Summing up his impression about the League Session the Quaid said:
“The first thing that has emerged from this session of the All-India Muslim League is that the entire body of delegates in the open session and the vast public accepted the resolution moved by the chair, also unanimously. This has shown beyond doubt that the Musalmans are capable of standing and going through an order and trial worthy of any great organization."
.
.
.
Source: Paksitan Visions, An International Journal of Pakistan Affair (Quaid-i-Azam Number), Vol. II, No. 1 & 2 January-july 2001, Lahore
Showing posts with label Muslim India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslim India. Show all posts
Pakistan Resolution Lahore : March 23, 1940
As soon as the All-India Muslim League, at its Lahore Session in March 1940, adopted the resolution there was a hysterical outburst in Congress and other Hindu circles. Without pausing to consider the merits of the proposal they began to decry and oppose it tooth and nail. The Quaid in a statement appealed to the better mind of the Hindu and other communities to give serious consideration to the Pakistan Resolution as the only way of achieving India’s freedom at an early date. He said:
“I still hope at any rate the better mind of the Hindus will give earnest and serious consideration to our proposals as there lies the achievement of India’s freedom at the earliest possible period. This freedom we shall be able to retain peacefully both internally and externally.”
Source: Paksitan Visions, An International Journal of Pakistan Affair (Quaid-i-Azam Number), Vol. II, No. 1 & 2 January-july 2001, Lahore
“I still hope at any rate the better mind of the Hindus will give earnest and serious consideration to our proposals as there lies the achievement of India’s freedom at the earliest possible period. This freedom we shall be able to retain peacefully both internally and externally.”
Source: Paksitan Visions, An International Journal of Pakistan Affair (Quaid-i-Azam Number), Vol. II, No. 1 & 2 January-july 2001, Lahore
Two-Nation Theory
.
Excerpt from the Presidential Address delivered by the Quaid-i-Azam
"It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is only a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality. This misconception of one Indian Nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.” (Presidential Address by the Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore March 22-23, 1940)
Source: Paksitan Visions, An International Journal of Pakistan Affair (Quaid-i-Azam Number), Vol. II, No. 1 & 2 January-july 2001, Lahore
Excerpt from the Presidential Address delivered by the Quaid-i-Azam
"It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is only a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality. This misconception of one Indian Nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.” (Presidential Address by the Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore March 22-23, 1940)
Source: Paksitan Visions, An International Journal of Pakistan Affair (Quaid-i-Azam Number), Vol. II, No. 1 & 2 January-july 2001, Lahore
Statement Asking Muslims Of India To Observe November 1st As "Muslim Countries Day"
Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, President of the All-India Muslim League, has announced that November 1st should be observed as: “The day for the purpose of expressing and demonstrating the deep feeling of sympathy and concern of Muslim India, with the Muslim countries against any possible design or aggression upon the sovereignty and independence of those countries.”
The Council of the All-India Muslim League at its last meeting resolved that “in view of the repeated reports that have reached India recently that there is probability of war flames spreading and of aggression by Foreign Powers against the independence and sovereignty of the Muslim countries such as Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Turkey,” the President of the Muslim League should fix a day “for the purpose of expressing and demonstrating deep sympathy and concern of Muslim India with Muslim countries and also conveying to those who have any such design that in the event of any attack upon Muslim countries Muslim India would be forced to stand by them and give all the support it can….”
“I am enclosing a copy of the resolution of the Council of All-India Muslim League herewith, which should be supported and confirmed in public meetings throughout every province on that day and also I hope that during the Friday prayers special prayers will be offered in all the mosques throughout all the provinces for the safety and integrity of the sovereignty and independence of Muslim countries.
“I hope that this earnest appeal of mine will receive the fullest support of Muslims generally and of the Muslim League in particular and that this day will be observed in a manner worthy of Islamic traditions.”
Source: South Asian Studies: bi-annual Research Journal, Vol. 17,No. 1 (Quaid-i-Azam Number) January 2002, PP. 92. Also cited in The Star of India, October 12, 1940.
The Council of the All-India Muslim League at its last meeting resolved that “in view of the repeated reports that have reached India recently that there is probability of war flames spreading and of aggression by Foreign Powers against the independence and sovereignty of the Muslim countries such as Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Turkey,” the President of the Muslim League should fix a day “for the purpose of expressing and demonstrating deep sympathy and concern of Muslim India with Muslim countries and also conveying to those who have any such design that in the event of any attack upon Muslim countries Muslim India would be forced to stand by them and give all the support it can….”
“I am enclosing a copy of the resolution of the Council of All-India Muslim League herewith, which should be supported and confirmed in public meetings throughout every province on that day and also I hope that during the Friday prayers special prayers will be offered in all the mosques throughout all the provinces for the safety and integrity of the sovereignty and independence of Muslim countries.
“I hope that this earnest appeal of mine will receive the fullest support of Muslims generally and of the Muslim League in particular and that this day will be observed in a manner worthy of Islamic traditions.”
Source: South Asian Studies: bi-annual Research Journal, Vol. 17,No. 1 (Quaid-i-Azam Number) January 2002, PP. 92. Also cited in The Star of India, October 12, 1940.
Statement Regarding Palestine Conference Bombay, January 30, 1939
"In view of the forthcoming Palestine Conference, which is going to take place on or about February 7, 1939 in London, I have sent the following telegram to Mr. Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain: the Secretary of State for India and Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, the Minister for Colonies:
"The All-India Muslim League urges upon His Majesty’s Government to give representation to the Muslim League on the Palestine Conference and concede the Palestine National Arab demands. Muslim India is most anxiously awaiting results. I cannot by means of a telegram express adequately and impress the intensity of feeling prevailing throughout India. The failure of the Conference will be most disastrous throughout the Muslim world, resulting in grave consequences. I trust that this earnest appeal will receive your serious consideration."
Source: South Asian Studies: bi-annual Research Journal, Vol. 17,No. 1 (Quaid-i-Azam Number) January 2002, PP. 91. Also cited in The Civil & Military Gazette, February 1, 1939.
"The All-India Muslim League urges upon His Majesty’s Government to give representation to the Muslim League on the Palestine Conference and concede the Palestine National Arab demands. Muslim India is most anxiously awaiting results. I cannot by means of a telegram express adequately and impress the intensity of feeling prevailing throughout India. The failure of the Conference will be most disastrous throughout the Muslim world, resulting in grave consequences. I trust that this earnest appeal will receive your serious consideration."
Source: South Asian Studies: bi-annual Research Journal, Vol. 17,No. 1 (Quaid-i-Azam Number) January 2002, PP. 91. Also cited in The Civil & Military Gazette, February 1, 1939.
Statement On The Palestine Problem Bombay: November 10, 1938
The view that Muslims of India are solidly behind the struggle which the Arabs are carrying on in Palestine for their freedom was expressed by Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, President of the All India Muslim League. Commenting on the declaration of policy by His Majesty’s Government on the Palestine problem, the Quaid said:
"I feel that Arab leaders of Palestine and the neighboring States will be far more competent to deal with the matter than any Indian can from this distance, as they not only are fully competent but also understand the situation on the spot better. I would not, therefore, at this stage venture to make any suggestion of a concrete nature, but would like to make it clear that Muslims of India are solidly behind the struggle which the Arabs are carrying on for their freedom. Their feelings and sentiments have been repeatedly presented to the British Government".
Muslims Resentment
"Only in September last, in a long interview with His Excellency the Viceroy, I conveyed to him and the Government of India the intensity of the feeling in India on this matter. It has been the greatest difficulty with us during the last few months to restrain and to hold the Muslims of India from openly revolting. The way in which the British Government have hitherto dealt with the Arabs is the greatest blot on their national honour. I trust that the British nation and His Majesty’s Government will make the fullest amends for their past mistakes before it is too late and not take shelter under the plea of that most unjust Balfour Declaration, which never ought to have been made, and further the plea of appeasing international Jewry.
"I feel that Arab leaders of Palestine and the neighboring States will be far more competent to deal with the matter than any Indian can from this distance, as they not only are fully competent but also understand the situation on the spot better. I would not, therefore, at this stage venture to make any suggestion of a concrete nature, but would like to make it clear that Muslims of India are solidly behind the struggle which the Arabs are carrying on for their freedom. Their feelings and sentiments have been repeatedly presented to the British Government".
Muslims Resentment
"Only in September last, in a long interview with His Excellency the Viceroy, I conveyed to him and the Government of India the intensity of the feeling in India on this matter. It has been the greatest difficulty with us during the last few months to restrain and to hold the Muslims of India from openly revolting. The way in which the British Government have hitherto dealt with the Arabs is the greatest blot on their national honour. I trust that the British nation and His Majesty’s Government will make the fullest amends for their past mistakes before it is too late and not take shelter under the plea of that most unjust Balfour Declaration, which never ought to have been made, and further the plea of appeasing international Jewry.
23rd March 1940: What Our Youth Must Know About?
The Pakistani youth of today seem to be simply ignorant of the historical background of the creation of Pakistan. The reason is mostly to do with detest of theirs for Pakistan Studies while at schools. Based on my interaction with many of them, it is my considered opinion that there is a weakness and void out there amongst our youth vis- -vis history of Pakistan.
On this historic day of 23rd March 'also known as Pakistan Day' I therefore thought to write something for educating my youth on the significance of this day.
The youth of today must know that Pakistan owes her creation to four erstwhile outstanding Muslim leaders, namely: Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-98), Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar (1878-1931), Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948), and Allama Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938). These leaders provided intellectual and political leadership to Indian Muslims during about ninety years (1858-1947) of the British imperial rule on the Sub-continent.
It is important for them to also know that in the beginning all of these aforementioned leaders were thorough-bred nationalists at one time or another. By being nationalist means they were the proponents of a united India. Now it should not come as a surprise for our young men and women to learn that over the passage of time our leaders got disillusioned with this concept of one united India. The reasons were many. It could have been either because of Hindu ethnocentrism in the late 19th century or Congress`s championing of unitary Hindu nationalism in the 1920s and 1930s.
Now let us focus our discussion exclusively on our great leader and founder of Pakistan 'Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah'. It is very important for the youths to understand the elements of the crest and the troughs in the political leanings and ideologies of Quaid-e-Azam over his long career from 1904 thru 1948. It is interesting to note here that for some seventeen years (1904-1920), he was pro-Congress, pleading the Congress cause and envisioning a truly nationalist destiny for India.
And, still for another sixteen years (1921-37), though he was practically out of Congress as he had joined All India Muslim League in 1920, he was still working for a nationalist destiny. During this period, he was still striving for a Hindu-Muslim settlement and he was still collaborating with the Congress and its leadership for the same. It is also very well known that in pursuit of his mission of Hindu-Muslim unity, he had devised several constitutional formulae, but all to no avail. It is also pertinent to mention here that till early 1937, Quaid-e-Azam was still in his "nationalist" self; preaching his credo eloquently and trying miserably to unite Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. For this he was widely known as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.
On this historic day of 23rd March 'also known as Pakistan Day' I therefore thought to write something for educating my youth on the significance of this day.
The youth of today must know that Pakistan owes her creation to four erstwhile outstanding Muslim leaders, namely: Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-98), Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar (1878-1931), Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948), and Allama Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938). These leaders provided intellectual and political leadership to Indian Muslims during about ninety years (1858-1947) of the British imperial rule on the Sub-continent.
It is important for them to also know that in the beginning all of these aforementioned leaders were thorough-bred nationalists at one time or another. By being nationalist means they were the proponents of a united India. Now it should not come as a surprise for our young men and women to learn that over the passage of time our leaders got disillusioned with this concept of one united India. The reasons were many. It could have been either because of Hindu ethnocentrism in the late 19th century or Congress`s championing of unitary Hindu nationalism in the 1920s and 1930s.
Now let us focus our discussion exclusively on our great leader and founder of Pakistan 'Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah'. It is very important for the youths to understand the elements of the crest and the troughs in the political leanings and ideologies of Quaid-e-Azam over his long career from 1904 thru 1948. It is interesting to note here that for some seventeen years (1904-1920), he was pro-Congress, pleading the Congress cause and envisioning a truly nationalist destiny for India.
And, still for another sixteen years (1921-37), though he was practically out of Congress as he had joined All India Muslim League in 1920, he was still working for a nationalist destiny. During this period, he was still striving for a Hindu-Muslim settlement and he was still collaborating with the Congress and its leadership for the same. It is also very well known that in pursuit of his mission of Hindu-Muslim unity, he had devised several constitutional formulae, but all to no avail. It is also pertinent to mention here that till early 1937, Quaid-e-Azam was still in his "nationalist" self; preaching his credo eloquently and trying miserably to unite Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. For this he was widely known as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.
Quaid-e-Azam turned a dream into a reality
ON March 23, 1940, the Muslims of the sub-continent resolved to create a separate homeland, Pakistan. The decision was neither taken in haste nor precipitated by a sudden, dramatic turn of events.
Hindus and Muslims had lived in India for centuries but had remained two distinctly different cultural entities presenting marked dissimilarities that neither time nor assimilation could erase; they were like two streams running a parallel course. So manifest and so profound were the differences that the London Times, commenting on the Government of India Act of 1935, had to ungrudgingly concede: “Undoubtedly the difference between the Hindus and Muslims is not of religion in the strict sense of the word but also of laws and culture, that they may be said indeed to represent two entirely distinct and separate civilizations.”
This incontrovertible realization found a more convincing elucidation in the words of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah: “Notwithstanding thousand years of close contact, nationalities which are as divergent today as ever, cannot at any time be expected to transform themselves into one nation merely by mean of subjecting them to a democratic constitution and holding them forcibly together by unnatural and artificial methods of British Parliamentary Statutes.”
The background of Pakistan Resolution is such that in 1937, provincial autonomy was introduced in the sub-continent under the Government of India Act, 1935. The elections of 1937 provided the Congress with a majority in six provinces, where Congress governments were formed. This led to the political, social, economic and cultural suppression of the Muslims in the Congress ruled provinces.
The Congress contemptuously rejected the Muslim League’s offer of forming coalition ministries. The Muslims were subjected not only to physical attacks but injustice and discriminatory treatment as regards civil liberties, economic measures and employment and educational opportunities. The Congress Ministries introduced the Wardha scheme of education, the object of which was to “de- Muslimize” the Muslim youth and children.
Ian Stephens, former editor of the newspaper “Statesman” and an eyewitness to the working of the Congress Ministries, says: "The effect of this simultaneously on many Muslim minds was of a lightning flash.
Hindus and Muslims had lived in India for centuries but had remained two distinctly different cultural entities presenting marked dissimilarities that neither time nor assimilation could erase; they were like two streams running a parallel course. So manifest and so profound were the differences that the London Times, commenting on the Government of India Act of 1935, had to ungrudgingly concede: “Undoubtedly the difference between the Hindus and Muslims is not of religion in the strict sense of the word but also of laws and culture, that they may be said indeed to represent two entirely distinct and separate civilizations.”
This incontrovertible realization found a more convincing elucidation in the words of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah: “Notwithstanding thousand years of close contact, nationalities which are as divergent today as ever, cannot at any time be expected to transform themselves into one nation merely by mean of subjecting them to a democratic constitution and holding them forcibly together by unnatural and artificial methods of British Parliamentary Statutes.”
The background of Pakistan Resolution is such that in 1937, provincial autonomy was introduced in the sub-continent under the Government of India Act, 1935. The elections of 1937 provided the Congress with a majority in six provinces, where Congress governments were formed. This led to the political, social, economic and cultural suppression of the Muslims in the Congress ruled provinces.
The Congress contemptuously rejected the Muslim League’s offer of forming coalition ministries. The Muslims were subjected not only to physical attacks but injustice and discriminatory treatment as regards civil liberties, economic measures and employment and educational opportunities. The Congress Ministries introduced the Wardha scheme of education, the object of which was to “de- Muslimize” the Muslim youth and children.
Ian Stephens, former editor of the newspaper “Statesman” and an eyewitness to the working of the Congress Ministries, says: "The effect of this simultaneously on many Muslim minds was of a lightning flash.
Quaid-e-Azam, Islam, and Pakistan!!
It is said that truth is stranger than fiction. Quaid-e-Azam’s life is a case in point.
What kind of reaction would be expected from an “educated” Pakistani, if one were to ask him or her: Do you think Quaid-e-Azam was inspired by the Quran or the Prophet (PBUH) in his struggle for Pakistan? The most likely reaction will be: Quran and Quaid-e-Azam? – Are you serious? And our Prophet (PBUH) and Quaid-e-Azam? – Are you kidding? Quaid-e-Azam was more like a British and a product of their culture. How could he be inspired by the Quran or the Prophet (PBUH)? Yes, he fought for Pakistan. But his motives were political and economic, not Islamic. He wanted to improve the economic condition of Muslims who were dominated by the Hindus. He was not a good Muslim himself but he used Islam very effectively as a slogan to make a case for a separate homeland for Muslims. He proved to be a great leader. And to accomplish his goals he employed his highly skilled legal mind as a weapon in his fight with the Hindus and the British, which earned him a place in history. He had nothing to do with Islam as such. He wanted Pakistan to be a secular state, not an Islamic state.
Believe it or not, these will be the kinds of reaction one would normally get in the streets, mosques, government and business offices in Pakistan.
But why did Quaid-e-Azam still insist on having Pakistan even though Gandhi offered him the leadership of undivided India? If Islam was not an issue in his mind and if he wanted Pakistan to be a secular state, then couldn’t he have used the enormous power as the leader of the largest secular state in the world to his advantage rather than settle for a moth-eaten tiny secular state for Muslims? That would have earned him: the respect of Hindus, the blessing of Gandhi, and high accolades of the British; plus it would have given him unimaginable world popularity. Any other leader seeking fame, fortune, glory, and power would have been only too happy to accept Gandhi’s offer. However, Quiad-e-Azam didn’t. Why did Quid-e-Azam not accept Gandhi’s offer? The answer requires a deeper understanding (than the above “street” responses) of the real motive and the spirit behind Quaid-e-Azam’s struggle for Pakistan.
Quaid-e-Azam and Fatima Jinnah |
Believe it or not, these will be the kinds of reaction one would normally get in the streets, mosques, government and business offices in Pakistan.
But why did Quaid-e-Azam still insist on having Pakistan even though Gandhi offered him the leadership of undivided India? If Islam was not an issue in his mind and if he wanted Pakistan to be a secular state, then couldn’t he have used the enormous power as the leader of the largest secular state in the world to his advantage rather than settle for a moth-eaten tiny secular state for Muslims? That would have earned him: the respect of Hindus, the blessing of Gandhi, and high accolades of the British; plus it would have given him unimaginable world popularity. Any other leader seeking fame, fortune, glory, and power would have been only too happy to accept Gandhi’s offer. However, Quiad-e-Azam didn’t. Why did Quid-e-Azam not accept Gandhi’s offer? The answer requires a deeper understanding (than the above “street” responses) of the real motive and the spirit behind Quaid-e-Azam’s struggle for Pakistan.
At Quaid’s service
At Quaid’s Service is a biographical account written on the life of M. Rafi Butt. It deals primarily with the life and times of the young entrepreneur. The 1930’s and 1940’s were dominated by the conflict and aftermath of World War II. Thus, most of the focus of that era had been war-centric, and very few texts provided a prospective view on the culture of the Pakistanis, who gave birth to this country and their struggle against insurmountable odds to survive. Even fewer texts provide an insight into the dealings and preparations for the nation of Pakistan to become a state, along with all stately machinations and responsibilities, and virtually no text exists of the Quaid’s laborious ‘behind the scene’ plans to physically realise that successful, progressive Muslim homeland he saw in his visions.
The book tells Pakistan’s tale from a very different perspective. It is the story of a young Punjabi entrepreneur, who demonstrated economic genius on numerous occasions and had garnered great success in a culture where the odds were stacked almost relentlessly against the Muslims.
Born in 1909, in Lahore, Rafi’s father died while he was still at the young tender age of 16. He had to take over his father’s surgical instruments and supplies business, and soon developed it into an empire within a decade. Rafi went on to establish the Central Exchange Bank in Lahore, in 1936, and expanded it into other cities of the undivided India as well. He travelled extensively to the US and Europe in order to discover the latest innovations in the industry, and kept Jinnah informed on any economic and industrial revelations that could aid the future of Pakistan after its establishment.
It also provides a vivid and unique account of Lahore in the 1930’s and 1940’s, along with the names, places and independent accounts of the happening of the Muslim elites at the time of the Pakistan Movement. The Quaid was a messiah to the masses, but to the elites he was still a politician. Since Rafi was a high flyer in the Indian society, he had an insider view of the way the elites saw the Quaid and Pakistan.
At the same time, it narrates a story of how Jinnah inspired the youth of all segments of the Muslim society, and promised them that if they would follow him they will inherit a homeland with freedom, security and opportunity.
The book tells Pakistan’s tale from a very different perspective. It is the story of a young Punjabi entrepreneur, who demonstrated economic genius on numerous occasions and had garnered great success in a culture where the odds were stacked almost relentlessly against the Muslims.
Born in 1909, in Lahore, Rafi’s father died while he was still at the young tender age of 16. He had to take over his father’s surgical instruments and supplies business, and soon developed it into an empire within a decade. Rafi went on to establish the Central Exchange Bank in Lahore, in 1936, and expanded it into other cities of the undivided India as well. He travelled extensively to the US and Europe in order to discover the latest innovations in the industry, and kept Jinnah informed on any economic and industrial revelations that could aid the future of Pakistan after its establishment.
It also provides a vivid and unique account of Lahore in the 1930’s and 1940’s, along with the names, places and independent accounts of the happening of the Muslim elites at the time of the Pakistan Movement. The Quaid was a messiah to the masses, but to the elites he was still a politician. Since Rafi was a high flyer in the Indian society, he had an insider view of the way the elites saw the Quaid and Pakistan.
At the same time, it narrates a story of how Jinnah inspired the youth of all segments of the Muslim society, and promised them that if they would follow him they will inherit a homeland with freedom, security and opportunity.
Jinnah and Kashmir
The Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah thanked the National Conference leadership for the right royal reception given to him but at the same time said that it was not a reception for his person, but to the All India Muslim League, the party of ten crore Muslims of India of which he was President. This annoyed the Hindu leader so much that he left the stage in distress. According to Mr. Justice Yusuf Saraf, author of “Kashmiris Fight for Freedom” the Quaid-e-Azam and his wife seemed to have had visited Kashmir for the first time before 1929. Though this visit was private in nature, yet as a great Muslim leader he felt concerned at the appalling conditions of the Kashmiris at that time too.
The second visit of the Quaid-e-Azam was in 1936 during which he hinted to his first visit, saying that he had visited Kashmir ten years earlier too. In 1936 the Quaid-e-Azam addressed a meeting held in connection with Milad-un-Nabi, the birthday of the Holy Prophet (SAW) at the Mujahid Manzil, Srinagar. The Muslim Conference (at that point of time was led by Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas and Sheikh Abdullah) in welcome address to Jinnah appreciated his role as lover of Hindu-Muslim unity. Mr. Jinnah reciprocated the sentiments and said that the Muslims were in majority in Kashmir but it was their duty to ensure that the minority community that is, the Hindus of Kashmir would get justice and fair play at the hands of the majority community of Kashmir.
Mr.Jinnah, who was once proclaimed as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, had been disillusioned by that time and in his speech regretted that some of the leaders of the majority community in British India had not been able to give such an assurance to the Muslim minority. That showed that the Quaid-e-Azam was not satisfied with the concept of Hindu-Muslim unity in British India.
The Muslim Conference, which represented the Muslims of the State 1936, was converted into National Conference in 1939 as its leaders had come under the influence of Nehru. Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas, who had joined hand with Sheikh Abdullah in 1939 to found National Conference, realized his mistake within three years. He returned to the Muslim Conference, which had been revived by 14 other leaders from Jammu and Kashmir. Soon many others joined the revived Muslim Conference and once again it became a force to reckon with.
The main and the last visit of the Quaid-e-Azam to the State of Jammu and Kashmir took place in 1944. During this visit he attended a reception by the National Conference headed by Sheikh Abdullah. Sheikh Abdullah had thought that with the help of Dogra administration and the active and crafty Hindus he would suppress the pro-Muslim League elements in the State and assure Mr. Jinnah that the Kashmiris, Hindus as well as Muslims, were believers in One Nation Theory of the Congress. A Hindu nationalist Jialal Kilam presented the address of welcome to the Quaid-e-Azam. The Quaid-e-Azam thanked the National Conference leadership for the right royal reception given to him but at the same time said that it was not a reception for his person, but to the All India Muslim League, the party of ten crore Muslims of India of which he was President. This annoyed the Hindu leader so much that he left the stage in distress.
The second visit of the Quaid-e-Azam was in 1936 during which he hinted to his first visit, saying that he had visited Kashmir ten years earlier too. In 1936 the Quaid-e-Azam addressed a meeting held in connection with Milad-un-Nabi, the birthday of the Holy Prophet (SAW) at the Mujahid Manzil, Srinagar. The Muslim Conference (at that point of time was led by Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas and Sheikh Abdullah) in welcome address to Jinnah appreciated his role as lover of Hindu-Muslim unity. Mr. Jinnah reciprocated the sentiments and said that the Muslims were in majority in Kashmir but it was their duty to ensure that the minority community that is, the Hindus of Kashmir would get justice and fair play at the hands of the majority community of Kashmir.
Mr.Jinnah, who was once proclaimed as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, had been disillusioned by that time and in his speech regretted that some of the leaders of the majority community in British India had not been able to give such an assurance to the Muslim minority. That showed that the Quaid-e-Azam was not satisfied with the concept of Hindu-Muslim unity in British India.
The Muslim Conference, which represented the Muslims of the State 1936, was converted into National Conference in 1939 as its leaders had come under the influence of Nehru. Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas, who had joined hand with Sheikh Abdullah in 1939 to found National Conference, realized his mistake within three years. He returned to the Muslim Conference, which had been revived by 14 other leaders from Jammu and Kashmir. Soon many others joined the revived Muslim Conference and once again it became a force to reckon with.
The Quaid and the Making of Pakistan
How critical was Quaid-i-Azam’s role in the making of Pakistan? Surprisingly though, it was most succinctly and brilliantly summed up in rather unsuspecting quarters – in H.V. Hodson (d. 2000)’s The Great Divide (1969), perhaps the most authoritative British account of the imperial retreat from the subcontinent. He says:
Of all the personalities in the last act of the great drama of India’s rebirth to independence, Mohammad Ali Jinnah is at once the most enigmatic and the most important. One can imagine any of the other principal actors…. Replaced by a substitute in the same role – a different representative of this or that interest or community, even a different Viceroy – without thereby implying any radical change in the denouncement. But it is barely conceivable that events would have taken the same course, that the last struggle would have been a struggle of three, not two, well-balanced adversaries, and that a new nation State of Pakistan would have been created, but for the personality and leadership of one man, Mr. Jinnah. The irresistible demand for Indian independence, and the British will to relinquish power in India soon after the end of the Second World War, were the result of influences that had been at work long before the present story of a single decade begins; the protagonists on this side or that of the imperial relationship were tools of historical forces which they did not create and could not control… Whereas the irresistible demand for Pakistan, and the solidarity of the Indian Muslims behind the demand, were creations of that decade alone, ad supremely the creations of one man.
Of relevance here is how Alfred Broachard evaluated the role of Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938) in the making of the modern Turkey:
Without Napoleon, without de Gaulle, there would still be a France.
Without Washington, there would certainly be the United States.
Without Lenin, it is certain that there would be the Soviet Union; but
without Ataturk, it is certain that there would have been no Turkey.
Turkey had, of course, had a territorial, political, cultural and ethnic existence in history for over five centuries before Ataturk transformed it into modern Turkey in 1923. In contract, Pakistan fell even below the category of middle nineteenth-century “Italy” which the Austrian Chancellor, Matternich (1809-48), had most disparagingly characterized as a mere a “geographical expression”. Pakistan was not even such an expression barely fifteen years before its emergence. There was a “nation” called Turkey for several centuries, but there was none called Pakistan before 1947. Hence if Ataturk’s presence in the early 1920s was critical to have making of modern Turkey, how much more critical should have been Jinnah’s presence in the 1940s in the emergence of Pakistan, especially since she was bereft of any historical prototype hand parentage? Hence Leonard Mosley and a host of other contemporary observers and historians (including Penderal Moon, Ian Stephens, John Terraine, Margaret Bourke-White, Frank Moraes, and D.F. Karaka) rate Jinnah as being the critical variable in its emergence to a point that they characterize Pakistan as a “one-man achievement”.
Of all the personalities in the last act of the great drama of India’s rebirth to independence, Mohammad Ali Jinnah is at once the most enigmatic and the most important. One can imagine any of the other principal actors…. Replaced by a substitute in the same role – a different representative of this or that interest or community, even a different Viceroy – without thereby implying any radical change in the denouncement. But it is barely conceivable that events would have taken the same course, that the last struggle would have been a struggle of three, not two, well-balanced adversaries, and that a new nation State of Pakistan would have been created, but for the personality and leadership of one man, Mr. Jinnah. The irresistible demand for Indian independence, and the British will to relinquish power in India soon after the end of the Second World War, were the result of influences that had been at work long before the present story of a single decade begins; the protagonists on this side or that of the imperial relationship were tools of historical forces which they did not create and could not control… Whereas the irresistible demand for Pakistan, and the solidarity of the Indian Muslims behind the demand, were creations of that decade alone, ad supremely the creations of one man.
Of relevance here is how Alfred Broachard evaluated the role of Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938) in the making of the modern Turkey:
Without Napoleon, without de Gaulle, there would still be a France.
Without Washington, there would certainly be the United States.
Without Lenin, it is certain that there would be the Soviet Union; but
without Ataturk, it is certain that there would have been no Turkey.
Turkey had, of course, had a territorial, political, cultural and ethnic existence in history for over five centuries before Ataturk transformed it into modern Turkey in 1923. In contract, Pakistan fell even below the category of middle nineteenth-century “Italy” which the Austrian Chancellor, Matternich (1809-48), had most disparagingly characterized as a mere a “geographical expression”. Pakistan was not even such an expression barely fifteen years before its emergence. There was a “nation” called Turkey for several centuries, but there was none called Pakistan before 1947. Hence if Ataturk’s presence in the early 1920s was critical to have making of modern Turkey, how much more critical should have been Jinnah’s presence in the 1940s in the emergence of Pakistan, especially since she was bereft of any historical prototype hand parentage? Hence Leonard Mosley and a host of other contemporary observers and historians (including Penderal Moon, Ian Stephens, John Terraine, Margaret Bourke-White, Frank Moraes, and D.F. Karaka) rate Jinnah as being the critical variable in its emergence to a point that they characterize Pakistan as a “one-man achievement”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Gandhi and Jinnah - a study in contrasts
An extract from the book that riled India's Bharatiya Janata Party and led to the expulsion of its author Jaswant Singh, one of the foun...
-
Speech on the Inauguration of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly on 14th August, 1947 Your Excellency, I thank His Majesty the King on behalf...
-
Reply to the Civic Address presented by the Quetta Municipality on I5th June, 1948. I thank you for your address of welcome and for the ki...