Secular and Nationalist Jinnah Review

[MultaniGuy]

Hon Joe Shearer,

Except in the field Energy/ Petroleum, my knowledge is now way near yours. I am therefore humbled by the fact that you asked my opinion. Therefore whatever its worth, here it is:

My understanding being that Westphalia Treaty of October 1648 primarily asserted the concept of sovereignty of the nation state. Basically meaning no interference by another nation. Hence I fail to understand why Mr Ramachandra Guha views Pakistan as “Truly Westphalian nation” and not India? And what is a ‘Westphalian nation?

But this is another issue. The topic under discussion here is whether Mohammad Ali Jinnah hereafter referred to as Quaid was a secular nationalist or not and consequently was Pakistan meant to be a secular State?

This subject is close to my heart and I have spent a lot of time reading the available material in effort to find the real Quaid. Syed Hashim Raza, first Administrator of Karachi (July 1948 to April 1951) who personally knew the Quaid, was invited to a function while I was ESSO and I had the opportunity to discuss the Quaid with him as well. However like everyone else my conclusions are tinted with my personal prejudices therefore not necessarily 100% correct.

I believe that unless divinely guided, no one is perfect. Therefore all great men; despite achieving great things and having qualities such as Integrity, Honesty, Fortitude & Resoluteness; being mere mortals, are not flawless. Our Quaid was no different.

Quaid e Azam was born Ismaili and later converted to the traditional Shia. However he was not an orthodox Shia or a religious person. He was always attired in western style clothes until late in life. Conservative Muslims did not like him because they found him too westernized, others because he was too straight and uncompromising. Mualana Maudoodi of Jamaat Islami as well as Mualana Mazhar Ali Azhar of Majlis-e-Ahrar reportedly called him ‘Kafir-a- Azam’.

Majlis-e-Ahrar at their gathering of Delhi passed a resolution on March 3, 1940 against the Pakistan plan and reportedly dubbed Pakistan as “Palidistan” meaning land of the unclean. I have heard that a young man, belonging to the Khaksars, attempted to assassinate him on 26 July 1943.

http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article3161.html

The slogan (Pakistan ka matlab kia, la ilaha illalah) was coined in 1944 by the Urdu poet Asghar Sodai. Muslim League never used the slogan.

“Neither the Muslim League Working Committee nor I ever passed a resolution [called] 'Pakistan ka matlab kya' — you may have used it to catch a few votes,” said Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah when a Muslim Leaguer chanted this slogan at the last session of the All India Muslim League. “

https://www.dawn.com/news/1121773

However the religious parties, who were staunchly against Pakistan and the Quaid until 1946, have since exploited this slogan to mislead the Pakistani public.

Our Quaid was also a brilliant orator and politician. Admittedly the Quaid used the Islam card in his speeches on many occasions. For example in his address to the students of Ismail College Bombay on Feb 1, 1943 he stated.

“It is a historical fact that the Mussalmans are a separate nation and we must have our own states.
&
Congress Hindu leaders speak of unity and brotherhood with Muslims in a United India but they would not eat our food and if a Hindu shook hands with a Muslim, he would wash his hands thereafter.

In another speech he declared that:

"Hindus want it (unitary gov’t) because in that case they would have a perennial majority of three to one and thus one society with its majority would rule the other society and nation namely Muslims who would be a minority always."

In my opinion these speeches were primarily meant to be ‘Opinion makers’. It is also well known that the Quaid was for Hindu Muslim unity until the mid-1930’s and in reality desired a loose federation rather than complete separation; hence the Muslim League accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan.

We would never know whether the Quaid would have agreed to Gandhiji’s proposal presented at the 11th hour in 1947 that Mohammed Ali Jinnah be the first Prime Minister of United India and name his Cabinet, but arguably the real architect of the partition is Pundit Nehru who vehemently opposed this suggestion.

The reader would now be justified in asking, do I think the Quaid was a secularist?

In Pakistan, people define somebody who does not believe in Islam or any other religion, as secular. In that sense, our Quaid was not secular but a Muslim albeit not a pious Muslim. However, in the accepted definition of secular who believes “The State should have no say in the matter of religion” our Quaid was a secularist.

I honestly believe that intention of the Muslim League was to create a liberal & progressive Pakistan as clearly declared by the Quaid in his August 11, 1947 speech to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. IMHO the Objectives Resolutions adopted by the Constituent Assembly on March 12, 1949, 6 months after the Quaid passed away would not have gone through if the Quaid were still alive.

One thing however certain, neither the Quaid nor the founding fathers intended to form an Islamic state on the lines of Saudi Arabia / Iran or the Islamic regimes of ISIS / Taliban Afghanistan. Religious leaders had realized this fact and that is why they opposed the creation of Pakistan.

Don't confuse the people. What was the point of Pakistan's creation? Obviously it was to have an Islamic state.
So Muslims could live in a secular environment? LOL.

You could live in India for that.

Secular losers only survive in the internet. But in the on ground realities of Pakistan, they won't succeed.

 

[niaz]

Don't confuse the people. What was the point of Pakistan's creation? Obviously it was to have an Islamic state.
So Muslims could live in a secular environment? LOL.

You could live in India for that.

Secular losers only survive in the internet. But in the on ground realities of Pakistan, they won't succeed.

Sir,

Did you ever ask yourself that if Pakistan was to be an Islamic State, why would religious parties be so much against partition? However if you chose to deny historical facts, you are welcome to believe whatever your wish.

Quote

Mr Jinnah’s Muslim opponents

DECEMBER 21, 2013 BY YASSER LATIF HAMDANI

Jamaat-e-Islami

Chief amongst Jinnah’s critics amongst Muslims was Jamaat-e-Islami’s founder Maulana Maududi. His statements taken from “Muslims and the Present Political Turmoil” (Vol.III) First Edition published from Delhi. are as under: “Pity! From League’s Quaid-e-Azam down to the lower cadres, there is not a single person who has an Islamic outlook and thinking and whose perspective on matters is Islamic.” (Ibid. P.37)

“To pronounce these people fit for leading Muslims for the simple reason that they are experts of Western type politics and masters of Western organizational arts, and are deeply in love with their people, is a manifestation of an unIslamic viewpoint and reflects ignorance of Islam”. (Ibid. P.70)

“Even with a microscopic study of their practical life, and their thinking, ideology, political behaviour and style of leadership, one can find not a trace of Islamic character.”

Jamaat-e-Islami now claims claims that the Muslim League won the elections because it promised Pakistan as an Islamic state. Here is what Maulana Maududi said then:

“In no Muslim League resolution, or in a speech by a responsible leader of the League it been made clear that their final goal is of establishing an Islamic system of government. Those who believe that by freeing Muslim majority areas rule of Hindu majority, an Islamic government will be established here in a democratic set up, are wrong. In fact what will be achieved will be a heretical government by Muslims, indeed worse than that.” (Ibid. P.130-32)

Majlis-e-Ahrar

Majlis-e-Ahrar of Ataullah Shah Bukhari and Mazhar Ali Azhar opposed Jinnah because they felt that the Muslim League had too many Ahmadis and Shias in it.

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

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

Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind

Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind under Maulana Azad and Maulana Madni opposed Jinnah because they believed that the solution in India was a Medina style compact between Hindus and Muslims. Maulana Azad, though also a Congressman, however had favoured the Cabinet Mission Plan that Jinnah also accepted. According to Azad the Cabinet Mission Plan preserved the positives of the Pakistan scheme while avoiding the negatives. In his prescient book “India Wins Freedom”, Azad had predicted the breakup of Pakistan.

The Khan Brothers and the Khudai Khidmatgars

Dr. Khan Abdul Jabbar Khan and his brother Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan were also opponents of Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League. The Khan Brothers were close to the Congress and thought that in an independent United India their interests were more secure. When the partition plan was announced in June 1947, the Khan Brothers began agitating for Pakhtunistan option. However both the Congress central leadership and Muslim League refused to countenance the idea. Despite the fact that Dr. Khan sb’s ministry had lost the majority after partition, when several members of their coalition defected to the Muslim League, the Khan Brothers refused to resign from government prompting a removal of government upon Jinnah’s advice on 22 August 1947.

Ghaffar Khan took the oath of allegiance to Pakistan in late 1947 and was received by Jinnah himself who remarked “today Pakistan is complete”. However the Khan Brothers were suspected by NWFP Chief Minister Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, who himself had been a member of the Khan Brothers coalition a few years earlier, of being in cahoots with Faqir of Ipi, a militant from Waziristan who had declared Jehad on the Pakistani state. The Khan Brothers were arrested in early summer of 1948. The Awami National Party, an heir to the Khan Brothers, continues to play an important role in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The Khaksars

Another group that consistently opposed Jinnah and even tried to assassinate him were the Khaksars. This group was founded by Allama Inayetullah Mashriqi and was said to be modeled after Adolf Hitler’s National Socialists. Allama Inayetullah Mashriqi accused Jinnah of being in cahoots with the British and opposed the partition of India. He believed that the partition of India would divide not just the Indian subcontinent but would also divide the Muslims.

Ch. Rahmat Ali

An unlikely opponent and critic of Jinnah was Ch. Rahmat Ali, the man credited with giving Pakistan its name. Rahmat Ali believed that by agreeing to the terms of June 3 Plan, Jinnah had sold out the Muslim “millet” and therefore had played the role of an agent of the Hindus and the British. Rahmat Ali believed that Pakistan homeland would comprise not just of West Pakistan and East Pakistan including the whole of Punjab and Bengal but would also have enclaves of Pakistani territory within the Indian republic. He had proposed names such as Usmanistan, Faruqistan and Siddiqistan for these enclaves within India.

Khizer Hayat Tiwana

The Unionist leader Khizer Hayat Tiwana was another opponent of Jinnah and Pakistan who felt that Jinnah was interfering too much in Punjab. After the repudiation of the Sikandar Jinnah Pact, Khizer Hayat proceeded to form a coalition government of pro-British elements and the Congress Party in Punjab despite the fact that Muslim League was the largest party in the province. Muslim League, aided by the Communist Party of India, started a civil disobedience movement which led to the fall of the Khizer government in early 1947.

Momin Conference

While a great majority of Shias had joined the Muslim League and Jinnah himself was known to be a Shia, a Shia group called the Momin Conference also lined up against Jinnah, raising the apprehension that despite Jinnah, the Sunni majority in Pakistan would ultimately restrict Shias in Pakistan.

***************

A change of heart

Opponents then, supporters now

Historians have always blamed JI for opposing the idea of an independent Pakistan though the religious party has always contested these allegations. Similarly, the ANP claims that it was not the only party against the two-nation theory. 65 years down the lane, let’s have a look at what these parties have to say now:

Liaquat Baloch, JI

Claiming it a conspiracy of the left and liberal forces, the JI leader had this to say: “It is an intellectual dishonesty on the part of the left and liberal forces to bracket JI with those that opposed the creation of Pakistan. In fact, it was Jamiat-i-Ulema Hind and Majlis-i-Ahrar that were on the forefront, not JI. They coined the term Kafir-e-Azam for the Quaid. JI never attributed or hurled such allegations against the founder of Pakistan. When a referendum was taking place in the then NWFP, somebody asked Maulana Maududi about his position. He said, ‘if I have the right to vote I will vote for Pakistan’.”

Zahid Ali Khan

The ANP leader concedes that they opposed an independent Pakistan back then, but right from when Pakistan came into being, they have supported it. Excerpts:

“We were not alone in opposing the idea of Pakistan. There were others, including JI, Jamiat-i-Ulema Hind, Majlis-i-Ahrar. We believed then that a new state would divide the Muslims of the subcontinent. But once Pakistan came into being, we supported it from the very onset. Bacha Khan in his speeches conceded that we opposed Pakistan initially but now that it was a reality, we would work for its betterment.”

–Nadeem Syed

Unquote

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/12/21/mr-jinnahs-muslim-opponents/

For the record, my comments were in response to a post by Hon. Joe Shearer. Personally I am not for a secular state but I would like Pakistan to be a liberal progressive state that it was during the Ayub Khan's era; certainly not what it became after the bigot Zia messed it up.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Sir,

Did you ever ask yourself that if Pakistan was to be an Islamic State, why would religious parties be so much against partition? However if you chose to deny historical facts, you are welcome to believe whatever your wish.

Quote

Mr Jinnah’s Muslim opponents

DECEMBER 21, 2013 BY YASSER LATIF HAMDANI

Jamaat-e-Islami

Chief amongst Jinnah’s critics amongst Muslims was Jamaat-e-Islami’s founder Maulana Maududi. His statements taken from “Muslims and the Present Political Turmoil” (Vol.III) First Edition published from Delhi. are as under: “Pity! From League’s Quaid-e-Azam down to the lower cadres, there is not a single person who has an Islamic outlook and thinking and whose perspective on matters is Islamic.” (Ibid. P.37)

“To pronounce these people fit for leading Muslims for the simple reason that they are experts of Western type politics and masters of Western organizational arts, and are deeply in love with their people, is a manifestation of an unIslamic viewpoint and reflects ignorance of Islam”. (Ibid. P.70)

“Even with a microscopic study of their practical life, and their thinking, ideology, political behaviour and style of leadership, one can find not a trace of Islamic character.”

Jamaat-e-Islami now claims claims that the Muslim League won the elections because it promised Pakistan as an Islamic state. Here is what Maulana Maududi said then:

“In no Muslim League resolution, or in a speech by a responsible leader of the League it been made clear that their final goal is of establishing an Islamic system of government. Those who believe that by freeing Muslim majority areas rule of Hindu majority, an Islamic government will be established here in a democratic set up, are wrong. In fact what will be achieved will be a heretical government by Muslims, indeed worse than that.” (Ibid. P.130-32)

Majlis-e-Ahrar

Majlis-e-Ahrar of Ataullah Shah Bukhari and Mazhar Ali Azhar opposed Jinnah because they felt that the Muslim League had too many Ahmadis and Shias in it.

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

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

Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind

Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind under Maulana Azad and Maulana Madni opposed Jinnah because they believed that the solution in India was a Medina style compact between Hindus and Muslims. Maulana Azad, though also a Congressman, however had favoured the Cabinet Mission Plan that Jinnah also accepted. According to Azad the Cabinet Mission Plan preserved the positives of the Pakistan scheme while avoiding the negatives. In his prescient book “India Wins Freedom”, Azad had predicted the breakup of Pakistan.

The Khan Brothers and the Khudai Khidmatgars

Dr. Khan Abdul Jabbar Khan and his brother Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan were also opponents of Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League. The Khan Brothers were close to the Congress and thought that in an independent United India their interests were more secure. When the partition plan was announced in June 1947, the Khan Brothers began agitating for Pakhtunistan option. However both the Congress central leadership and Muslim League refused to countenance the idea. Despite the fact that Dr. Khan sb’s ministry had lost the majority after partition, when several members of their coalition defected to the Muslim League, the Khan Brothers refused to resign from government prompting a removal of government upon Jinnah’s advice on 22 August 1947.

Ghaffar Khan took the oath of allegiance to Pakistan in late 1947 and was received by Jinnah himself who remarked “today Pakistan is complete”. However the Khan Brothers were suspected by NWFP Chief Minister Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, who himself had been a member of the Khan Brothers coalition a few years earlier, of being in cahoots with Faqir of Ipi, a militant from Waziristan who had declared Jehad on the Pakistani state. The Khan Brothers were arrested in early summer of 1948. The Awami National Party, an heir to the Khan Brothers, continues to play an important role in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The Khaksars

Another group that consistently opposed Jinnah and even tried to assassinate him were the Khaksars. This group was founded by Allama Inayetullah Mashriqi and was said to be modeled after Adolf Hitler’s National Socialists. Allama Inayetullah Mashriqi accused Jinnah of being in cahoots with the British and opposed the partition of India. He believed that the partition of India would divide not just the Indian subcontinent but would also divide the Muslims.

Ch. Rahmat Ali

An unlikely opponent and critic of Jinnah was Ch. Rahmat Ali, the man credited with giving Pakistan its name. Rahmat Ali believed that by agreeing to the terms of June 3 Plan, Jinnah had sold out the Muslim “millet” and therefore had played the role of an agent of the Hindus and the British. Rahmat Ali believed that Pakistan homeland would comprise not just of West Pakistan and East Pakistan including the whole of Punjab and Bengal but would also have enclaves of Pakistani territory within the Indian republic. He had proposed names such as Usmanistan, Faruqistan and Siddiqistan for these enclaves within India.

Khizer Hayat Tiwana

The Unionist leader Khizer Hayat Tiwana was another opponent of Jinnah and Pakistan who felt that Jinnah was interfering too much in Punjab. After the repudiation of the Sikandar Jinnah Pact, Khizer Hayat proceeded to form a coalition government of pro-British elements and the Congress Party in Punjab despite the fact that Muslim League was the largest party in the province. Muslim League, aided by the Communist Party of India, started a civil disobedience movement which led to the fall of the Khizer government in early 1947.

Momin Conference

While a great majority of Shias had joined the Muslim League and Jinnah himself was known to be a Shia, a Shia group called the Momin Conference also lined up against Jinnah, raising the apprehension that despite Jinnah, the Sunni majority in Pakistan would ultimately restrict Shias in Pakistan.

***************

A change of heart

Opponents then, supporters now

Historians have always blamed JI for opposing the idea of an independent Pakistan though the religious party has always contested these allegations. Similarly, the ANP claims that it was not the only party against the two-nation theory. 65 years down the lane, let’s have a look at what these parties have to say now:

Liaquat Baloch, JI

Claiming it a conspiracy of the left and liberal forces, the JI leader had this to say: “It is an intellectual dishonesty on the part of the left and liberal forces to bracket JI with those that opposed the creation of Pakistan. In fact, it was Jamiat-i-Ulema Hind and Majlis-i-Ahrar that were on the forefront, not JI. They coined the term Kafir-e-Azam for the Quaid. JI never attributed or hurled such allegations against the founder of Pakistan. When a referendum was taking place in the then NWFP, somebody asked Maulana Maududi about his position. He said, ‘if I have the right to vote I will vote for Pakistan’.”

Zahid Ali Khan

The ANP leader concedes that they opposed an independent Pakistan back then, but right from when Pakistan came into being, they have supported it. Excerpts:

“We were not alone in opposing the idea of Pakistan. There were others, including JI, Jamiat-i-Ulema Hind, Majlis-i-Ahrar. We believed then that a new state would divide the Muslims of the subcontinent. But once Pakistan came into being, we supported it from the very onset. Bacha Khan in his speeches conceded that we opposed Pakistan initially but now that it was a reality, we would work for its betterment.”

–Nadeem Syed

Unquote

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/12/21/mr-jinnahs-muslim-opponents/

For the record, my comments were in response to a post by Hon. Joe Shearer. Personally I am not for a secular state but I would like Pakistan to be a liberal progressive state that it was during the Ayub Khan's era; certainly not what it became after the bigot Zia messed it up.

You are taking things out of context.

Many Deobandi/Salafi Mullahs were won over for the cause of Pakistan. Otherwise why would Pakistan have mass appeal coming from the Muslim community.

Secondly Chaudhry Rehmat Ali was only angry that Pakistan was moth eaten. He though Pakistan deserved more land.

Anymore Neoliberal propaganda coming from you?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Many Deobandi/Salafi Mullahs were won over for the cause of Pakistan. Otherwise why would Pakistan have mass appeal coming from the Muslim community.

Not many, only a very few 'individuals'... And those too who had been expelled from Darul uloom Deoband (Shabbir Usmani for example) ... Darul uloom Deoband opposed Jinnah's Pakistan movement tooth and nail. This is an established historic fact no matter how much you want to deny it. The universal opposition of virtually every significant religious group in Undivided India, indeed the entire Muslim religious establishment to Jinnah`s Pakistan movement and the Muslim League cannot be reconciled with any idea of religious origins of Pakistan. This is just one of many paradoxes that anyone who thinks of that the true reason for the creation of Pakistan was to establish a religious 'Islamic state', must unravel.

Secondly Chaudhry Rehmat Ali was only angry that Pakistan was moth eaten. He though Pakistan deserved more land.

Wrong again


It was the first session of the third Round Table Conference that Ch. Rahmat Ali distributed leaflets advocating Pakistan to the British members of parliament and the Indian delegates . All the Muslim delegates opposed Rahmat`s plans . Jinnah ridiculed it

Rahmat Ali invited Jinnah to a black-tie dinner at London`s Waldorf Hotel in the spring of 1933 . He had arranged Banquet with its oysters and un-Islamic chablis at his own expense hoping to persuade Jinnah to take over his movement . But Rahmat received a "chilly rebuff"

Annoyed and agitated , he described Jinnah as the Boozna (a baboon) of Bombay

Interviews with landlady and housekeeper-secretary of Rahmat Ali , conducted by Dr Taufiq Shelley in 1970-71, yielded that Rahmat Ali was a devout pious Muslim who along with a few compatriots had been secretly and secretively very active as a pamphleteer from England creating and spreading among India’s Muslims a radical Islamist ideology for Pakistan .

Rahmat Ali was vituperative in his bigotry against Hindus, referring to the Indian nationalist movement as a “British-Banya alliance” presumably in reference to MK Gandhi’s caste. He even declined to refer to an “India” as having ever existed at all and instead personally renamed the entire subcontinent as “Dinia”, and the oceans and the seas around India as the “Pakian Sea”, the “Osmanian Sea” etc. He urged Sikhs to rise up against the Hindus in a “Sikhistan” (and might have interacted with Master Tara Singh), and indeed urged all of India’s peoples who were not Hindus to rise up in war against Hindus. Given the obscurity of the facts of his life before his arrival at Emmanuel College, what experiences may have led him to such extreme bigotry towards Hindus are not known.

Indeed Rahmat Ali’s views against Hindus may be classified with those of other bigoted views at the time such as those against Jews or against Muslims, which may all well have been examples or models or counterfoils for one another in the crank fringes of rival ideological movements at the time.



The anti-Hindu bigotry of Rahmat Ali’s views would explain why they were anathema to Jinnah, the secular-minded constitutionalist.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Not many, only a very few 'individuals'... And those too who had been expelled from Darul uloom Deoband (Shabbir Usmani for example) ... Darul uloom Deoband opposed Jinnah's Pakistan movement tooth and nail. This is an established historic fact no matter how much you want to deny it. The universal opposition of virtually every significant religious group in Undivided India, indeed the entire Muslim religious establishment to Jinnah`s Pakistan movement and the Muslim League cannot be reconciled with any idea of religious origins of Pakistan. This is just one of many paradoxes that anyone who thinks of that the true reason for the creation of Pakistan was to establish a religious 'Islamic state', must unravel.






Wrong again


It was the first session of the third Round Table Conference that Ch. Rahmat Ali distributed leaflets advocating Pakistan to the British members of parliament and the Indian delegates . All the Muslim delegates opposed Rahmat`s plans . Jinnah ridiculed it

Rahmat Ali invited Jinnah to a black-tie dinner at London`s Waldorf Hotel in the spring of 1933 . He had arranged Banquet with its oysters and un-Islamic chablis at his own expense hoping to persuade Jinnah to take over his movement . But Rahmat received a "chilly rebuff"

Annoyed and agitated , he described Jinnah as the Boozna (a baboon) of Bombay

Interviews with landlady and housekeeper-secretary of Rahmat Ali , conducted by Dr Taufiq Shelley in 1970-71, yielded that Rahmat Ali was a devout pious Muslim who along with a few compatriots had been secretly and secretively very active as a pamphleteer from England creating and spreading among India’s Muslims a radical Islamist ideology for Pakistan .

Rahmat Ali was vituperative in his bigotry against Hindus, referring to the Indian nationalist movement as a “British-Banya alliance” presumably in reference to MK Gandhi’s caste. He even declined to refer to an “India” as having ever existed at all and instead personally renamed the entire subcontinent as “Dinia”, and the oceans and the seas around India as the “Pakian Sea”, the “Osmanian Sea” etc. He urged Sikhs to rise up against the Hindus in a “Sikhistan” (and might have interacted with Master Tara Singh), and indeed urged all of India’s peoples who were not Hindus to rise up in war against Hindus. Given the obscurity of the facts of his life before his arrival at Emmanuel College, what experiences may have led him to such extreme bigotry towards Hindus are not known.

Indeed Rahmat Ali’s views against Hindus may be classified with those of other bigoted views at the time such as those against Jews or against Muslims, which may all well have been examples or models or counterfoils for one another in the crank fringes of rival ideological movements at the time.



The anti-Hindu bigotry of Rahmat Ali’s views would explain why they were anathema to Jinnah, the secular-minded constitutionalist.

Actually it is you who is wrong again.

There were many Mullahs who supported the cause of Pakistan like Chaudhry Niaz Ali Khan.

You can be blind in your support for a secular Pakistan, but in Pakistan nobody will accept it.

Pakistan was Chaudhry Rehmat Ali's idea. The idea of a devout mainstream Muslim.

but of course you cannot swallow that.

I am not convinced by your weak crappy arguments. lol

Yeah a good read for the seculars/liberals who lives in a world of their own.
to the normal Pakistanis! don't waste your Rs.1000 on this cheap book, you just don't have to do this.

Agreed with you.

 

[Ali Tariq]

For the record, my comments were in response to a post by Hon. Joe Shearer. Personally I am not for a secular state but I would like Pakistan to be a liberal progressive state that it was during the Ayub Khan's era; certainly not what it became after the bigot Zia messed it up.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Actually it is you who is wrong again.

There were many Mullahs who supported the cause of Pakistan like Chaudhry Niaz Ali Khan.

You can be blind in your support for a secular Pakistan, but in Pakistan nobody will accept it.

Never heard of Chaudhary Niaz Ali Khan but wiki says about him that he was a civil engineer, civil servant, landowner, agriculturalist and philanthropist.

I wonder what makes you claim that he was a Deoband Mullah

Pakistan was Chaudhry Rehmat Ali's idea. The idea of a devout mainstream Muslim.

but of course you cannot swallow that.

Well, Denial ain't just a rive in Egypt ...

 

[MultaniGuy]

Never heard of Chaudhary Niaz Ali Khan but wiki says about him that he was a civil engineer, civil servant, landowner, agriculturalist and philanthropist.

I wonder what makes you claim that he was a Deoband Mullah



Well, Denial ain't just a rive in Egypt ...

It is you who is in denial.

 

[Ali Tariq]

Actually it is you who is wrong again.

Bhai aap kaisa Pakistan chahte hain?
Mein ek aisa Pakistan chahta hoon jahan pe women ko un ke poore rights diye jayen.
Jahan minorities ko poore rights milein, jaise hum Muslims ko haasil hain.
Aisa Pakistan jahan kisi ko 'mazhab ke thekedaaron' ke saamne apne Muslim hone ka saboot na dena parre.
Aisa Pakistan jahan kisi ko bhi mazhab ke naam per murder na kiya jaye.
Aisa Pakistan jahan 'fatwe' baante na jayen.

Jin so called 'Molvis' ko aap protect/support karte hain ye sirf mazhab ke naam ka chooran bechte hain, agar Pakistan such mein Islamic repulic ban jaye jo sab se pehle ye loag hi phaansi ke phande per nazar aayen.

And sir @niaz is a very senior and respectable member and a true 'Patriot'

 

[MultaniGuy]

Bhai aap kaisa Pakistan chahte hain?
Mein ek aisa Pakistan chahta hoon jahan pe women ko un ke poore rights diye jayen.
Jahan minorities ko poore rights milein, jaise hum Muslims ko haasil hain.
Aisa Pakistan jahan kisi ko 'mazhab ke thekedaaron' ke saamne apne Muslim hone ka saboot na dena parre.
Aisa Pakistan jahan kisi ko bhi mazhab ke naam per murder na kiya jaye.
Aisa Pakistan jahan 'fatwe' baante na jayen.

Jin so called 'Molvis' ko aap protect/support karte hain ye sirf mazhab ke naam ka chooran bechte hain, agar Pakistan such mein Islamic repulic ban jaye jo sab se pehle ye loag hi phaansi ke phande per nazar aayen.

And sir @niaz is a very senior and respectable member and a true 'Patriot'

What is your point? I can disagree with senior members of this forum.

Who are you to tell me this?

 

[Ali Tariq]

What is your point? I can disagree with senior members of this forum.

Who are you to tell me this?

Calm down brother, this is an open forum.
Mein ne aap ko aisa to kuch nahi kaha jo aap aise gussa karein.

Don't confuse the people. What was the point of Pakistan's creation? Obviously it was to have an Islamic state.
So Muslims could live in a secular environment? LOL.

You could live in India for that.

Secular losers only survive in the internet. But in the on ground realities of Pakistan, they won't succeed.

Ye topic chal raha tha to mein ne bhi baat kar li lekin agar aap ko bura laga hai to "Sorry".
Ab to aap ki post dekh kar reply karte hue bhi dar hi lag raha hai.

 

[SecularNationalist]

Sir,

Did you ever ask yourself that if Pakistan was to be an Islamic State, why would religious parties be so much against partition? However if you chose to deny historical facts, you are welcome to believe whatever your wish.

Quote

Mr Jinnah’s Muslim opponents

DECEMBER 21, 2013 BY YASSER LATIF HAMDANI

Jamaat-e-Islami

Chief amongst Jinnah’s critics amongst Muslims was Jamaat-e-Islami’s founder Maulana Maududi. His statements taken from “Muslims and the Present Political Turmoil” (Vol.III) First Edition published from Delhi. are as under: “Pity! From League’s Quaid-e-Azam down to the lower cadres, there is not a single person who has an Islamic outlook and thinking and whose perspective on matters is Islamic.” (Ibid. P.37)

“To pronounce these people fit for leading Muslims for the simple reason that they are experts of Western type politics and masters of Western organizational arts, and are deeply in love with their people, is a manifestation of an unIslamic viewpoint and reflects ignorance of Islam”. (Ibid. P.70)

“Even with a microscopic study of their practical life, and their thinking, ideology, political behaviour and style of leadership, one can find not a trace of Islamic character.”

Jamaat-e-Islami now claims claims that the Muslim League won the elections because it promised Pakistan as an Islamic state. Here is what Maulana Maududi said then:

“In no Muslim League resolution, or in a speech by a responsible leader of the League it been made clear that their final goal is of establishing an Islamic system of government. Those who believe that by freeing Muslim majority areas rule of Hindu majority, an Islamic government will be established here in a democratic set up, are wrong. In fact what will be achieved will be a heretical government by Muslims, indeed worse than that.” (Ibid. P.130-32)

Majlis-e-Ahrar

Majlis-e-Ahrar of Ataullah Shah Bukhari and Mazhar Ali Azhar opposed Jinnah because they felt that the Muslim League had too many Ahmadis and Shias in it.

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

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

Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind

Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind under Maulana Azad and Maulana Madni opposed Jinnah because they believed that the solution in India was a Medina style compact between Hindus and Muslims. Maulana Azad, though also a Congressman, however had favoured the Cabinet Mission Plan that Jinnah also accepted. According to Azad the Cabinet Mission Plan preserved the positives of the Pakistan scheme while avoiding the negatives. In his prescient book “India Wins Freedom”, Azad had predicted the breakup of Pakistan.

The Khan Brothers and the Khudai Khidmatgars

Dr. Khan Abdul Jabbar Khan and his brother Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan were also opponents of Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League. The Khan Brothers were close to the Congress and thought that in an independent United India their interests were more secure. When the partition plan was announced in June 1947, the Khan Brothers began agitating for Pakhtunistan option. However both the Congress central leadership and Muslim League refused to countenance the idea. Despite the fact that Dr. Khan sb’s ministry had lost the majority after partition, when several members of their coalition defected to the Muslim League, the Khan Brothers refused to resign from government prompting a removal of government upon Jinnah’s advice on 22 August 1947.

Ghaffar Khan took the oath of allegiance to Pakistan in late 1947 and was received by Jinnah himself who remarked “today Pakistan is complete”. However the Khan Brothers were suspected by NWFP Chief Minister Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, who himself had been a member of the Khan Brothers coalition a few years earlier, of being in cahoots with Faqir of Ipi, a militant from Waziristan who had declared Jehad on the Pakistani state. The Khan Brothers were arrested in early summer of 1948. The Awami National Party, an heir to the Khan Brothers, continues to play an important role in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The Khaksars

Another group that consistently opposed Jinnah and even tried to assassinate him were the Khaksars. This group was founded by Allama Inayetullah Mashriqi and was said to be modeled after Adolf Hitler’s National Socialists. Allama Inayetullah Mashriqi accused Jinnah of being in cahoots with the British and opposed the partition of India. He believed that the partition of India would divide not just the Indian subcontinent but would also divide the Muslims.

Ch. Rahmat Ali

An unlikely opponent and critic of Jinnah was Ch. Rahmat Ali, the man credited with giving Pakistan its name. Rahmat Ali believed that by agreeing to the terms of June 3 Plan, Jinnah had sold out the Muslim “millet” and therefore had played the role of an agent of the Hindus and the British. Rahmat Ali believed that Pakistan homeland would comprise not just of West Pakistan and East Pakistan including the whole of Punjab and Bengal but would also have enclaves of Pakistani territory within the Indian republic. He had proposed names such as Usmanistan, Faruqistan and Siddiqistan for these enclaves within India.

Khizer Hayat Tiwana

The Unionist leader Khizer Hayat Tiwana was another opponent of Jinnah and Pakistan who felt that Jinnah was interfering too much in Punjab. After the repudiation of the Sikandar Jinnah Pact, Khizer Hayat proceeded to form a coalition government of pro-British elements and the Congress Party in Punjab despite the fact that Muslim League was the largest party in the province. Muslim League, aided by the Communist Party of India, started a civil disobedience movement which led to the fall of the Khizer government in early 1947.

Momin Conference

While a great majority of Shias had joined the Muslim League and Jinnah himself was known to be a Shia, a Shia group called the Momin Conference also lined up against Jinnah, raising the apprehension that despite Jinnah, the Sunni majority in Pakistan would ultimately restrict Shias in Pakistan.

***************

A change of heart

Opponents then, supporters now

Historians have always blamed JI for opposing the idea of an independent Pakistan though the religious party has always contested these allegations. Similarly, the ANP claims that it was not the only party against the two-nation theory. 65 years down the lane, let’s have a look at what these parties have to say now:

Liaquat Baloch, JI

Claiming it a conspiracy of the left and liberal forces, the JI leader had this to say: “It is an intellectual dishonesty on the part of the left and liberal forces to bracket JI with those that opposed the creation of Pakistan. In fact, it was Jamiat-i-Ulema Hind and Majlis-i-Ahrar that were on the forefront, not JI. They coined the term Kafir-e-Azam for the Quaid. JI never attributed or hurled such allegations against the founder of Pakistan. When a referendum was taking place in the then NWFP, somebody asked Maulana Maududi about his position. He said, ‘if I have the right to vote I will vote for Pakistan’.”

Zahid Ali Khan

The ANP leader concedes that they opposed an independent Pakistan back then, but right from when Pakistan came into being, they have supported it. Excerpts:

“We were not alone in opposing the idea of Pakistan. There were others, including JI, Jamiat-i-Ulema Hind, Majlis-i-Ahrar. We believed then that a new state would divide the Muslims of the subcontinent. But once Pakistan came into being, we supported it from the very onset. Bacha Khan in his speeches conceded that we opposed Pakistan initially but now that it was a reality, we would work for its betterment.”

–Nadeem Syed

Unquote

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/12/21/mr-jinnahs-muslim-opponents/

For the record, my comments were in response to a post by Hon. Joe Shearer. Personally I am not for a secular state but I would like Pakistan to be a liberal progressive state that it was during the Ayub Khan's era; certainly not what it became after the bigot Zia messed it up.

Calm down brother, this is an open forum.
Mein ne aap ko aisa to kuch nahi kaha jo aap aise gussa karein.


Ye topic chal raha tha to mein ne bhi baat kar li lekin agar aap ko bura laga hai to "Sorry".
Ab to aap ki post dekh kar reply karte hue bhi dar hi lag raha hai.

@niaz Dear Sir! You are worthy and respectable member of this forum.There is no need to spend your precious against that brainwashed islamist iqbal ali.When he talk he shows no respect and cultural values.He insults are unprovoked,he is disrespectful to everyone who differs in opinion or prove him wrong.You will stoop down to his level if engage him in discussion.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

@niaz Thanks for your post but I do feel that to get what you want the only way is a secular republic. Anything short of that and we will slip into religious profiteering and a whole industry ran by ignorant mullahs peddling their version of what they think is the way of Allah.

You mention Ayub Khan era but that was purely a transient phase and entirely premised on external factors. There was precious little desi about it. Ayub Khan was a thorough product of the British military tradition and was more a British yeoman officer from the home counties then anything desi. This also extended many of his officers who were resdidue of the British Raj. They representated the last flickering embers of the British Empire left behind as it receded.

Furthermore he played on that "Britishness" by endearing the Americans as the new Anglo-Saxon superpower. This afforded him the massive resources that easily exceed anything we see today in CPEC. Entire cantonments, cities, dams, airforce, armies were built up creating the hype of 1960s booming economy.

However all this was exotic flash in the pan. The real Pakistan, the millions on millions who lived the way they had done for centuries in ignorance bliss, looking up to the mullah and a backward culture best described as "desi" which had proven it's abject failure in the previous century when we had become slaves because of this backwardness. All this ocean of desi backwardness was waiting. Ayub Khan could have done what Kemal Ataturk - by bringing about change in the masses but he was neither a Ataturk and our polity was too divided and fractured.

As time went on those embers of the Raj died out and the oil boom in Middle East would preciptate the inevitable. The resurgence of the backewardness that had dominated us for centuries. The same backwardness that saw us fall victim to Sikh rule and then 98 years of British slavery.

Modern Pakistan is in fact going back to it's roots. The only thing preventing it;s decent to total madness is the British grafted some institutions like the military etc which are still functioning. To be brutal everything desi in Pakistan is destroying. And leftovers of the British Raj are just about saving it.

 

[niaz]

@niaz Thanks for your post but I do feel that to get what you want the only way is a secular republic. Anything short of that and we will slip into religious profiteering and a whole industry ran by ignorant mullahs peddling their version of what they think is the way of Allah.

You mention Ayub Khan era but that was purely a transient phase and entirely premised on external factors. There was precious little desi about it. Ayub Khan was a thorough product of the British military tradition and was more a British yeoman officer from the home counties then anything desi. This also extended many of his officers who were resdidue of the British Raj. They representated the last flickering embers of the British Empire left behind as it receded.

Furthermore he played on that "Britishness" by endearing the Americans as the new Anglo-Saxon superpower. This afforded him the massive resources that easily exceed anything we see today in CPEC. Entire cantonments, cities, dams, airforce, armies were built up creating the hype of 1960s booming economy.

However all this was exotic flash in the pan. The real Pakistan, the millions on millions who lived the way they had done for centuries in ignorance bliss, looking up to the mullah and a backward culture best described as "desi" which had proven it's abject failure in the previous century when we had become slaves because of this backwardness. All this ocean of desi backwardness was waiting. Ayub Khan could have done what Kemal Ataturk - by bringing about change in the masses but he was neither a Ataturk and our polity was too divided and fractured.

As time went on those embers of the Raj died out and the oil boom in Middle East would preciptate the inevitable. The resurgence of the backewardness that had dominated us for centuries. The same backwardness that saw us fall victim to Sikh rule and then 98 years of British slavery.

Modern Pakistan is in fact going back to it's roots. The only thing preventing it;s decent to total madness is the British grafted some institutions like the military etc which are still functioning. To be brutal everything desi in Pakistan is destroying. And leftovers of the British Raj are just about saving it.

Hon Kaptaan,

You are right; however this could have been possible only within a couple of years after the partition. Now it is not. Primarily because after the 1937 election; Punjab, NWFP (KPK) and Sind were all controlled by the secular party government.

In the key province of Punjab Unionists won 89 seats out 175, with Congress 18 & All India Muslim League could only manage 1. Unionists were a secular party of big landlords founded by Mian Fazle Hussein & Sir Chotu Ram. It comprised of 24 Muslim land owning families and 6 Hindu Jat families. All of Muslim feudal gentry of Punjab such as the Tiwanas, Noons, Mamdots, Nawab of Kalabagh, Qizilbash, Daulatanas, Gilanis, Qureshis and the Hayats of Wah were its members along with prominent Hindu landed gentry headed by Rao Bahadur Lal. Despite having Allama Iqbal as the president of Punjab faction, Muslim League gained popularity only after the Jinnah-Sikandar pact of 1937 engineered by Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan.

In the NWFP, Congress secured 19 out of 50 seats but was able to form the gov’t with the help of minority parties and Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s Khudai Khidmatagrs. Dr Khan Sahib, brother of Abdul Ghaffar Khan was head of the NWFP government.

In Sind, 34 out of 60 seats were reserved for Muslims but Muslim League could not win a single seat. Sind United party won 22 seats, Hindu Mahasaba11 and Congress 9 seats.

Even in Bengal, Congress was the largest party with 52 seats. However, A. K. Fazlul Haq whose Krishak Praja party won 36 seats, was head of the coalition government.

Thus, being used to living under largely secular governments, there would have been only marginal opposition from the Muslim population had the newly independent state declared as ‘Secular’. But that is “Might have been” and now water is under the bridge. Additionally, during the long reign of the bigot Zia, extremism & intolerance has made deep inroads into a large section of Pakistan’s’ population; thus no longer possible to turn back the clock.

Primary reason for the separate Muslim majority region was to avoid the possibility where a two third Hindu majority could make the life miserable for the Muslim minority in a united India. Neither Allama Iqbal nor the Quaid ever intended Pakistan to be an orthodox Sunni Wahhabi State that the extreme right wingers of Pakistan desire her to be.

Ismaili Imam HH Agha Khan was the first president of Muslim League and he occupied this position for 7 years. The founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah was also a Shia. Followers of Taliban / Wahhabis /Salafi factions kill the Shia & the Ismailis considering it Allah’s work. How could the founding fathers even think of creating a country where they would have their throats cut?

Because Pakistan was created on the basis of ‘TWO NATION’ theory. Even though the Two Nation theory ceased to be of relevance after the creation of Pakistan; IMO it would be a betrayal of Allama Iqbal’s vision to turn Pakistan into a purely secular State, therefore I am not for a secular Pakistan.

Whatever the extremist sympathisers wish or imagine, founding fathers intended Pakistan to be a tolerant, progressive & moderate country where Muslims as well as the minorities could live in peace. White portion of the Pakistani flag testifies that Pakistan was never intended to be country where Christian Churches are bombed by the extremist butchers. My model for Pakistan is as she was until 1968 or someplace like Dubai or Oman of today.

 

[SecularNationalist]

Not many, only a very few 'individuals'... And those too who had been expelled from Darul uloom Deoband (Shabbir Usmani for example) ... Darul uloom Deoband opposed Jinnah's Pakistan movement tooth and nail. This is an established historic fact no matter how much you want to deny it. The universal opposition of virtually every significant religious group in Undivided India, indeed the entire Muslim religious establishment to Jinnah`s Pakistan movement and the Muslim League cannot be reconciled with any idea of religious origins of Pakistan. This is just one of many paradoxes that anyone who thinks of that the true reason for the creation of Pakistan was to establish a religious 'Islamic state', must unravel.






Wrong again


It was the first session of the third Round Table Conference that Ch. Rahmat Ali distributed leaflets advocating Pakistan to the British members of parliament and the Indian delegates . All the Muslim delegates opposed Rahmat`s plans . Jinnah ridiculed it

Rahmat Ali invited Jinnah to a black-tie dinner at London`s Waldorf Hotel in the spring of 1933 . He had arranged Banquet with its oysters and un-Islamic chablis at his own expense hoping to persuade Jinnah to take over his movement . But Rahmat received a "chilly rebuff"

Annoyed and agitated , he described Jinnah as the Boozna (a baboon) of Bombay

Interviews with landlady and housekeeper-secretary of Rahmat Ali , conducted by Dr Taufiq Shelley in 1970-71, yielded that Rahmat Ali was a devout pious Muslim who along with a few compatriots had been secretly and secretively very active as a pamphleteer from England creating and spreading among India’s Muslims a radical Islamist ideology for Pakistan .

Rahmat Ali was vituperative in his bigotry against Hindus, referring to the Indian nationalist movement as a “British-Banya alliance” presumably in reference to MK Gandhi’s caste. He even declined to refer to an “India” as having ever existed at all and instead personally renamed the entire subcontinent as “Dinia”, and the oceans and the seas around India as the “Pakian Sea”, the “Osmanian Sea” etc. He urged Sikhs to rise up against the Hindus in a “Sikhistan” (and might have interacted with Master Tara Singh), and indeed urged all of India’s peoples who were not Hindus to rise up in war against Hindus. Given the obscurity of the facts of his life before his arrival at Emmanuel College, what experiences may have led him to such extreme bigotry towards Hindus are not known.

Indeed Rahmat Ali’s views against Hindus may be classified with those of other bigoted views at the time such as those against Jews or against Muslims, which may all well have been examples or models or counterfoils for one another in the crank fringes of rival ideological movements at the time.



The anti-Hindu bigotry of Rahmat Ali’s views would explain why they were anathema to Jinnah, the secular-minded constitutionalist.

I read the same what you wrote above in that book "secular and nationalist jinnah"
Rehmat ali was not happy with jinnah.