maharaja to accept less than what the Pakistanis were offering, even staring down the furious Maharaja when he pointed a pistol at him. Pakistan didn't have a V.P.Menon, so didn't get Kashmir (at least, not the whole part).
 
Mountbatten gave Jinnah a "Pakistan" & he took away smaller parts of Bengal & Kashmir (which he had to if he accepted the 2NT & created Pakistan), does it look like he worked for India?


Err...maybe because it was a princely state & could make its own arrangements? Btw, it amuses me to see Pakistanis bringing up Kashmir as some sort of a betrayal when Mr. Jinnah did & offered everything possible to the Maharaja of Jodhpur (a Hindu majority state) to go into Pakistan. It was only V P Menon who persuaded the Maharaja to accept less than what the Pakistanis were offering, even staring down the furious Maharaja when he pointed a pistol at him. Pakistan didn't have a V.P.Menon, so didn't get Kashmir (at least, not the whole part).

well that is the sad part indians fail to understand JINNAH TOOK PAKISTAN! with the will of the people and Mountabtten spoilt his plans by dividing bengal & punjab under the wily old nehru!


as for jodhpur well ofcourse jodhpur cannot be compared to kashmir. because jodhpur had a majority hindu led by a hindu. however, Junagadh & kashmir are similar. ruled by a man of different religion and subjects mostly 99% believing in another faith.

in the case of kashmir Singh's accession was acceted in kashmir but in Junagadh the Nawab BHUTTO's wasn't? why
 
well that is the sad part indians fail to understand JINNAH TOOK PAKISTAN! with the will of the people and Mountabtten spoilt his plans by dividing bengal & punjab under the wily old nehru!

What is your logic in asking that Hindus & Sikhs should have lived in Bengal & Punjab that was ostensibly a part of a Muslim country? Simply bewildering! What was that 2NT again?


as for jodhpur well ofcourse jodhpur cannot be compared to kashmir. because jodhpur had a majority hindu led by a hindu.

So why did Mr. Jinnah try & get the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan? What part of the 2NT was that from?

however, Junagadh & kashmir are similar. ruled by a man of different religion and subjects mostly 99% believing in another faith.
in the case of kashmir Singh's accession was acceted in kashmir but in Junagadh the Nawab BHUTTO's wasn't? why

Pakistan was built on the premise of being a Muslim state, no logic whatsoever in attempting to add people who were non Muslims to it. India was & remains constitutionally secular, no bar for a Muslim majority, Sikh majority or Christian majority state from being a part of it.
 
Shows how much of an upright person he was.
I love every muslim leagur leaders,respect them . but If the choice is between " quaid & others", then without wastin a second
I would choose Jinnah.On every sense he was a true leader,patriot & real dreamer , basis of United Pakistan.His unexpected death
cost us much & always will.Long live QUAID
 
What is your logic in asking that Hindus & Sikhs should have lived in Bengal & Punjab that was ostensibly a part of a Muslim country? Simply bewildering! What was that 2NT again?




So why did Mr. Jinnah try & get the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan? What part of the 2NT was that from?



Pakistan was built on the premise of being a Muslim state, no logic whatsoever in attempting to add people who were non Muslims to it. India was & remains constitutionally secular, no bar for a Muslim majority, Sikh majority or Christian majority state from being a part of it.

the 2NT is till today not understood by indians! it was simply this: Muslims will become a large minority in hindu india & their position will be marginalised!

which it HAS become the case clearly.

if 2NT was JUST for muslims ONLY as claimed by you! then paksitan would have no minoirty left! nor any sikhs left in Pakistan!

& in the first speech by Mohammed Ali Jinnah made it clear.

now coming to JODHPUR Mohammed Ali Jinnah was more or less neutral to the accesion. didn't fight for it tooth & nail like he did for kashmir. Jodhpur never even became a major issue. comparatevly junagadh was bigger.

the irnoic situation is that from 1947 india just went after land grab be it junagadh,jodhpur,hyderabad or kashmir.


and incidents such as Orissa, golden temple or gujrat clearly debunks your belief that minorities in "secular" india are fine.
 
the irnoic situation is that from 1947 india just went after land grab be it junagadh,jodhpur,hyderabad or kashmir.

Whats ironical about it ?

Consolidation was the first logical step after partition.
 
the 2NT is till today not understood by indians! it was simply this: Muslims will become a large minority in hindu india & their position will be marginalised!

which it HAS become the case clearly.

if 2NT was JUST for muslims ONLY as claimed by you! then paksitan would have no minoirty left! nor any sikhs left in Pakistan!

Yeah...Muslims should not be a minority but Hindus of Bengal & Sikhs of Punjab should have been? Any surprise that they did not care for that particular position? As far as those minorities who remained in Pakistan, they are simply the lost people who for whatever reason made a poor decision & condemned themselves to a second class citizenship constitutionally.

& in the first speech by Mohammed Ali Jinnah made it clear.

Words really come easy, no one in Pakistan ever took that seriously nor do they do now.
now coming to JODHPUR Mohammed Ali Jinnah was more or less neutral to the accesion. didn't fight for it tooth & nail like he did for kashmir. Jodhpur never even became a major issue. comparatevly junagadh was bigger.

The question was not whether it became bigger or whether someone fought tooth & nail, Certainly not neutral since Jinnah offered a Hindu Raja with Hindu subjects extraordinary terms to join Pakistan - Karachi as a free port, control the railway line to Sindh and all this to get a Hindu populace to be a minority in a Muslim country when Mr. Jinnah proudly refused the reverse? That pretty much mocks anyone talking about what India did in Kashmir. Jinnah tried & failed, India succeeded! That's the difference.

the irnoic situation is that from 1947 india just went after land grab be it junagadh,jodhpur,hyderabad or kashmir.

What's ironic? Pakistan tried persuasion & failed, then tried force & failed again. That's all!

and incidents such as Orissa, golden temple or gujrat clearly debunks your belief that minorities in "secular" india are fine.


A bit rich coming from a Pakistani, whatever happens in India; it is simply not supported by the constitution. Your country institutes constitutional discrimination not only against the minorities but also those who claim to be part of your state religion simply because the majority disagree. You guys simply have no leg to stand on when you point fingers at some incidents in India.
 
^^ Please realize that people argue for their points to be heard, not to hear other's points, however brainwashed that may be --- especially in topics which deal with the creation of their nation.
 
^^ Please realize that people argue for their points to be heard, not to hear other's points, however brainwashed that may be --- especially in topics which deal with the creation of their nation.

We have a massive industrial scale "Brainwasher" in every town , where we "brainwash" people everyday :facepalm: :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom