Friday, March 29, 2024
01:18 PM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > General > News & Articles

News & Articles Here you can share News and Articles that you consider important for the exam

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #11  
Old Sunday, June 03, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Competing narratives of Partition violence
June 2, 2012
By Ajmal Kamal

In one of the endnotes to his outstanding essay titled The partition of India and retributive genocide in the Punjab, 1946–47: Means, methods, and purposes Paul R Brass, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle, and the author of a number of important books and articles on ethnic politics and collective violence in South Asia, remarks: “The absence until very recently — and even now the very meagre presence — of serious research on what happened during the partition is regrettable… It has meant that the partition exists as a disastrous (for the Indian side) disjuncture in the arrival of the Indian state on the world scene and, on the Pakistan side, as a regrettable but necessary catastrophe that made possible the creation of the Pakistan state. But the sharpness and horrific character of the partition has made it appear as a kind of terrible accident that cannot be fit into the perceptions of the people of India and Pakistan concerning their past and future.”

The return to this highly revealing academic essay was occasioned by the recent publication of an interesting newspaper article “Manto and Sindh” (Dawn, May 27) by Mr Haider Nizamani. The writer correctly points out the marked difference between the ways Sindh and Punjab (the two provinces of present-day Pakistan as well as the two multi-ethnic, multi-religious larger communities on either sides of the border) experienced collective violence and mass migration at the time of Partition. As such, Nizamani justly complicates and questions what is taken as the dominant ‘national’ narrative of the 1946-47 violence that needs to be seen exclusively belonging to Punjab based on its unique experience, during and after Partition.

Sindh, clearly, did not undergo the kind of “retributive genocide” and the consequent total ethnic cleansing that the partitioned Punjab suffered. Nizamani argues that the experience of Punjab at the time of Partition should not be generalised as that of other parts of the present federation that do not share in full measure the high level of anti-non-Muslim rhetoric and fascination with the so-called ‘Pakistan ideology’ and its resultant militarism.

Nizamani expresses satisfaction on the fact that “Sindh has no equivalent of Saadat Hasan Manto as a chronicler of Partition. And the absence of a Manto-like figure in Sindhi literature on that count is good news. It shows the resilience of Sindh’s tolerant culture at a time when Punjab had slipped into fratricidal mayhem”. However, it was Manto who made a point similar to the one put forward by Brass and which we can benefit from even today, when the compulsions of domestic identity politics have created at least three competing historical narratives held by Punjabis, Sindhis and the Urdu-speaking Mohajirs of Sindh respectively.

Manto says: “Both Hindus and Muslims were being massacred. Why were they being massacred? There were different answers to the question; the Indian answer, the Pakistani answer, the British answer. Every question had an answer, but when you tried to unravel the truth, you were left groping.”

Let us begin with the ‘Mohajirs’ in Sindh — the community that I happen to belong to — who are as diverse a lot as any other in our country. As a result of a series of political decisions of inclusion and exclusion, they define themselves as the people (and their descendants) who migrated into Sindh mainly from UP/MP, Bihar, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Hyderabad, although the first category seems to dominate the rest culturally and politically.

It is interesting to note that those who came from East Punjab even to Sindh are excluded from the list; the popular community narrative nevertheless takes exclusive ‘credit’ for the ‘sacrifices’ made as a result of the Partition massacres that uniquely took place in the East and West Punjab! The ‘Mohajir’ narrative — as well as the current demand for ethnic division of Sindh being raised by a minority among them — is, therefore, more easily dismantled and shown to be wanting than the other two competing ones.

The current Sindhi narrative of the Partition events is not so seamless and impregnable either, as it is no less shaped by the event that occurred afterwards. True, the kind of violence that shook the two parts of Punjab was not experienced by Sindh as it decided to join Pakistan and a large part of its Hindu population left without being massacred. But the period in question was no less traumatic for the Sindhi Hindus who were made homeless.

Mohan Kalpana, the renowned Sindhi fiction writer, notes in his autobiography, “India’s freedom brought me no joy and in the last 35 years I have never once offered salutes to the Indian flag. I always found this freedom lacking and I never participated in the Independence Day celebrations. It reminds me that on this day we were dispossessed of our country.”

Nizamani goes on to present a rather uncomplicated explanation: “The violence against Sindhi Hindus and their mass migration to India was a tragic loss scripted, orchestrated and implemented by non-Sindhis in Sindh.” However, there are historical references that seem to question this view.

One such reference is a quote from Mohammad Ayub Khuhro, when he held the portfolio of Public Works in the Sindh ministry after the 1946 elections. He is quoted by Parsram V Tahilramani in his 1947 book Why the Exodus from Sind: Being a Brief Resume of Conditions Responsible for Exodus of Hindus, Sikhs and Harijans from Sind as saying: “Let the Hindus of Sind leave Sind and go elsewhere. Let them go while the going is good and possible; else I warn them that a time is fast coming when in their flight from Sind, they may not be able to get a horse or an ass or a gari or any other means of transport.”

Tahilramani is clearly of the view that their exodus was the result of a concerted campaign conducted by the leaders of the Sindh Muslim League during and after the 1946 elections.

The Express Tribune
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Sunday, March 24, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Events leading to Pakistan Resolution
By Malik Tariq Ali
Published: March 23, 2013



The Lahore Fort has witnessed many a rise and fall of conquerors, rebellion, downfall of dynasties and bloodshed, but never a revolution where 100 million Muslims of the subcontinent pledged to wage an unarmed constitutional struggle for the creation of a sovereign independent nation for themselves, as took place at the historic Minto Park on March 23, 1940.

Events preceding the March session in Lahore, when Punjab’s Unionist Party premier, Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, banned all private armed militias, had created tensions. This ban also impacted Allama Mashriqi’s Khaksar Tehreek, whose party’s newspaper, Al-Islah, launched a very critical and provocative campaign against him. On March 19, contingents of the Khaksar Tehreek, carrying spades, started gathering near Bhati Gate. When the police tried to stop them, a fight ensued, resulting in the death of a British police officer and injuries to many policemen. Later, police reinforcements arrived and mercilessly brutalised many Khaksars, killing several of them. This evoked a lot of anger amongst the Muslims living within the walled city, who vented it against Sikandar Hayat. The situation became so critical that Sikander Hayat pleaded with the Quaid on telephone to postpone the planned session of the All-India Muslim League (AIML). However, the Quaid was adamant that the historic meeting would go ahead as planned.

On March 21, the Quaid arrived in Lahore, where a grand reception was planned and he was to lead a huge rally on his way to the League office on Davis Road. However, in deference to the Muslim families mourning their dead, he instructed the organisers to cancel the rally. He issued a press release in which he revealed that important decisions were to be taken in Lahore. In the evening, a meeting of the AIML Council was held, which finalised the list of members for the Subjects Committee.

On March 22, an open session of the AIML was held, where the Quaid delivered his presidential address in which he gave a brief account of political developments in the preceding two years. Towards the end of his address, while elaborating upon the two-nation theory, he made a reference to a letter written by Lala Lajpat Rai to Bengal’s famous leader CR Das in 1924, where the former had stated that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations and they can never form part of one united nation.

In the evening, the Subjects Committee met, where the Quaid made it clear that the focus of the Lahore sessions would be on the Pakistan Resolution. Nawab Liaquat Ali Khan read out the proposed draft of the Resolution in Urdu, prepared by 21 members of the working committee. The resolution, translated into English by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, read, “That geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North Western and North Eastern Zones of India would be grouped to constitute ‘Independent States’ in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.”

When discussions resumed, Mr Ashiq Hussain Batalvi, proposed some changes, to ensure that Punjab and Bengal were not divided. Nawab Liaquat Ali Khan, however, assured him that this would not be allowed. Thus, no changes were made, the draft resolution was adopted and it was decided by the Quaid-e-Azam that Maulana Fazlul Haq would present the resolution in the open session on March 23, at Minto Park.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 24th, 2013.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post:
idealsome (Sunday, March 24, 2013)
  #13  
Old Monday, March 25, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Aims of Pakistan's creation- Two main views
March 24, 2013
Anwar Jalal

Two-nation theory is the pedestal on which Pakistan came into existence though many did not agree with the rationale of two-nation theory but few could dispute that Pakistan came into existence on its basis. However, what was the real aim of Pakistan. This is disputed and is being debated since its inception by political thinkers and researchers since the day one. In this regard there mainly are two views. One view contends that Pakistan was created for Islam.

The other one argues that its purpose was to safeguard the political, religious and cultural as well as economic interests of the Muslims of India. In simple words, the first view is that Pakistan meant to be Islamic state while the other insists that Pakistan was to be a Muslim State. The supporters of the first view base their arguments by referring to the thoughts and concept of Allama Iqbal and some speeches of Quaid Azam and also refer to some well known slogans raised and chanted during the struggle for Pakistan. Like wise they contend that Allama Iqbal, considered as the creator of concept of Pakistan, demanded in his address a separate state for the Muslims of north India so that they could adopt a system according to Islamic laws
About Quaid-e-Azam concepts they refer some of his following like statements. We have to fight a double edged battle, one against the Hindu Congress and the British Imperialists, both of them being capitalists. The Muslims demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic laws.” (Speech at the Frontier Muslim League Conference on November 21, 1945)
In August 1941, Quaid-e-Azam gave an interview to the students of the Osmania University to a question that what are the essential features of religion and a religious state? Q A said —- that —- In other words, the Islamic state is an agency for enforcement of the Quranic principles and injunctions Similarly they also refer to- the slogan—-Pakistan Ka Matlab Kia ? La Illaha Illa Allah chanted during Pakistan Movement The contender of the second view– Muslim state – have their own arguments besides other arguments they also quote from different speeches and statements of Quaid Azam with the aim to prove that he (Q A ) never meant Pakistan to be a theocratic state. Some of their arguments are as under – If Pakistan was being created for Islam why the religious political parties and most of Ulema (religious scholars) opposed it. Quaid-e-Azam and other League leaders were though Muslims but they were all secular regarding politics. Quaid Azam well known speech of 11 August 1947 to the constituent assembly in which he declared that religion has nothing to do with the affairs of the state “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 first Law minister of Pakistan appointed by Quaid-e-Azam was Mundle,a Hindu. IF Quaid Azam meant to make Pakistan as religious state he would have appointed some Muslim scholar instead of him on that very important post.

Besides the above arguments the supporters of this view also bring forth counter arguments in response to the arguments of the first view. Regarding Allama Iqbal concept they affirm that of course he did talked about Islamic state but he never meant it to be theocratic state if looked in proper context of his thoughts and philosophy. No doubt he dreamed and wished for such independent Muslim state in the Muslim majority areas of India where the Islamic principles and laws may be applied in such way where it should also be compatible with the modern thoughts and requirements With it they also add, that except some random excellent views and comments, Iqbal had not sorted out a detailed and feasible plan for it at the moment (though he did urge the need for Ijthihad in this regard). As for Quaid Azam views they argue that of course he too have exalted the great and high principles of Islam and its importance and efficacy in his various statements however this did not mean that he wanted a theocracy. They contend that his views are quoted with out context otherwise his approach was secular and liberal.( Secular does not mean anti religion as often wrongly understood mainly due to the propaganda of orthodox ) they refer different quotations from the speeches of Quaid Azam which show that his concept of Pakistan was of modern and liberal state.

Apart from the above arguments the holders of this stance also bring forth arguments by recounting the political background of Pakistan movement Allama Iqbal had presented his well known Address in 1930 while Muslims league under Jinnah for a long time continued efforts for reaching some sort of arrangement with the congress and the British government where the political cultural and economic rights of the Muslims could be given constitutional guarantee. For this he made many efforts encompassing a whole decade and it was after league and Jinnah become convinced that no such guarantee could be granted then in march 1940 Pakistan resolution was passed which stated that in the light of lot experience ML has reached to the conclusion that only separate state could be the only solution of Muslims political problems. Of course on that occasion Jinnah did talk of two nations and elaborated the two nation theory – However that did not mean that the demanded state was aimed for Islam. Here it could be further said that if congress would have not been adamant in granting what the League were demanding then league would have never passed the Lahore resolution. Supporters of this view elaborate that though ML did pass Pakistan Resolution however as politics is the name of seeking different possibilities and a politicians has several alternative options so Quid-e-Azam too as a politician had several options for the protection of Indian Muslim material interests and preservation of cultural identity.

Among which one was though division of India but it was not inflexible. Jinnah continued talks with both British government and Congress leaders, even after the 1940 resolution, for seeking some other constitutional ways of the Indian problem It means that Pakistan was not the final and un negotiable option before League and Jinnah. Similarly League and Jinnah accepted the cabinet mission plan in 1946 though it had rejected the demand for Pakistan and instead a sort of loose federation or say confederation was proposed. The acceptance of that plan by league and Jinnah meant that creation of separate state was not their main and ultimate demand.

As in the cabinet mission plan Muslim could have got the safe guards of their rights for which they were demanding since long so league accepted it. The arrogant and imposing attitude of Nehru and Patel and the prejudiced policy of congress regarding the plan compelled Jinnah to withdraw his earlier acceptance of the plan otherwise India would have not been divided.
(A prominent Indian politician Jaswant Singh has also said that in his book- Jinnah, Partition and Independence) The positive response of Jinnah regarding the cabinet mission plan shows that if the establishment of Islamic state was his basic aim he would have been totally adamant for exclusively independent Muslim state and would have never shown any elasticity.

About the Islamic factor in the movement they ( adherents of this stance ) are of the view that the slogan of Islam raised during the movement of Pakistan was, in the first place, not the official slogan of Muslim League as nor Quaid-e-Azam nor the top leaders of the movement raised it, rather it was being chanted by the workers at the lower level and secondly it was just for motivating the Muslim masses and mustering their support while basic end was protection of political cultural and economic interests of the Muslims of north India. According to them if some sections of league adopted the slogan of Islam for its movement. it was justified and was a proper approach seen in the context of the situation of that time. They argue that such slogan was aimed at the success of such movement which had a very great objective. Argue that in political affairs his approach was of course, that of secular and liberal politician while with this he was a Muslim too. Though Quaid-e-Azam never claimed nor thought of himself any saintliness or holiness, but as common and simple Muslim he was fighting for the rights of Muslims of India with all sincerity which even his worst but honest opponents cannot deny, It was due to his being Muslim that he considered Muslims as separate nation and who had different interests from those of Hindus- and because of it he was holder of Two-nation theory What Quaid-e-Azam thought about the lofty principles no believing Muslim can disagree with. About the Islamic ideal and principles in particular those related with social economic aspects, his observations were that it were not only fully compatible with the modern world but in several respects were also more better and suitable compared to westerns ones.

Here it need to be mentioned that his approach towards religion different from that of the orthodox religious class, who mainly confine Islam to the petty fiqi issues or Hadood laws or insist only in its form, For Quaid-e-Azam, the spirit of Islam was of real importance. In this regard his views were in line with that of Iqbal, though he was not scholar of Iqbal’s caliber however the source of his Islamic insight was, besides his own personal reading, the views of Allama Iqbal and some other enlightened scholars. In line with his distinctive solemnity he sincerely believed that Islamic ideals and principles, in particular those related with the socio and economic aspects and rule of justice etc had great value and importance so he earnestly thought that these principles and ideals must be guiding source for the constitutional set up of Pakistan.

Though religion as understood and preached by Mullahs was never the aim of Quaid-e-Azam however in spite of his all secularism he was also not averse to the Ideals of Islam — It is reasonably supposed that had he been alive for some time he would have recommended such set-up for Pakistan where both the Islamic ideals and modern thoughts essential for progress would have been fully accommodated and Pakistan would have been such modern welfare Muslim State which would be secular and also the bearer of moral and spiritual culture.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/article/213450/
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Tuesday, April 02, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Friends of Bangladesh’
April 02, 2013
Momin Iftikhar 7



Thirteen ‘Friends of Bangladesh’ were recently honoured in Dacca for raising their voice against the launch of military operations by Pakistan in March 71. An account published by one of the participants, a leading anchor who received the posthumous award conferred on his father, a veritable journalism icon, poignantly reflects the anti-Pakistan narrative that the Hasina Wajid government has taken upon itself as a mission to proliferate. The honour was bestowed for leading a delegation of Punjab University Students Union to Dacca in Oct 71 followed by holding of a press conference to castigate the military action that was launched in March 71 to foil the Indian sponsored secessionist movement led by Bengali nationalists at the forefront of Mukti Bahini. The award receiving visit coincided with a charged political environment which has taken hold of Bangladesh amidst bloody street violence triggered by conviction of Jama'at-e-Islami leadership for perpetrating the ‘crime’ of resisting the breakaway of East Pakistan. It is manifest that the Bangladeshi Prime Minister wants to consolidate the discredited legacy of his father and the questions which the honoured guests were most frequently asked, as reported by the scribe, help comprehend the zeitgeist obtaining in the host capital.

According to the anchor two questions topped the list of inquisitive Bangladeshi journalists; first regarding his validation for the ongoing trial of supporters of Pak Army’s military operation of March 71 by the incumbent government and second, whether he thought that there was reason enough for the Jama'at-e-Islami to be banned in Bangladesh for its pro-Pakistan bent in 1971. He sheepishly accommodated answers to these manifestly anti-Pakistan questions, obviously made under the compromising shadow of an obliging guest trying to humour his overbearing hosts. That could be justifiable from perhaps the perspective of a cornered diplomat, yet for a media man of some repute, it only served to bare his inadequate command and comprehension of facts related to the 1971 breakup of Pakistan, during which worst kind of human rights excesses were committed by the Bengali nationalists under the camouflage of a ‘liberation war’. Though he doesn’t mention it in his piece yet he must have also been aware, if not specifically confronted with, unrelenting propaganda concerning the myths of genocide of three million Bengalis and rape of one hundred thousand ‘heroines of Bengal’ by Pakistani troops, which the vested Bangladeshi quarters keep projecting from time to time without even making a passing reference to any supporting proof or reference. A little research would have shown that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman himself was the manipulative promoter of these baseless themes for which he or his daughter, the incumbent Prime Minister of Bangladesh, have never revealed any source to validate such staggering accusations. It would have been instructive for him, in the given context, if the learned journalist had had a glimpse of Oriana Fallaci’s An Interview with Mujibur Rehman, conducted on 24 Feb 1972, to stand his ground as a hard pressed Pakistani and avoid being embarrassed before a strident section of the Bangladeshi press. He is observant enough to have noticed that most of the Bangladeshi intelligentsia tend to accept the preposterous myths, hook, line and sinker, without cross checking facts.

Such a hand wringing apologetic demeanour is not uncommon among most Pakistanis who generally tend to self-flagellate rather than challenge the vile accusations on ground of reasoned facts. There is also not much comprehension about the stellar role and a high standard of discipline and self-sacrifice displayed by the Pakistan Army which was desperately trying to salvage the solidarity of Pakistan while confronted by unprecedented odds piled up by an unholy nexus of India and the Bengali nationalists. Army action, launched on 25 March 1971 came after a violent spell of three weeks of blood lust against non-Bengalis and unrestrained mayhem in rural and urban population centres following the postponement of national assembly session on 1March 1971. The announcement had forced a paralysis of the federal government leading to an open revolt in which armed Awami League cadres lynched non-Bengalis, particularly Biharis with an unrestrained abandon. The murder of the army officers caught in ones or two became a routine during this period even as the army remained under orders not to use force on violations of curfew, which became rampant. As all this was happening Bengali renegade officers were freely passing sensitive information to Sheikh Mujib. It speaks volumes for the discipline of the Pakistan Army that its officers were able to keep the soldiers in check during what was to them a nightmare of 25 days.

While looking at the pain and trauma of secession, Pakistan as well as Bangladesh suffer from a crippling denial syndrome which has become a serious hindrance to objectively looking at the painful events and ascertaining the truth. While in Pakistan there is an appeasing silence, the Bangladeshi bitter narrative plays melodramatically on the themes of Bengali victimhood and Pakistani villains, genocide, rape and mass graves ‘with scant regard for factual accuracy or analytical sophistication’. In Bangladesh there is a stunning silence on the widespread reign of terror and brutalities which were unleashed by Bengalis against West Pakistanis (all dubbed Punjabis), Biharis and others who were not willing enough to join the maelstrom of hatred to rent asunder Quaid’s Pakistan. The accusations of atrocities come thick and fast in a spate of propaganda castigating Pakistan, yet despite all rancour Bangladesh has failed to produce a single well researched, documented and investigative history of the 1971 climactic events which should lend credence to their blood chilling claims in convincing the world of their victimhood. There have been no credible investigations during the last four decades. The alleged massacre on the premises of the Dacca University, which was visited by Professor Waris Mir in Oct 1971 to show solidarity with East Pakistanis students and the presence of a mass grave presumed to be containing a large number of students killed during the army action in March 71, under international scrutiny, should be an appropriate place to start an objective search for truth. This till now happens to be the most prominent casualty of the 1971 tragedy.

The writer is a freelance columnist.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...inions/columns
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Wednesday, April 03, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Friends of Bangladesh or traitors of Pakistan
Mohammad Jamil

Anchorperson and columnist of a large media group Hamid Mir, in his recent column titled ‘Pachtaway’ (repentances) has apprised the audience about details of ceremony held to honor friends of Bangladesh on 24th March 2013. He had gone to Dhaka to receive the award of his father Late Professor Waris Mir, who stood for freedom of speech and enjoyed respect in literary circles and in media.

Hamid Mir had every right to accept this award, but the way he commented negatively in his column has brought disgrace to Pakistan. Anticipating the reaction, Hamid Mir wrote: “Some people lacking intelligence may dub them as traitors, yet 13 Pakistanis decided to accept the award”. It is true that some people had genuinely felt that Awami League having a clear majority in the national assembly should have been given the right to form the government. And Professor Mir was one of them. But one would not know that if Professor Waris Mir were alive, whether he would have gone to Bangladesh to receive such award.

Some writers had opposed Bangladesh government for its decision to honor friends of Bangladesh and opined that only unconscionable Pakistanis would accept such award. In December 2012, when the names of ‘Friends of Bangladesh’ were announced, Sheikh Hasina had refused to attend D-8 conference in Pakistan unless Pakistan tendered apology for, what she said, genocide of Bengalis. Mst Asma Jahangir also received award on behalf of his late father Malik Ghulam Jilani, who was Vice President West Pakistan Awami League, it was understood that he was awarded. Otherwise also people know Asma Jahangir’s views about Pakistan and its military. Salima Hashmi, who received the award on behalf of his father late Faiz Ahmed Faiz by the Bangladesh government on 24th March 2013, said: “The Pakistan government should formally apologise to the people of Bangladesh for the atrocities committed by Pakistan occupation army during the War of Independence in 1971”. This is exactly the same language that Sh. Hasina Wajid speaks.

Late Mir Ghous Bakhsh Bizenjo was posthumously given ‘Bangladesh Liberation War Honour Award’, which was received by his son Mir Hasil Bizenjo. Tahira Jalib received the award declared for Habib Jalib. Begum Tahira Mazhar Ali Khan, Ahmed Salim, Dr. Iqbal Ahmed, Sindhi poet Inwar Pirzada and Qazi Faez Isa were also given awards for opposing military operation in then East Pakistan. One should differentiate between opposing the military action in the then East Pakistan and those receiving awards for being friends of Bangladesh.

If Bangladesh government is pro-India and continues Pakistan-bashing, then those who received awards are not sincere with Pakistan. They do not feel qualms in condemning and blaming Pakistan while turning a blind against the horrors of Mukti Bahini and India’s role; hence they are not patriots. Pakistan had formed Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission to investigate into the causes of the tragedy of disintegration of Pakistan, and the excesses perpetrated in then East Pakistan, of course by the rebels and the military that was trying to quell the rebellion.

Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission Report observed that formation of One-unit, principle of parity, unitary form of government and system of basic democracies were the reasons for alienating the people of smaller provinces that led to disintegration of Pakistan. Whereas the commission criticized the then military and politicos for their ineptness, it had debunked the propaganda by India that two to three million Bengalis had been killed by the Pakistan army. The Commission had put the figure of casualties at twenty six thousand including the killings of West Pakistanis, members of Pakistan’s security personnel and Biharis that were butchered by Mukti Bahini guerillas. Anyhow, former prime minister of Bangladesh Khaleda Zia is on record having said that figure of three million dead was highly exaggerated. Many books have been written calling the genocide of Bengalis farce; however those under the influence of India or writers with anti-Pakistani streak put the figure as high as 3 million.

It has to be mentioned that people have not forgotten the genocide of non-Bengalis during the civil war and afterwards at the hands of Bengali nationalists. However, Pakistan considered the matter settled, as Sheikh Mujib had made no demand for apology during his visit to Lahore to attend Islamic Summit or even after that. But Sheikh Hasina has shown complete obedience towards Indian masters, be it humiliating Pakistan or be it providing and unwavering support to India, which has deprived Bangladesh of its right over river Barak when India unilaterally decided to build a Tipaimukh dam on this site with huge reservoir. This means that River Barak, which flows into Bangladesh from the Indian state of Manipur, will go dry completely. India is also concentrating small rivers flowing from India to Bangladesh to make a mainstream in India to use water for its domestic needs; thus depriving Bangladeshi farmers of water by diverting its rivers. There was also dispute between India and Bangladesh on the matter of fencing the border by India.
Many writers hold the view that on 16th December 1971, Pakistan was dismembered as a result of international terrorism. India was, of course, on the forefront whereby the former USSR helped India in implementing the insidious plan to disintegrate Pakistan. Unfortunately, Pakistan’s so-called friends - America and the West - acted as silent spectators. A lot many books, theses and reviews have been written on the causes of fall of Dacca and disintegration of Pakistan. It was unfortunate that in 1971 the UN and the big powers did nothing to stop India to dismember independent country with recognized international boundaries.

After the break-up of Pakistan, India declared that two-nation theory had sunk in the Bay of Bengal. But eidetic reality was that Bangladesh became an independent country with Muslim identity, and in general Bengladeshis are not willing to accept India’s hegemony. Bangladesh had also refused to send its troops to Afghanistan, which seems to be the result of the fact that Bangladeshis guard their freedom very jealously, despite Sheikh Hasina’s appeasement policy towards India.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old Friday, April 05, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Pakistan resolution and ‘where are you from?

Inayat Ali Gopang

It’s very strange, that in abroad when two Pakistani meet to each other, then there first and foremost question comes that ‘where are you from’?

With ample enthusiasm and happiness a couple of days ago 23rd March was observed across the country and the world by Pakistanis to celebrate a historic resolution that was passed during a three-day meeting of All India Muslim League held on 22-24 March 1940.

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah addressed to the participants of that meeting and truly said that Muslims are a different nation than Hindus in terms of their belief system, culture, literature and philosophies.

Therefore, it was demanded that ‘’the areas in which Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.”

This resolution played a significant role in making the dream of a separate nation come true.

The leaders who put their all efforts for the constitution of that dreaming state considered all Muslims of that territory as a single nation with the name of ‘Pakistani Nation’.

The line was drawn in terms of religion not in terms of other ‘ethnic identity’ such as region, race, language, sect, caste etc. But along-with this, it was also mentioned in the resolution that “adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in the units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights of the minorities, with their consultation. Arrangements thus should be made for the security of the Muslims where they were in minority.”

However, at the moment it is necessary to analyze today’s Pakistan in the light of that resolution and ask ourselves that are we that single nation our great leaders dreamed for and put their efforts for separate state. We will know that there is a lot of difference between the dream of our leaders and, actions and reflections of we people.

Interestingly, today, it has been observed in Pakistan that whenever two unknown persons meet to each other, then most likely, their first or second question becomes ‘where are you from’? Even in the interviews this question is being asked. Then answers start at different levels.

For instance, if both the persons belong to different provinces then answer most probably ends after telling the name of province such as I am from Punjab, Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtun Khawa, Sindh, Gilgit-Baltistan etc. Generally the listener says that Oh! So you are from that province or you are a Punjabi, Baloch, Pathan, Sindhi, Gilgiti etc. And if the persons belong to same province then answer starts from district, Tehsil, City/Village, Family and so on and so forth.

In the premises of Pakistan it makes some sort of sense again, but it’s very strange, that in abroad when two Pakistani meet to each other, then there first and foremost question comes that ‘where are you from’? Here I would like to give an example of a person, who first time goes abroad considering himself as a Pakistani. When that person meets to other Pakistani then they ask in their introductory conversations that how are you? Afterwards, next question comes ‘where are you from’? At that time the person feels surprised and shocked that a Pakistani is asking from another Pakistani that where are you is from. For a while the person thinks that what could be the more suitable reply to give.

Isn’t it Pakistani identify enough for another Pakistani to tell? Here in abroad, still it is needed to tell about one’s region, language, sect, district, Tehsil, village, family etc. especially in the first meeting?

When I discussed it with some of my highly qualified friends that why we ask this question ‘where are you from’ particularly in our first meeting, then they replied that because we want to know about each other so that we can treat each other in a better way.

However, it does not work most of the time and after knowing its answer we treat each other very different way not the better way. After asking and knowing the answer of this question, usually stereotypes play their role and we become biased and discriminatory in our attitude and behaviour. Because, we learn a lot of stereotypes during our socialization process which derive our behaviour then.

We have good examples of these stereotypes. We have borrowed the most respectable terms and titles from each others’ language such as ‘Sain’, ‘Baloach’, ‘Sardar’, ‘Khan’ etc. which are used for showing high level of respect in their respective languages, but in other languages they are used in a very negative sense and generally used for ‘mentally retired persons’.
It would not be an exaggeration that these words are used as an equivalent to English words ‘non-sense’, ‘idiot’, ‘mad’ and ‘mental’ etc. Even when a person is titled as ‘Sain’ in other than Sindhi language, he minds it and becomes angry.

Moreover, as far as considering and treating minorities is concerned, it is also not hidden the way they are being treated in spite of the consideration, respect, space and acceptance given to them by our leaders while making the Pakistan.

The killing of Hazara community, incident of Badami Bagh and migration of Hindu community are solely the most recent incidents to be quoted; otherwise list will be go long.

As, one foreigner rightly said about Pakistani nation that either they are Punjabi, Balochi, Pashtun or Pakhtun, Sindhi etc. There, one can hardly find a Pakistani. This is true that we lack a unity in true terms.

In order to face and solve the challenges of Pakistan together there is a dire need to create coherence between our present and our past state. To ensure the unity, this is the time; we should analyze our actions and behaviors in the light of concept and cause of Pakistan’s creation.

It will be quite helpful to delete this question ‘where are you from’, from our introductory list of questions at least while meeting to an unknown person first time in the country in general and in the abroad in particular. I think it’s more than enough that s/he is a Pakistani.

Moreover, we should break the stereotypes about each other, not to judge any person on the basis of stereotypes and avoid using the respectable words of any language in negative terms for showing our respect to that language and its speakers. We should also treat and consider ‘minorities’ as Pakistani. We should ensure them that you are also part of this country. We are one nation and together we can make Pakistan peaceful and prosper.


http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Sunday, April 07, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

The Mystery about our National Anthem

Roohan Ahmed

Among a few things that are truly the identity of any nation, national anthem holds a significant position. Along with the national flag, it represents the country throughout the world and adds to the national pride. It is basically a patriotic hymn or other song adopted by a nation for use on public or state occasions and is the individuality of any state.


Coming back home, Pakistan’s national anthem, written by Hafeez Jalandhari, has always been a subject of criticism as it is completely in Farsi (Persian), rendering it incomprehensible for majority of Pakistanis. While the current national anthem is hardly approved, Pakistan’s first national anthem remains a mystery and just a few people know the existence of another national anthem approved by founding father Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (R.A) prior to Hafeez Jalandhari’s ‘Pak Sar Zameen Shaad Baad’.

Jagan Nath Azad, a Lahore based Urdu poet commissioned the first national anthem of Pakistan just three days before the independence on 11th August 1947 at the behest of M.A. Jinnah. According to a Professor of History hail to University of Karachi, Jagan Nath was equally excited and amazed when came to know that Jinnah wanted him to commission Pakistan’s national anthem regardless of his religious identity.

The lyrics of the anthem were….

“Aye sar zameen-i- paak
Zarre Tere hain aaj sitaron se tabnak
Roshan hai kehkashan se kahin aaj teri khaak
Tundi-e-Hasadan pe hai ghalib tera swaak
Damon wo sil gaya hai jot ha mudatton se chaak
Aye sar zameen-i-paak”

About a year and a half after the partition, after Mr Jinnah’s death in September, 1948, the government of Pakistan, headed by its first Muslim Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, decided to discard the anthem. National Anthem Committee was formed in December, 1948 to recommend new anthem.

However, unfortunately, we do not have any account pertaining to the first national anthem in our history books. With all these accessible evidences, none of the historians ever tried to discover the fact that what prompted the then leaders of Pakistan to discard the first national anthem as envisioned by Mohammad Ali Jinnah to get it written by a non-Muslim writer in Urdu.

The question arises: what prompted the then government to discard Azad’s ‘Aye sar zameen-i-paak’ that was also in our national language? And it remains unanswered.

It is common observation that cognizance of a minor child to an adult person is restricted to the given facts that Hafeez Jalandhari commissioned the first national anthem of Pakistan. Misleading people is a crime but concealing historical facts to its nation is beyond the criminal act. One must think about it with all dimensions opened.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post:
idealsome (Sunday, April 07, 2013)
  #18  
Old Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Myth of 300,000 raped in Bangladesh

Asif Haroon Raja


It has been alleged that Pakistani troops raped 300,000 women on and after March 25, 1971 in former East Pakistan. This allegation has generally been accepted by the world at large and even by some Pakistani secular pseudo intellectuals like Tahira Abdullah, Asma Gilani and others. Sheikh Mujib was the inventor of this themes fed to him by India. This was phenomenal exaggeration which has no parallel in history. Rather than blindly buying the bloated figures, it should have been coolly analyzed by saner elements whether it was humanly possible to perform those unholy acts at such a gigantic scale. No one questioned as to how the Indians had gathered the data since the Army had gained total control over the province from May 1971 onwards. Direct linkage between the people and rebels housed in India had been broken.

The version of refugees who had fled to India after the military operation couldn’t be relied upon, being entirely at the mercy of Indian Army and BSF living in unsavory conditions. Foreign journalists based in Dacca had been asked by Lt Gen Tikka Khan to leave because of their biased reporting. Jilted journalists moved to Calcutta where they were lavishly entertained by Indians. Nursing ill-feelings, they went out of the way to magnify the stories fed to them by Indian media and broadcasted exaggerated news the world over.

Even if the entire Army and paramilitary forces numbering 12000 on 25 March 1971, later increased to 45000 had only one objective in mind of raping any female coming their way day in and day out, even at the cost of sleep and other essential daily rituals, it was still impossible to reach anywhere near the stated figure. It can now be safely concluded that the rapes committed by Awami League (AL) urchins in March-April 1971, and again in November- December 1971, as well as by Indian staff supervising refugee camps from March 1971 till February 1972 were all lumped in the account of Pak Army. Indian Army soldiers and officers had also indulged in daily sex for the entire period of their stay in Bangladesh after 16 December 1971.

Roman Catholic Relief Agency put the figure of rapes to as low as 4000. (New York Times, January 30, 1972). In fact, only ten cases of rapes had been reported till August 31, 1971, and the culprits tried and punished. These few cases were swollen to the exasperating figure of 300,000. The falsity of Sheikh Mujib’s repeated allegation of rape of 300,000 Bengali women was exposed when the abortion team he had commissioned from United Kingdom in early 1972 found that there were no more than a hundred or so pregnancy cases they could deal with throughout their stay in Bangladesh. (Bangladesh Papers, Vanguard, Lahore, page 287). The AL government opened many centres in Bangladesh and gave wide calls to the rape victims named as ‘heroines’ to come forward and register their names so that they could be rehabilitated. Not more than one hundred or so who reported to the centres were given into marriages and perforce the centres had to be closed down. These cases were also in all probability the victims of rapists in Indian refugee camps.

Dr. M. Abdul Mumin Chowdhry, a Bengali nationalist who actively participated in the separatist cause, writes in his book ‘Behind the Myth of Three Million’, writes, ‘It was reported that on arrival in Dhaka on 10 January 1972, the lobby behind the fabrication of the absolutely impossible figure promptly briefed the returning Bangladesh leader Sheikh Mujib with added ‘fact’, of 300,000 women raped, who in turn immediately went on parroting it. Thus the fiction of three million killed and 300,000 women raped was created’. He gives research-based details of each major incident that was blamed on Pakistan; and the rapes of 300,000, now enhanced to 400,000 women, resulting in 200,000 pregnancies.

One of Pakistani prisoner of war (PoW) Maj (now retired Brig) M. Azad on his way to India after the surrender had stayed a night in transit along with others at Krishanagar in West Bengal. The camp in which they were housed was well laid out and didn’t like a hurriedly made make-shift arrangement. The in-charge of the camp, a Sikh major, in usual Sikh style of light-heartedness and frankness, got chummy with Azad and told him that the camp had not been prepared for Pak PoWs but was meant to keep rebellious Bengalis who refused to participate in guerrilla war. He added that sissies were taken to task and made to perform allotted tasks, while their womenfolk were kept as hostages to serve their carnal needs. He boasted that he and his colleagues had thoroughly enjoyed raping thousands of Bengali women during their nine-month confinement. Laughingly he added that many virgins were impregnated. He divulged that many more suchlike camps for unwilling Bengalis had been established in other areas. This inadvertent disclosure would give an idea to independent readers that who were the actual rapists of Bengali women.

Besides resorting to series of atrocities, Indian security forces are using rape as a weapon of war to subjugate the Kashmiris demanding their birth right of self-determination. Kashmiris want independence from India at all costs.
Incidents of rapes and gang rapes in Indian occupied Kashmir (IOK) are on the increase, but no Indian soldier or policeman has ever been punished. While there was lot of hue and cry over gang rape of an Indian woman in New Delhi, no voice has ever been raised in India over rapes of thousands of Kashmiri women, as if they are not human beings. It is puzzling as to why the ever vigilant western media has never mentioned a word about thousands of rapes committed in IOK? Or is it that it has different yardstick for Muslims and non-Muslims?

The writer is a retired Brig, author of several books and a defence analyst. Email:asifharoonraja@gmail.com

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Absolving enemies of Pakistan Movement

By M Ziauddin

There is no mention of the phrase “Ideology of Pakistan” in the Objectives Resolution [Article 2(A) of the Constitution]. It does, of course, mention Islam saying “ … the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed”. And that “… the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah”. The phrase does not appear even in the oaths prescribed for all elected offices, members of all houses and the governors. In these oaths, there is a mention of “Islamic Ideology” (That I will strive to preserve the Islamic Ideology which is the basis for the creation of Pakistan). Islam is a faith, a religion like Christianity and Judaism. It is not an ideology like communism, socialism or capitalism. Therefore, I am not sure if it is advisable to limit the eternal and universal faith that is Islam into an ideology, which is inherently a temporary phenomenon.

Since I first heard the phrase in the late 1960s, I have been trying to find out the real meaning or definition of “Ideology of Pakistan”. Once, I conducted a small survey to determine the precise drift of the phrase. To my utter disappointment, the definitions I received were not only as varied as the sample was, but each answer differed in substance from what the rest believed the phrase meant. When I came across this phrase again in Articles 62 and 63 after the 1973 Constitution was mutilated by General Ziaul Haq, I was intrigued by the wording of Article 62, as according to this Article, those who had opposed Pakistan before its establishment were exempted from its purview, which meant that all those who had called the Quaid-e-Azam “Kafir-e-Azam” and opposed his struggle for Pakistan were absolved of their animosity towards the Pakistan Movement. We all know who these people are and how they have succeeded in becoming the thekeydaars (keepers) of Pakistan and how they have managed since to distort the very basis for the creation of the country by coining misleading slogans like Pakistan ka matlab kia … which to me sounds more like a blasphemous utterance. So, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know the hands that held the pen that wrote the clause.

I am doubly happy that they picked Ayaz Amir to intimidate the majority into owning the minuscule minority’s view of “Why Pakistan?” Perhaps, they thought that with the disqualification of an intellectual of considerable standing on the trumped up charges of violating the “Ideology of Pakistan” clause, they would terrorise the majority resisting their obscurantism all these years into falling in line. But Ayaz is no easy pick for anybody, least of all for the minuscule minority that has been trying its level worst since the very inception of Pakistan to push the country back into the cave age. Ayaz has been fighting this minority since the day he entered the media world in the late 1970s. His columns in Dawn during Zia’s brutal and Musharraf’s birdbrain rules, especially during the Kargil misadventure and right when Musharraf was selling Pakistan cheap following 9/11, or his columns in The News in support of the movement for the restoration of the judiciary are evidence enough — if any evidence is needed — to prove Ayaz’s love for this country and his scorn for those who try to take liberties with Pakistan. The sound and fury that swept across the country and among every section of society following the verdict of the returning officer, who despite all his powers is no mufti to issue a fatwa (edict), has exposed the hollowness of the clause in question.

Both Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the author of the 1973 Constitution, as well as those who voted unanimously for the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, were not theocrats. They were all politicians. All three had aimed for unanimity while seeking their respective objectives. That is the context in which their utterances and actions should be read and we should not insist on basing arguments on selective parts of their speeches and deeds.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 10th, 2013.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Sunday, April 14, 2013
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

The truth about Pakistan’

Inayatullah

If ever there was clear-cut evidence of some Indians not having accepted Pakistan as an independent sovereign country, one has only to look at the views unambiguously expressed by Justice (retd) Markandey Katju, who heads the Press Council of India. He is on record in his speech delivered in New Delhi in early February and in the article published in TheNation of March 2, 2013, as well as in his letters addressed to the publisher/editor of TheNation and Mr Shamshad Ahmad, a former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, that inter alia:

n “I do not believe that there are two nations; there is one nation and that is India…....

n “Pakistan is a fake and artificial country created by the British and their agents in pursuance of the wicked British policy of divide and rule and the bogus Two Nation Theory. In reality, there is no such thing as Pakistan.......

n “Pakistan is, in fact, a part of India and we will be reunited, may be, in 20 years or so.”

Katju’s article as published in TheNation bears the caption “The Truth About Pakistan”.

What, indeed, is the truth about the creation of Pakistan?

The best answer (and the most convincing) to this question is provided by another Indian legal luminary, Mr H. M. Seervai, who was honoured with one of India’s high awards, Padma Vibhushan, and who has been recognised by the International Bar Association as a ‘Living Legend of Law’.

In his famous book, “Partition of India: Legend and Reality”, published in 1989, Seervai quotes chapter and verse from authentic published British and Indian records elucidating how the Indian National Congress decided to opt for Pakistan and how it came into existence.

He establishes, to the hilt, how virtually the Congress top leadership, in particular Patel, Nehru and Gandhi, decided to reject the Cabinet Plan of 1946, while Jinnah even at that late stage had expressed the Muslim Leagues’ willingness to preserve the unity of India by accepting the Plan proposals.
This is what Seervai says about Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s book, “India Wins Freedom”, published in 1988 (30 years after the first edition in which a number of pages were not included): “The publication of “India Wins Freedom”, in ‘a complete version’, in November 1988 has provoked much controversy and public discussion. This is not surprising for the 1988 edition, fixes the responsibility for the partition of India, at one place on Jawaharlal Nehru and at another place on Vallabhbhai Patel by observing that ‘it would not, perhaps, be unfair to say that Patel was the founder of India’s partition’.” Page 201 reads: “I was surprised that Patel was now an even greater supporter of the Two Nation Theory than Jinnah. Jinnah may have raised the flag of partition, but now the real flag-bearer was Patel.” One may, here, recall that Azad was for many years President of the All India Congress Party during the period of negotiations with the Cabinet Mission.
The Cabinet Plan was the last serious effort made by the British government to keep India a united country.

Seervai in a remarkably succinct paragraph sums up the reality of the role of the League, Jinnah and the Congress leaders in the making of Pakistan: “In considering whether Jinnah and the League were responsible for the partition of India by raising the cry of Pakistan, it is necessary to ask, and answer, two questions: First, were the fears of the Muslim community that it would be permanently dominated by a ‘Hindu Raj’ genuine? If so, was the community entitled to effective and not mere paper safeguards against such permanent domination? That the fears of the Muslim community were genuine is beyond dispute. The Desai-Liaquat Pact, Sapru Committee Report, Azad’s letter to Gandhi, as well as his interview with the Cabinet Mission and the interview of Nationalist Muslims with members of the Mission, all recognised that those fears were genuine. But the Sapru Committee, Azad, the Nationalist Muslims and the Cabinet Mission whilst recognising those fears, nevertheless, rejected Pakistan as a solution for removing them. All the witnesses before the Cabinet Mission, except the Muslim League, had supported a constitution for a united India. Equally, most of them had recognised that the fears of being dominated by a ‘Hindu Raj’ required effective safeguards, and ‘parity’, or near ‘parity’.
“The Cabinet Mission Plan, if worked in the spirit of goodwill, supplied effective safeguards, and Jinnah recognised this when he accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. However, the Hindu Mahasabha, and leaders like Gandhi, Nehru and Patel (disregarding the views of Sapru, Azad and the Nationalist Muslims) considered parity as ‘undemocratic’. They forgot that if, as they firmly held, the unity of India was the paramount object to be achieved in framing a new constitution, theory would have to yield to the need to provide effective safeguards for a community of nine crores. It is reasonably clear that it was the Congress, which wanted partition. It was Jinnah, who was against partition, but accepted it as the second best.”

Seervai also deals with the evolution of Jinnah’s views about Hindu-Muslim political relations. How come, the “ambassador of goodwill”, hailed as such by both Congress and Muslim League, switched over to the role of a formidable adversary championing the cause of the Muslims?

The watershed came in 1937 when the provincial elections were held. There was then a tacit understanding in UP (to be extended to other provinces) that a coalition ministry would be formed. To quote Seervai: “After Nehru’s resounding victory in the 1937 elections.......the Congress adopted an imperious attitude and ‘the League’s offer of cooperation was treated with disdain’.......But even after the 1937 elections, Jinnah did not demand partition. He appealed to Gandhi for a Nationalist solution of the Hindu-Muslim problem. It was only when that appeal failed that he braced himself to organise the political power of the Muslim League.”

Thereafter, it did not take long for Jinnah to demand independence for Muslim majority areas. The year 1940 saw the adoption of the Lahore Revolution. By early 1946, Muslim League had attained the status of a representative of the overwhelming majority of the Muslims, having secured 30 out of 30 Muslim seats, by polling 86 percent of the total votes cast in Muslim constituencies. Gandhi and Nehru, in writing, accepted the claim that Muslim League was the “authoritative representative of the overwhelming majority of the Muslims of India” and “alone” had the “unquestionable” right to represent them.

Seervai’s well researched book written after the release of 12 volumes of Transfer of Power by the British government demolishes the half-baked notions trotted out by Justice (retd) Katju. One wonders how the honourable ex-Judge could stoop so low as to use the kind of language he chose in writing about one of the most upright leaders of the subcontinent who was universally respected and admired for his impeccable integrity and unblemished record of adherence to the rule of law, even by his adversaries.

As for Pakistan (a nuclear power and a country of 180 million people) being dubbed “a part of India” is, indeed, preposterous. Even the BJP Prime Minister of India after visiting the Minar-i-Pakistan, formally acknowledged Pakistan as a manifest reality. It is sheer wishful thinking and day-dreaming on the part of Mr Katju to assume that Pakistan will, during the next few years, merge into India. It is best to resist the temptation of indulging in such wonky fantasies.

The writer is an ex-federal secretary and ambassador, and a freelance political and international relations analyst.
Email: pacade@brain.net.pk

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...inions/columns
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Religion Of Islam MUKHTIAR ALI Islamiat 3 Friday, April 03, 2020 10:31 AM
Ecnomic progress Vs Political situation very special 1 Discussion 48 Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:27 PM
Very Important Topics with detail sarfrazmayo Psychology 0 Sunday, July 31, 2011 08:39 AM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.