Why My Father Hated India?, the son of assassinated Pakistani leader.

[S.A.T.A]

I think many among us are quick to exonerate Mohammad Iqbal,i'm not sure i can use that world,for Iqbal was one of the foremost Muslim thinkers of his generation and probably needed no exoneration from his deeply held convictions,role in nurturing the idea of a separate home land for Muslims of British India,his vehement exhortation for the redistribution of Muslim majority territories of North west indian and Bengal,even though clothed in the ambiguous terminologies of self governing federations,was the forerunner to the Mohammad Jinnah's address to general session of the All India Muslim League in Lahore in 1904 and ultimately League adoption of the Lahore resolution.

Iqbal was at any rate,by his own admission,not a politician,but a poet and philosopher,Iqbal's writing's,esp his poems, reflected the deep churning of the Muslim intellect and the general ferment India's Muslim community was undergoing, in tandem with the increasing fervor of the Indian freedom movement.Scholars who have pursued Allama Iqbal's philosophical and literary journey,have not failed to note the drastic transformation that one sees in his writings over the years,with respect to his vision of the Muslim community place and role in the larger Indian socio-political landscape.This was very much in the spirit of introspection that was drawing the attention of Muslim intellect elsewhere in India and the larger Islamic world.

Iqbal started out,much like Jinnah,as votary of Hindu Muslim unity and this was reflected in those immortal lines from Tarana -e-Hind(1904)
Sare Jahan se achaa hindustan hamara,
ham bulbule hai us ki ye gulista hamara

Yet not long after his return from Europe in 1908,where he pursued Philosophy and where His faith in a Muslim renaissance in Hindu dominated India received some reality check,Iqbal was convinced,quite apparent in his later writings,that Muslim community world wide,particularly in indian,could only be redeemed by restoring the true spirit of Islam at the core of its social and political mobilization.

Now Iqbals work's reflected on the nostalgia of the glorious Islamic past,it almost takes a distinct revivalist tone.take for example the verses from tarana-e-Milli,
cheen o arab hamaraa hindostaaN hamaara
muslim hain hum; watan hai saara jahaaN hamaara

The verses,which were written after his tarana Hind,is addressed to the Muslim community and one can clearly see the change from Indian nationalist,into a champion of the Islamic Umma.The crystallization of Iqbal's view that only a homeland of their own,where the true principles of sharia acting as its guiding philosophy,was the means with which the Muslim community could preserve its identity in India,was very evident in his last years and his letters to Jinnah in 1937,which is reproduced below,quite vividly illustrates this point.

If Jinnah was the architect of Pakistan,as homeland for Muslim of India,then poet laureate Muhammad Iqbal was the one who rendered the tools that were required for this creation.

letters from Iqbal to Jinnah (1937)

28th May, 1937

My dear Mr. Jinnah,

Thank you so much for your letter which reached me in due course. I am glad to hear that you will bear in mind what I wrote to you about the changes in the constitution and programme of the League. I have no doubt that you fully realise the gravity of the situation as far as Muslim India is concerned. The League will have to finally decide whether it will remain a body representing the upper classes of Indian Muslims or Muslim masses who have so far, with good reason, no interest in it. Personally I believe that a political organisation which gives no promise of improving the lot of the average Muslim cannot attract our masses.

Under the new constitution the higher posts go to the sons of [the] upper classes; the smaller go to the friends or relatives of the ministers. In other matters too our political institutions have never thought of improving the lot of Muslims generally. The problem of bread is becoming more and more acute. The Muslim has begun to feel that he has been going down and down during the last 200 years. Ordinarily he believes that his poverty is due to Hindu money-lending or capitalism. The perception that equality [is (?)] due to foreign rule has not yet fully come to him. But it is bound to come. The atheistic socialism of Jawahar Lal [Nehru] is not likely to receive much response from the Muslims. The question therefore is: how is it possible to solve the problem of Muslim poverty? And the whole future of the League depends on the League's activity to solve this question. If the League can give no such promises I am sure the Muslim masses will remain indifferent to it as before.

Happily there is a solution in the enforcement of the Law of Islam and its further development in the light of modern ideas. After a long and careful study of Islamic Law I have come to the conclusion that if this system of Law is properly understood and applied, at last the right to subsistence is secured to every body. But the enforcement and development of the Shariat of Islam is impossible in this country without a free Muslim state or states. This has been my honest conviction for many years and I still believe this to be the only way to solve the problem of bread for Muslims as well as to secure a peaceful India.

If such a thing is impossible in India the only other alternative is a civil war which as a matter of fact has been going on for some time in the shape of Hindu Muslim riots. I fear that in certain parts of the country, e.g. N.W. India, Palestine may be repeated..Also the insertion of Jawarhar Lal's socialism into the body-politic of Hinduism is likely to cause much bloodshed among the Hindus themselves. The issue between social democracy and Brahmanism is not dissimilar to the one between Brahmanism and Buddhism. Whether the fate of socialism will be the same as the fate of Buddhism in India I cannot say. But it is clear to my mind that if Hinduism accepts social democracy it must necessarily cease to be Hinduism.

For Islam the acceptance of social democracy in some suitable form and consistent with the legal pnncp!es of Islam is not a revolution but a return to the original punty of Islam. The modern problems therefore are far more easy to solve for the Musllms than for the Hindus. But as I have said above in order to make it possible for Muslim India to solve the problems it is necessary to redistribute the coun.ry and to provde one or more Muslim states with absolute majorities. Don't you think that the time for such a demand has already arrived? Perhaps this is the best reply you can give to the atheistic socialism of Jawahar Lal Nehru.

Anyhow I have given you my own thoughts in the hope that you will give them serious consideration either in your address or in the discussions of the coming session of the League. Muslim India hopes that at this serious juncture your genius will discover some way out of our present difficulties.

Yours Sincerely,
(Sd.) Mohammad. Iqbal

Lahore
June 21st, 1937

My dear Mr. Jinnah,

Thank you so much for your letter which I received yesterday. I know you are a busy man; but I do hope you won't mind my writing to you so often, as you are the only Muslim in India today to whom the community has a right to look up for safe guidance through the storm which is coming to North*West India and perhaps to the whole of India. I tell you that we are actually living in a state of civil war which, but for the police and military, would become universal in no time.

During the last few months there has been a series of Hindu-Muslim riots in India. In North-West India alone there have been at least three riots during the last three months and at least four cases of vilification of the Prophet by Hindus and Sikhs. In each of these four cases, the vilifier has been murdered. There have also been cases of burning of the Qur'an in Sind. I have carefully studied the whole situation and believe that the real cause of these events is nither religious nor economic. It is purely political. I.e., the desire of the Sikhs and Hindus to intimidate Muslims even in the Muslim majority provinces. And the new constitution is such that even in the Muslim majority provinces, the Muslims are made entirely dependent on non-Muslims.

The result is that the Muslim Ministry can take no proper action and are even driven to do injustice to Musiims partly to please those on whom they depend, and partly to show that they are absolutely impartial. Thus it is clear that we have our specific reasons to reject this constitution. It seems to me that the new constitution is devised only to placate the Hindus. In the Hindu majority provinces, the Hindus have of course absolute majorities, and can ignore Muslims altogether. In Muslim majority provinces, the Muslims are made entirely dependent on Hindus. I have no doubt in my mind that this constitution is calculated to do infinite harm to the Indian Muslims. Apart from this it is no solution of the economic problem which is so acute among Muslims.

The only thing that the communal award grants to Muslims is the recognition of their political existence in India. But such a recognition granted to a people whom this constitution does not and cannot help in solving their problem of poverty can be of no value to them. The Congress. President has denied the political existence of Muslims in no unmistakable terms. The other Hindu political body, i.e., the Mahasabha, whom I regard as the real representative of the masses of the Hindus, has declared more than once that a united Hindu*Muslim nation is impossible in India. In these cirecumstances it is obvious that the only way to a peaceful India is a redistribution of the country on the lines of racial, religious and linguistic affinities. Many British statesmen also realise this, and the Hindu-Muslim riots which are rapidly coming in the wake of this constitution are sure further to open their eyes to the real situation in the country. I remember Lord Lothian told me before I left England that my scheme was the only possible solution of the troubles of India, but that may take 25 years to come.

Some Muslims in the Punjab are already suggesting the holding of [a] North-West Indian Muslim Conference, and the idea is rapidly spreading. I agree with you, however, that our community is not yet sufficiently organised and disciplined and perhaps the time for holding such a conference is not yet ripe. But I feel that it would be highly advisable for you to indicate in your address at least the line of action that the Muslims of North-West India would be finally driven to take.

To my mind the new constitution with its idea of a single Indian federation is completely hopeless. A separate federation of Muslim provinces, reformed on the lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of non*Muslims. Why should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal be considered as nations entitled to self-determination just as other nations in India and outside India are?

Personally I think that the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal ought at present to ignore Muslim[-minority] provinces. This is the best course to adopt in the interests of both Muslim majority and minority provinces. It will therefore be better to hold the coming session of the League in the Punjab, and not in a Muslim minority province. The month of August is bad in Lahore. I think you should seriously consider the advisability of holding the coming session at Lahore in the middle of October when the weather is quite good in Lahore. The interest in the All-India Muslim League is rapidly growing in the Punjab, and the holding of the coming session in Lahore is likely to give a fresh political awakening to the Punjab Muslims.

Yours sincerely,
(Sd). Mohammad Iqbal
Bar-at-Law

P.S:Iqbal's appeal call for redistribution of Muslim majority territories in the NW and Bengal,his lack of faith in a single Indian federation,and his appeal to Jinnah to include all his points in his address to the General Assembly of the Muslim League,is quite significant on the score that it is exactly what Jinnah sates in all his subsequent addresses and finally in his Lahore address in 1049,where he takes the next logical step to demand the redistribution of Muslim majority territories to form separate Muslim home land.

 

[Yusuf]

cheen o arab hamaraa hindostaaN hamaara
muslim hain hum; watan hai saara jahaaN hamaara

The verses,which were written after his tarana Hind,is addressed to the Muslim community and one can clearly see the change from Indian nationalist,into a champion of the Islamic Umma.

depends on the way one looks at it. Means Muslims can live anywhere in the world and call it home.

Islam teaches one to be loyal to his country no matter what.

But offcourse if anyone wants to view it as a sign of someone asking for Islamic dominance, can't help it. So many such utterances are open to interpretation.

If I say I am a Muslim and India is mine, what's that supposed to mean? I own the land, want to establish Islamic rule or is it a forceful expression of my love and loyalty for the country?

Pakistan was born out of some devious designs of higher Muslim classes.

If one is bound by prejudice, then no explanation will help.

PS: Just picked a line quoted, I don't know a lot about Iqbal. I was just talking about interpretations.

 

[S.A.T.A]

The comparison between Tarana Hind and Tarana Milli,brings forth the change in the attitude of the Muslim intellect with respect to the Indian nationalism,Islamic universalism and the context it generated for the Pakistan movement.The tarana Milli is often interpreted as Iqbal's discomfit at Indian Muslims being descried as mere cultural minorities,rather in the succeeding verses of the poem,where he reminds 'west how the call of Islam resonated in its valleys,whose conquest of their lands was unstopped', seems to be nostalgic yearning for the Islamic imperialism ....

 

[Rahul M]

SATA, interesting point about iqbal. what I find particularly interesting is that his views did a 180 deg turn after a visit to england. same happened with jinnah before and after a visit to the UK around 1930. before the visit he made explicit comments that India can't be divided and so on only to change tune after coming back. the role of the brits in creating pakistan is often ignored.

 

[Archer]

coming to the character that salman taseer was, he was well known for his tongue in cheek comments and no, that love lost was not just for us, the indians or india, but across the board, pakistanis included. most people have a habit of mocking others, some do it on the face, others on the back, so what if he was doing it on the face.

it was not just mocking, it was from the heart bigotry. the man truly hated hindus and by extension india. many folks tend to forget - not referring to you - but generally, that these pakistani elite are the ones who egged the jihad on. the same turd najam sethi who now wails on tv about how the establishment needs to change, was at one time telling india that non state actors would teach it a lesson. in one prominent case, showing the difference in mentality between our indian elite (dhimmi and cowardly to the core) and the pakistani taseer - other extreme, raging fundoo - he came to india and met one of our journos. some famous idiot, sangvi or someone. when the issue of indo-pak relations and communal issues came up, this taseer character who was drinking whisky wih his indian host, tells him if you have a fight with indian muslims are we wearing bangles? we'll teach you a lesson. the indian idiot let it slide. after all aman ki aasha and all that rubbish right for our "we are one civilization types", as long as its not them suffering a terror attack (oh the outrage at 26/11, not at the railway station massacre, but the taj, the iconic taj got attacked). any sane person from another nation would have said issues between indian communities are settled between them, you pakistanis have no business to interfere in indian discussions, try something and you'll get your butt handed to you.

similarly, he made very provocative comments on kashmir as well. bottomline, he was a rabid pseudo jihadi. pseudo in that the ayaash that he was, he was too lazy and luxury loving to kill indians himself, but when others were doing it, you'd always have this taseer types egging them on. problem is these elite dont understand that the jihadis in pakistan today hold them in equal contempt since they are not straddling two worlds or cultures but come with the taliban frame of mind, which knows nothing but a harsh life today, lived as brutally as possible, thinking of some hoors in the afterlife. to these new breed, the likes of taseer are blasphemous, with their drinking, carousing and larger than life antics. there is no subtlety in that these guys support us for x cause. support has to be total. hence this idiot taseer thought, hey i am rich, powerful and as pakistani can be (hate indians/hindus - check, support kashmir attacks - check, etc) so i am protected and can act like some mughal sultan protecting some women come to me for protection. by the time he realized it was too dangerous, it was too late. of all things he anticipated, he didnt anticipate that one of his extensive security group would shoot him. as i said, the pakistani elite are slowly waking upto their own delusions. i cannot help but laugh at their plight.

do i expect anything better from a pakistani? no, a definite no. from day one people who have been bred on hatred will do no better, lest i expect them to. i am very sure a lot of these who come across as very friendly to india on the face would be extremely hostile in the closed doors and conspiring at time, may be few of them pretty much work as agents to their agencies, who knows.

agreed. problem is 90% of our idiot upper middle class and fb generation will not realize this. indian institutes who turn away hundreds of deserving candidates every year, but operate on the basis of reservation were actually extending an invite to pakistanis from pak institutions. you could see these priviliged elite hobnob with the indian wannabes, each drinking off each others pretensions. this after umpteen attacks in india. the indian leadership, media and as a result, the elite are completely divorced from reality.

and no its not just a pakistani elite thing, you bet the indian elite are no better and why should i just make it a class thing, any class and any section where people have a more normal contact, the natural instincts of those people tend to take over and people get over with the regional disputes, arent there pakistanis and indians marrying each other overseas knowing fully well the hostilities that exist and still have babies and successful lasting marriages and we within our own society where no such concept of enemy exists are today faced with a situation where there are more divorce reported than ever before or with an ever increasing rapes.

indian elite are promiscuos, self centered jerks but there is one difference. its not religion based hatred driving their actions. a bollywood male will sleep around, be corrupt, break the law and so will a bollywood female, but they wont discriminate on the basis of religion per se. despite their shallow, avaricious lives, its a plus for india that even as they do the wrong things, they do it for good old greed and not religious hatred. in contrast, people like taseer cannot bring themselves to cohabit permanently with indians. they are simply too superior for that. mughal empire and all that make believe BS of being rulers of india and what not. aatish taseer makes this point well in his articles.

and yes all the accolades to aatish, he has all the courage in the world to openly talk about his mother, the relationship his mother had with his father and how he was to make it into this world, there are fewer more brave men than him, and that too talk in a society where even today a female is supposed to be some sati savitri, where female foeticide and things like khap are as much a part of our tradition as ever and if you check the first few replies till the time ray sir corrected the trend, people where more interested in the character that tavleen singh is than the content which was written in the first post posted, and this coming from a well educated class, imagine the character assassination from not so well educated lots.

all said and done, thats happening in rural and even urban india but nobody is condoning it, at least the state is not and nor are educated people, so lets ditch the relativism since there is no comparison. not like pakistan where in baluchistan a politician got up in their assembly and defended their policy of vani (google it). and people may make comments about tavleen singh, but then again, wedlock is not something praised in any society, and a pakistani given the strained relations thanks to their non stop attacks on indian civilians, makes it worse. on the other hand if she had married him, few would have said anything. bottomline is, tavleen singh was not attacked because she had a child out of wedlock and a courageous one like aatish that too, nor was neena gupta shunned for masaba. indian society had plenty of judgemental people but they were allowed to live, and on their own terms, that would never have occurred in pakistan. what do you think would have happened to "tavleen khan" if she had a child from a hindu in pakistan? fyi, hindus in pakistan continue to be "haris", a generic term for bonded labourers subject to the worst excesses of feudal excess and the islamization of textbooks with an anti-hindu and anti-india slant has meant the community has to face constant hostility. in india tavleen singh is regarded as a well known, powerful journalist with a lot of gravitas, respect and power. that she has had aatish, has not dimmed my respect for her, and i daresay for most others as well. but in pakistan, she would never have got the kind of respect she deserverd on the basis of achievement. her entire existence would be through the prism of religion, and that too a warped kind based on superiority. ultimately, thats the difference between india and pakistan. we have social ills but we try to overcome them and rise above our all too human failings. pakistan embraces its failings, gives the coating of religion to sanctify it, and then finds newer ways to make them even worse. and this is where a salman taseer is very pakistani, since he is all too common there as versus an indian, where avarice is common but avarice and religious hatred dont combine as in pakistan.

 

[Archer]

pakistaniat

Aatish Taseer

The book's slightly cheesy subtitle, 'A son's journey through Islamic lands', has a whiff of opportunistic publisher-speak about it, but there is nothing within its covers to make readers cringe, except perhaps those who find their outrageous utterances reproduced here, like Aatish's dad, or the half-sister who memorably tells him, "Oh I'm so glad you weren't a little black Hindu".

 

[Archer]

what aatish saw
Travels with the mango king | Prospect Magazine

the pakistani, in this case, muhajir mentality

In the car, the Mango King and his lieutenant discussed feudal revenge. The lieutenant was a muhajjir or immigrant from India. His family came to Pakistan from Jodhpur in Rajasthan after partition. The feudal life needed men like the lieutenant. He was dark and bald, with the aspect of a grand vizier, and after the Mango King's father died, he served the son as an adviser. They talked about how another feudal owner had killed the Mango King's friend in an argument over 350 acres. Hameed said that the other landlords still teased the dead man's son for having been unable to exact revenge.
.............

His lieutenant had been back to Jodhpur just once, in 1990, and from the moment he heard I was Indian, he could speak of nothing else. He craned his long neck forward and asked if I saw much difference between India and Pakistan.

"Not much," I said, meaning to be polite. "There's more feudalism here."

"But between human beings, on a human level?"

"No, not really."

"But there is!" He smiled.

"What?"

"In Pakistan, the clothes people wear are much better. There's far less poverty. India makes its own things, its own cars, but then you don't get Land Cruisers. In India, you get Indian needles. In Pakistan, we get Japanese needles!"

In India you now got Japanese needles too. The lieutenant had visited before economic liberalisation, but that was not the point. What struck me was how this man, who would never come close to owning a Land Cruiser, could talk of such things as core human differences. The poverty around him was as bad as anything I had ever seen, yet he spoke of expensive cars. It was as if the mere fact of difference was what he needed. It hardly mattered what the differences meant: that was taken care of by the inbuilt rejection of India. In the confusion about what Pakistan was meant to be—a secular state for Indian Muslims, a religious state, a military dictatorship, a fiefdom—the rejection of India could become more powerful than the assertion of Pakistan.

"What other differences did you see?" he asked.

"It's hard to say as there's so much change within India. There are more differences between the north and the south than there are between north India and Pakistan."

The lieutenant was not to be put down. He wanted to get something off his chest. "The other difference," he began, "was that while men here wear flat colours, the men there are fond of floral prints, ladies' clothes." Hindus weaker, more feminine, and Muslims stronger, manlier: this was the dull little heart of what the lieutenant wanted to say and a great satisfaction came over his face as he spoke. This was the way he reconnected with the glories of the Islamic past when the martial Muslims ruled the "devious Hindu."

of course this is bs. indian industry has been winning deming quality prizes, and have worldclass products. pakistan is all about using forex baksheesh to import goods and make nothing bar chinese developed weapons. nihilist idiots and our neighbours.

and...note obsession with "are you a muslim", i mean go read some pakistani forums,, they are busy blowing each other up, killing each other over islam, and at the end of the day, they still bicker over who is a better muslim. a bunch of literalist psychos who are a disgrace to any religion, and have done more to cause islam a bad name in the modern era than all the bunch of medieval barbarians who murdered away.

I thought he wanted to say more, but his lieutenant interrupted: "Tell me," he said, "why do you wear a kara?" He was referring to the steel bangle on my wrist.

"My grandmother is a Sikh and wanted me to wear it."

"Your mother's Sikh and you're Muslim."

"No," I said, not wishing to annoy him, "my mother's Sikh and my father's Muslim."

"Yes, yes, so you're Muslim."

"I'm nothing."

The lieutenant seemed to ask the question in the most basic sense. He could tell I wasn't a practising Muslim, but he wanted to know if I was Muslim somehow.

"Come on, you're Muslim. If you're father's Pakistani, you're Muslim."

"If you say so, but don't you have to believe certain things to be a Muslim? If I don't believe, can I still be Muslim?"

He looked at me with fatigue. It was almost as if he wanted to say yes. It was as though, once acquired, this identity based on a testament of faith could not be peeled away, like caste in India. And I felt that if I could know the sanctity of his feeling of difference in relation to non-Muslim India, and the symbolic history that went with it, I would be as Muslim as he was.

"It's his decision," the Mango King laughed.

The lieutenant fell into a moody silence. "It's hotter in India than it is in Pakistan, isn't it?" he started again.

The Mango King groaned with irritation.

"It's the same!" I said. "You see too many differences."

Perhaps sensing that he had created bad feeling with a guest, he said, "Sikhs have a very sweet way of speaking."

"They speak just like we do!" Hameed snapped, and the lieutenant retreated with a sad, stung expression.

i have to give credit to aatish taseer. the guy has more guts and common sense - perhaps due to his life experiences - than nine tenths of indian journos, who would have bent over backwards to accomodate such idiotic triumphalism and not even come back at the end.

barkha dutt is busy preening on the net about her visit to pakistan and how great it was, yum yum. and sees no dichotomy in "remembering" vikram batra, the man who made her image as some kind of war reporter. that his death came at the hands of the same society that bred jihadis like the army, that her pals in kashmir and pakistan are inveterate supremascists matters one whit to her. for her podgy highness, all that matter is the idealogy of being more liberal than thou and shaping "opinion" - "we the people it seems". well most of us wes dont move amongst the likes of radia either.

"secular" my ass. these idiots have made a mockery out of the term. they pander to the worst kinds of bigots, and insist every india behave as much of an idiot as they are. real liberal muslims have to suffer their idiocy not just non muslims as these idiots allow bigots to thrive and their opinions to get legitimicacy, whether it be a gilani or a musharraf

thank goodness aatish taseer is not so far infected by the kind of unabashed elitist arrogance the bulk of indian media has been infected with. the jnu culture of "oh you can call india all the names you want, even i do so" type of moral relativism. which is what makes his eyewitness view into pak so insightful. he calls it like it is.

 

[bose]

give it to the sikh woman. if you read aatish taseers articles, its quite clear salman taseer, despite his accidental deification & so called martyrdom, was a bigot through and through. he had an extremely bigoted view of hindus and sikhs ("kaffirs" in one article probably no longer available on the net, but which was available through google cache). he came to india, had his fun with a woman of an enemy country and an "inferior culture" and tried to play the gentleman as long as it was not too inconvenient for him. tavleen singh showed remarkable spine and guts not to mention character, while this salman taseer did what most elite pakistanis do when faced with their personal foibles - run. whether it be benazir talking high and mighty and then supporting the kashmir jihad and being more rabid than the most obscurantist mullah, or salman taseer mocking india and the hated hindus at every turn, its amazing how these rich elite pakistanis think they can play both sides of the hunt and not face any trouble. at the end of the day, benazir was killed by the very scum she once supported in one form or the other, and salman taseer, self appointed defender of pakistani islam, was killed by those who thought they were better defenders of islam than he was. i for one, have no tears shed, at the stuff that is happening in pakistan today. these elite bigots like taseer were ok with terrorism as long as it killed non muslims across the border, and even sneered at indian muslims as being weak, and effiminate for daring to live peacefully with their non muslim brethren. they lived lives of avarice, total hypocrisy, were thoroughly corrupt to the core and plundered wealth wherever they could (not too dissimilar to some elite indians as well in that aspect), and today, they are running scared from the very bearded fanatics whom they supported. because these latter guys have figured out that, with the gun, comes power and they might as well do what they want. best of luck to you aatish, you'll be a far better human being than the man who was too much of a coward to even accept the responsibility of being the father.

Agree 100% with you, Pakistan was founded on the principles of hatred for Hindus [read Indian], the so called moderates in Pakistan are more bigoted than mullahs. I called Pakistan an ENEMY because it was born to destroy India [ended up getting split itself into two], I do not have any example of a country getting divided into two after independence, this is the result of a state founded on hate for others.

Just see how hard these Pakistanis try to prove that they are different from Indians, even after 63 years, theirs obsession for India never ends. Salman Taseer got what he deserved a death of a DOG.

 

[Dinku]

Why man India hate?

Son, mother Indian.

Funny man. Good time mit Indian. Have child. Hate!

Man horny. Irresponsible.

Funny man be Governor Pakistan?

Pakistan funny, have man Governor.

Why poster happy funny man dog death?

Dog man's best friend.

Governor no friend India, so no friend poster.

So, no dog.

 

[ejazr]

Without reading Iqbal's works and depending on only Pakistani sources for information, it is impossible to understand what he meant. Its well known that Pakistan has spent extensive effort and time to establish and create a historical legitimacy for Pakistan. When the fact is that even until the 1940s there was no movement for a separate state on the basis of religion by the Muslim League.
Many people in India are also mistaken about what Iqbal wanted. Some textbooks and history books in India also wrongly call him a protagonist of the Pakistan scheme. But the fact is that even though he was a member of the ML he never advocated such a scheme and in fact opposed it. Why would he oppose Chaudary Rahmat Ali's scheme in 1934 and then support it in 1937.

When Iqbal's calls for redistribution of provinces, he means muslim majority provinces WITHIN the Indian union. Lets look at a more contemporary example. Gujrat was part of the Bombay province. When people their demanded a seperate state it was referred to as self determination of the Gujrati people. This never meant that there would be a new nation seperate from the Indian union when Gujarat was created.
Similarly, now there is a strong movement for creation of Telengana, but again this is within the Indian union. Until the 1937 elections, there were hardly any Muslim majority states under the British India rule. And this was the concern that was being articulated. Sindh was not a separate state. NWFP and Balochistan were not treated as separate provinces. And Punjab and Bengal were again just barely Muslim majority. On top of this, the 500+ kingdoms around India and their future status was not decided. It was believed that their status would continue and the rulers will continue as they have been doing under the British rather than be amalgamated into the Indian union. And since there were many more Hindu Kingdoms, even many with Muslim majority subjects as well like J&K, it was again an example of imbalance.

Just a bit of background on the 1930 demand. Before that the Nehru report had come out with some proposals for self-government. It included among others a redistribution of provinces on linguistic lines (instead of communal) which would lead to a creation of separate Sindh as well as reforms in Baluchistan and NWFP. When this report was put to vote by the Congress committee, there was the usual uproar by the Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim league factions within the Congress. But in the 1929, the report was finally rejected by the Congress itself when most of their important leaders were in London for the Round table conference.
Iqbal had died before the ban on dual membership in Hindu Mahasbha (or Muslim League) and Congress was put into place.

Even in the 1937 letters that SATA has posted, no where does he mention Pakistan. Even though the Pakistan scheme was well known since 1933. In another letter he mentions that Muslim League should work to establishing at least five provinces with Muslim majority by demanding a separate Sindh and reforms in Balochistan and NWFP (against six provinces which had Hindu majority). Let me also add the last two letters have had a number of scholars questioning its authenticity particularly because they were published in 1943 as part of the Muslim League booklets advocating Pakistan and had not been seen by anyone before that. Neither did Iqbal have any correspondence from these letters from Jinnah for these letters.

Even in his last major work JavedNama which he wrote in the late 1930s he praises Hindu religious figures like Ram where he wrote an entire poem about him as well as Vishwamitra's spiritual greatness. At the same time he was proud of being a Muslim and looked at Islam for enlightenment and inspiration as well. Unlike how Pakistan views its creation and history as completely separate from historical India and as "external" to India, Iqbal viewed it as symbiotic to India itself.

This is no different from Mahatma Gandhi who looked towards Hinduism for inspiration too and talked about Ram Rajya being established in India. A connection to the Indian nation as well as Hinduism. The same applied to Iqbal's thoughts here were he connects himself with the Indian nation and its history and at the same time seeks to lead the Muslim world towards reform and development as well. Again quoting from his publicly available and authentic 1930 address ( much more authentic than letters published on the sly by the Muslim League) he states that the creation of these autonomous states would allow Islam (meaning the Muslims in India) to get rid of the stamp of Arab imperialism and develop Islam in a modernist way. Meaning that Indian Muslims when given the cultural autonomy of their own provinces would be able to reform the Islamic thought and bring it into the modern age by getting rid of Arab traditions which have become somehow associated with Islam. He also makes it clear in his 1930 address that there will be no religious rule either and gives examples of allowing buy and sale of alcohol or interests trade that would be allowed. Is this not a clear indication that he did not want a separate "Pakistan".


The main point of contention is that the idea of Pakistan as a SEPARATE country was initiated by Chaudary Rahmat Ali in 1933 articulated and publicly disseminated the first such though of a separate state. And when Iqbal's 1930 speech was taken by some to be in support of the this scheme, he straightaway denied this. We have his publicly stated comments on the Roundtable conference and in no place did he advocate a separate sate there either.

Iqbal's 1930 speech is again and again misquoted by people to say that he advocated for a Pakistan then. But for anyone who has read the entire speech, it is as clear as day that he did not want that. This is further clarified by his letters denying that his speech advocated the Pakistan scheme by Chaudary Rahmat Ali. In his speech, he not only talks about Muslims, but also about India as a whole, about her security doctrine, the importance of Indian military officers and its navy for example as well as the importance of having qualified Indian bureaucrats that can take control of the higher levels of the govt. apart from emphasizing a settlement or understanding between Hindus and Muslims on political issues which he calls as the two great cultural units of India. And then finally explains the importance of Indian Muslims unitedly working towards Indian independence and then serve India and even Asia as a whole

The political bondage of India has been and is a source of infinite misery to the whole of Asia. It has suppressed the spirit of the East and wholly deprived her of that joy of self-expression which once made her the creator of a great and glorious culture. We have a duty towards India where we are destined to live and die. We have a duty towards Asia, especially Muslim Asia. And since 70 millions of Muslims in a single country constitute a far more valuable asset to Islam than all the countries of Muslim Asia put together, we must look at the Indian problem not only from the Muslim point of view, but also from the standpoint of the Indian Muslim as such. Our duty towards Asia and India cannot be loyally performed without an organised will fixed on a definite purpose. In your own interest, as a political entity among other political entities of India, such an equipment is an absolute necessity.

Finally, I would like to list a few other notable people who hold this view.

Here is a old TV show where a Pakistani scholar mentions the same thing on Geo

Here is an article by Yasser Hamdani who is a well known and a very "Patriotic" Pakistani on Iqbal and he rejects the notion that Iqbal is a founding father of Pakistan. He actually states that the founding fathers should be Chaudary Rahmat Ali and Jinnah as both of these people did much more than Iqbal for establishing Pakistan.
Do read his article here
Islamist lies about Allama Iqbal | Pak Tea House

Finally for those who want to go into extensive details, do read the book "The Idea of Pakistan and Iqbal: A disclaimer" where other unpublished letters are presented including a letter where he came to know about the British floating a partition scheme for Punjab and a creation of separate Muslim country. This scheme was finalized by Lord Wavell by 1942 but kept under wraps till 1946. He mentions among other things that such a scheme will be a disaster for the Muslim community, disaster for the Hindu community and a disaster for Punjab itself. Rightly predicting what would happen 10 years later.
New book on Iqbal released - Times Of India

 

[pankaj nema]

Iqbal , Jinnah and ALL other Muslim League members were just too clever by half
All they wanted was MAXIMUM GAIN of territory

What they said in public doesnt matter what matters is what was in their HEARTS

SO they came up with ingenious schemes like CABINET mission Plan based on A very weak centre

All they wanted was Maximum territory which would be achieved with maximum bloodshed and DRIVING OUT Hindus

They needed time for implementing this macabre scheme

So the 10 year waiting period was proposed which would be enough for ETHNIC cleansing in Entire Kashmir Punjab ASSAM BENGAL Junagarh and HYDERABAD

But Sardar Patel told them to Take Pakistan and get out which upset their APPLE CART and saved India a lot of land

 

[Godless-Kafir]

This article is very insightful and precise in understanding the Pakistan mindset, has anyone posted this on PDF?

 

[Tshering22]

^^ Yeah someone already has.

 

[S.A.T.A]

All attempts garnered towards resurrecting the icon and legacy of Mohammad Iqbal,esp in India, mostly revolves around the already well worn out strategy of either living in complete denial or raising suspicion on the authenticity of many of Iqbal's purported pro Muslim homeland remarks.This is very disconcerting ,not the least insulting to the Allama,whose intellectual debt in the creation of Pakistan was acknowledged by Jinnah and has rightly been declared as the Herald of Pakistan.

The oft repeated contention that Iqbal's proposal of redistribution of Indian territories in the NW and East,in order to create,to quote Iqbal, "one or more territories with absolute Muslim majorities",is significantly different from the one proposed by Chaudhary Rahamat Ali or the one ultimately championed by Mohammad Ali Jinnah,the difference,it will be noted, is only superficial.

In his letter to Jinnah dated 28th May, 1937,Iqbal proposes to Jinnah his vision of how this new amalgamated Muslim in the Northwest and east would be governed

Happily there is a solution in the enforcement of the Law of Islam and its further development in the light of modern ideas. After a long and careful study of Islamic Law I have come to the conclusion that if this system of Law is properly understood and applied, at last the right to subsistence is secured to every body. But the enforcement and development of the Shariat of Islam is impossible in this country without a free Muslim state or states. This has been my honest conviction for many years and I still believe this to be the only way to solve the problem of bread for Muslims as well as to secure a peaceful India.

Iqbal does not foresee the possibility of this new Indian federation(comprising of Hindu majority provinces and Muslim majority provinces) being governed by a single common constitution, according to his proposal the Muslim province will be governed by the tenets of Sharia,moreover Iqbal openly admits the constitutional instability inherent in this proposal,given that a single federation cannot be governed by two sets of constitution,and declares that it is his "conviction that only a free Muslim state or states" can be viable.

It is not being insinuated here that merely because Iqbal Championed the Muslim homeland cause,he had to be a Hindu basher,to the contrary Iqbal was well conversant in Hindu literary traditions and was well disposed to the Hindu society,as a matter of fact neither did Jinnah display any manifest hatred of the Hindus,this should however be misconstrued that had any illusion regarding the status of the Muslim society in overwhelmingly Hindu India, their endeavor always had been to rescue the Muslim society from what they perceived would be long term social ramification of being a minority societies.

In the second letter dated June 21,1937 Iqbal is convinced that such an accommodation,of Muslims as permanent minorities within a Indian federation is nonviable and cannot guarantee Muslims any assurance that their distinct cultural identity will be unmolested.By wondering why Muslims should not claim for themselves the right to constitute a sovereign nation,Iqbal has now made a complete turn around from the clarification,for his proposed Muslim province,he issued in the wake of the Allahabad address.

To my mind the new constitution with its ides o a
single Indian federation is completely hopeless. A separate federation of Muslim
provinces reformed on the lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which
we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of non-Muslims.
Why should not the Muslims of North -West India and Bengal be considered as nation
entitled to Self-determination just as other nation as in India and outside India are?

If there had been any ambiguity with regards to the nature and character of the Muslim Province,Iqbal hoped to create after redistributing Indian territories,which required him to issue forth a clarification,Iqbal had in 1937,shortly before his death, completely laid them to rest,it was clear even to iqbal that his proposed dual federation was constitutionally nonviable,there was no way to counteract the perceived disadvantages of Hindu majority in the overall composition of the joint federation,the only way out in his opinion ,to quote Iqbal, was the conceding right to self determination to his proposed Muslim provinces.

It was this new realization that forced Mohammad Iqbal to close ranks with Mohammad Jinnah and the Muslim league.Surely enough the political contours of Iqbal's amalgamated Muslim province was still nebulous when he proposed it in 1930,his series of correspondences with Jinnah in 1937,coming in the backdrop Congress's triumph in first direct elections held under the auspices of the Government of India Act of 1935,alludes to the fact that, increasingly Iqbal and leagues vision of Muslim homeland was arriving at common meeting point.

In you notice the entire correspondence,there were a series of 13 letter which were exchanged,it does not appear to be a case of trading of differences between two antagonists,instead we are witness to a senior mentor goading his favorite prodigy to be imaginative,bold and decisive. Iqbal's suggestion that Jinnah was the only person to whom the Indian Muslim looked upto,is probably the forerunner to the epithet "The sole spokesman" that would come to stick to Mohammad Ali Jinnah.


P.S: Aspersion cast on the authenticity of the letters exchanged between Mohammad Iqbal and Mohammad Jinnah is dubious,The series of letters were compiled together and brought as booklet, with a foreword by Jinnah himself : "The letters which form the subject of this booklet were written to me by the sage, philosopher and national poet of Islam, the late Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal, during the period May 1936 to November1937, a few months before his death. This period synchronises with a very eventful period in the history of Muslim India—between the establishment of the All-India Muslim League Central Parliamentary Board in June 1936 and the great historic sessions at Lucknow in October 1937.

Its far fetched to believe that in the years between the Lahore resolution,the commencement of the second world war and the Quit India movement,Jinnah had busied himself with forging Iqbal's purported letters to him.Not only does this insinuate that Jinnah lacked moral integrity,but charging him with engineering a scheme, wherein iqbal would share credit to an achievement, which otherwise would have been solely credited to Mohammad Ali Jinnah.Barrister Jinnah,from an Indian point of view,may have argued a wrong case,but he did not lack gentlemanly qualities.

 

[Sikh_warrior]

im glad both the countries were divided and both went on their own path and destiny.

Pakistan is still stuck in 1947 and India has moved on....and it shows!

people in pakistan are still stuck with the mentality of 1947, indians also had bad memories.....but moved on! and it shows.

tougher times will come before things would get better and quiter and safer.....

 

[sob]

The Truth behind Pakistan India Rivalry-- Talk show by Najam Sethi. Wonder how was this accepted by the people in Pakistan, it must have ruffled many feathers in the establishment.

 

[ejazr]

The contention here specifically is around the 1930 address, but there are plenty of scholars who have looked into the details of Iqbal's works both from Pakistan and India who would agree with the formulation I have given. Even his son Javed Iqbal has mentioned this in one of the talk shows.

But just as a final view, we know for certain that Iqbal was aware of the Chadary Rahmat Ali's Pakistan scheme and rejected it. There are at least three different letters from 1934 to 1936 in this regard that explicitly reject the Pakistan scheme. There is a letter in 1937 that talks about the Partition scheme being floated as a solution which Iqbal specifically mentioned as being ripe to make Punjab the cockpit of communal strife. Why would Iqbal be jumping from denying the well known Pakistan scheme of a separate country and then rejecting in other places.

The confusion arises, if you read the book "The idea of Pakistan and Iqbal: A disclaimer" that the letters Iqbal wrote were in Urdu. The word Riyasat was translated as Federation. Now riyasat literally means government. And this again clarifies the idea that what he wanted was muslim majority provinces where the riyasat or govt. would have the say of the Muslim majority states. The forgery of two letters is again a view of atleast a few scholars who researched the letters and could not find the correspondence trail for it like they could with the others. It is possible that they were misplaced ofcourse, but in the 1940s where there was still no mass support for the Muslim League (They had won less than 5% of the Muslim only vote in 1937) a propaganda saying that a world famous Punjabi poet had demanded the same would be a HUGE propaganda coup. This is not much different from the hiring of a bunch of mullas by ML to propagandise about Islam in danger and that Muslims must vote for League or else you are a Kafir. We also know that by 1942, Wavell had finalized his partition plan too and that Jinnah was in secret contact with Churchill during the period. Maybe we will know the truth in the future, but till then these are all factors to keep in mind.

Like I mentioned, the context is important, there was no separate Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan were not treated as separate provinces, and the Nehru report that recommended such a division - which Iqbal himself approves of - was never approved by the Congress Working committee because of the pressure of the Hindu Mahasabha faction of the Congress.

Finally, it is enough to look at what Chadary Rahmat Ali, the first original proponent of the Pakistan scheme had in mind when he wrote his seminal pamphlet "Now or Never" on what HE thought of Iqbal's 1930 address. Did HE consider it as the Aatish Taseer says, the articulation of the Pakistan scheme. The Muslim delegates that Rahmat Ali castigates in his pamphlet is referring indirectly to Iqbal.

[3] The Muslim Delegates at the Round Table Conference have committed an inexcusable blunder and an incredible betrayal. They have agreed, in the name of Hindu Nationalism, to the perpetual subjection of the ill-starred Muslim Millat in India. They have accepted, without any protest or demur and without any reservation or qualification, a constitution based on the principle of an All-India Federation. This acceptance amounts to nothing less than signing the death-warrant of Islam and of Muslims in India.
..
..
[13] This demand is basically different from the suggestion put forward by Doctor Sir Muhammad Iqbal in his Presidential address to the All-India Muslim League in 1930. While he proposed the amalgamation of four out of the five above-named provinces into a single state, forming a unit of the All-India Federation, we propose that all those five Provinces should have a separate Federation of their own outside India. We are convinced there can be no peace and progress in India if we, the Muslims, are duped into a Hindu-dominated federation in which we cannot be the masters of our own destiny and captains of our own souls.

Now or Never, by Chaudhary Rahmat Ali, 1933

 

[KDShukla]

Great article:
Critical analysis of the Idea of Pakistan and India
Globian Perspective: Critical analysis of the Idea of Pakistan and India