No announcement yet.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah - Article by Anwar Shaikh

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Muhammad Ali Jinnah - Article by Anwar Shaikh

    "Hazrat Qaid-E-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah Alehe Rahmat" is the title of
    the other Gujrati saint, who was born as Muhammad Ali Jinnah in Karachi
    during December, 1876.
    This description bestows a greater dignity on him than that of a Muslim
    saint. It is an outcome of the Hindu tradition, which makes ancestor-
    worship an integral part of Dharma, and clearly shows that the Muslims
    of the Indian subcontinent share a common culture with the Hindus and
    are racially the same people. Without this unity of background, Jinnah
    could not have been treated by the Pakistanis as if he were one of the
    spiritual luminaries of Islam.
    A title of the Prophet Muhammad is "Haadi-e-Azam" i.e., the great
    guide. Jinnah's title: "The Qaid-E-Azam" means very much the same.
    Again, the use of "Hazrat" as prefix and "Alehe Rahmat" as suffix,
    further add to his devotional splendor.
    He has been honored as such for being the founder of Pakistan. It is
    only the success that should be saluted; failure cannot be applauded
    because it eliminates the difference between fortune and fiasco.
    Such a great political hysteria was whipped up during the second decade
    of the 20th century that the mutual Hindu-Muslim hatred assumed inhuman
    proportions. Using Dr. Iqbal as a scapegoat, the Muslim League led by
    Jinnah, claimed that the Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations;
    as they could not live together, India must be partitioned to create a
    separate homeland for the Muslims. This was considered the panacea for
    all the Muslim ills - religious, economic and political.
    Should Jinnah be allowed the saintly title that he has come to possess?
    This is an honest question, and can be answered sincerely only if one
    can establish objectively that Pakistan has solved the major problems
    of all the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. If it has, then Jinnah
    was certainly one of the greatest saints that ever lived, but if it has
    not, then his status must be reviewed in light of the results that the
    partition has produced.
    To start with, let us weigh up the concept of Pakistan itself. It meant
    that the Indian provinces (Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, N.W. Frontier,
    Bengal and Bihar) where the Muslims were in majority, must be treated
    as the Homeland of the Muslims, and separated from India as an
    independent state. This was a crazy idea for several reasons:
    1. There was a distance of about one thousand miles between East and
    West Pakistan. It was impossible to reach Karachi from Dacca by land,
    sea or air without consent of the Indian government, which was bound to
    be hostile for the simple reason that Pakistan would serve as a symbol
    of the Muslim hatred against the Hindus. This being the truth,
    diplomatic relations between the two states could not remain cordial,
    and they would exist only to demolish each other. It also meant that
    their budgets would be dedicated to the national defense instead of
    public welfare, resulting in poverty with its concomitant vices such as
    bribe, nepotism, tyranny, injustice and mal-administration.
    History shows that one can have a far-flung empire, but it is
    impossible to think of a homeland whose parts lie a thousand miles away
    intercepted by a long hostile territory. The leader, who thinks of such
    a plan as the elixir for national ills, does not know the difference
    between mirth and misery, fruition and fiasco, delight and disaster.
    Yet, Mr. Jinnah insisted on the formation of Pakistan!
    His followers have, no doubt, offered mitigating factors to support his
    soundness of judgement, but this is an exercise in futility. The fact
    is that he did secure Pakistan consisting of Eastern and Western wings,
    which in essence, is a proof of political incompetence. The man,
    obviously, wanted to be a hero at the expense of innocent people.
    2. As I shall explain later, nationhood is not founded on religion but
    blood ties, a common culture and homeland, yet he insisted that the
    religion was the corner-stone of the Muslim nationhood. If this were
    true, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. would
    have been one state. As we know, it has never happened, and these
    countries are as independent from one another as England is from
    France, and China from Russia.
    However, if Jinnah had some secret knowledge of history or some special
    powers to mould the Muslims of India into a separate nation, he should
    have spent his energies to this effect. After all, the Prophet Muhammad
    had devoted his life to welding the various warring Arab tribes into
    one nation. Genghis Khan had also spent considerable time in uniting
    the Mongolian hordes into one nation. But Jinnah did nothing to forge
    one nation out of the Muslims scattered throughout India. Delivering
    occasional lectures from a high pulpit, canopied by an unswerving
    loyalty to the British Crown, was totally insufficient to accomplish
    this task. In a nutshell, he did not go through the laborious
    rehearsal, which is absolutely essential before staging the play.
    Either he did not realize or deliberately ignored the fact that the
    secret of Muhammad's and Genghis Khan's success lay in the fact that
    their people were already racially one nation, who had become divided
    into clans. Of course, the Muslims of India were racially and
    culturally Indian, but Jinnah had undertaken an entirely unnatural task
    of splitting it into two nations based on religion. It has never
    happened in this world because religion is not the natural unit ofnationhood.
    The force of his argument was emotional and exploitative. He used the
    religious appeal as a bait to bring Muslims into his political net. He
    played upon the religious susceptibilities of people to make them
    believe that the Islamic state is the sure guarantor of peace,
    prosperity and plentitude, but he never explained the complexity,
    nature and purpose of the Islamic Law, the main vehicle of bringing
    about this Divine Revolution. Being a lawyer, it was his foremost duty
    to do so. This was the only way to make people realize what was
    required of them. The fact that he did not do it, makes him less thanhonorable.
    One must bear in mind that Jinnah was not a practicing Muslim, yet he
    advocated the establishment of an Islamic state. On the contrary, the
    formidable Muslim divines such as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana
    Hussain Ahmad Madni, Sayyad Ata Ulla Shah Bukhari, Maulana Abut Ala
    Maududi, and many more, opposed the concept of Pakistan and the Two-
    Nation Theory.
    There is no evidence whatever that an Islamic state has ever exited
    according to the Koranic principles. Nor can it be proved that Islam
    requires establishment of a single state for all Muslims to share its
    bounties, benefits and blessings. The Indian Muslims boast a good deal
    about the "Islamic Welfare State" established by the Second Caliph,
    Umar, the Great. Yes, he did invent the system of giving social
    benefits to the Arab children, but where did the money come from? The
    finances were raised by robbing the newly converted Muslims of Egypt
    and Iran, whose children cried from hunger and disease. There is no
    record, whatever, to show that the Egyptian and Iranian children were
    given any stipends from the Arab funds; it was for the Arab childrenonly!
    The truth is that the much-vaunted Muslim Law falls far short of the
    universally accepted legal standards. What is law?
    The law is a set of enforceable principles, which seek to establish
    rights and duties between person and person, an individual and society,
    as well as people and the state. The following peculiarities give the
    law its true distinction, deference and decency:
    a. The law is never made for the benefit of one person. It is enacted
    for a whole group of people.
    b. The law is strictly neutral in its application, that is, it applies
    to the low and high and great and small with equal force.
    Incredible it may seem but the truth is that the Islamic law has
    nothing to do with the public good because it revolves around the
    convenience of the Prophet Muhammad. For example, the Koran lays it
    down that a Muslim can have no more than four wives at the same time,
    but this law did not apply to the Prophet:
    And any woman, believer, if she gave herself to the Prophet and if the
    Prophet desires to take her in marriage, for thee, apart from the
    believers. (The Confederates, 33: 45)
    It clearly states that the Prophet can have more than four wives at the
    same time, and this law applies to him only at the total exclusion of
    all other believers! This is the reason that he had nine wives at thesame time!
    Also bear in mind the following Koranic law, pertaining to polygamy:
    " .....marry such women as seem good to you, two, three four; but if
    you fear you will not be equitable, then only one....." (Women, 4: 1 )
    Thus, the clause of equity is the pivot of having more than one wife.
    It is well known that the Prophet could not maintain balance of
    fairness among his wives. As the Koran witnesses, it led to a lot of
    acrimony in the household. Instead of enforcing the clause of equity,
    Allah gave Muhammad dispensation from it:
    "You (Muhammad) can suspend any of your wives as you will, and receive
    any of them as you will: and whomsoever you desire of those whom you
    have set aside, it is no sin for you." (The Confederates, 33: 50)
    In simple English, it means that the prophet is not bound by the Law of
    Equity, the basic condition of polygamy: he can treat his wives as he
    thinks fit. Since it is Allah, who makes the law a play-thing for
    Muhammad, one wonders if Allah and Muhammad are not one and the same
    person. It certainly led me to this conclusion.
    The law, which is exclusive to a person for serving his convenience, or
    if it is flexible at will, it ceases to be the law. In this context, I
    ought to remind the reader that the Prophet was at liberty to marry the
    widow or divorcee of another person, but nobody was allowed to marry
    his widow (or divorcee). All his wives were raised to the status of
    Ummahaat-ul-Momineen (Mothers of the believers) so that nobody could
    marry them. When the Prophet died, his wife Aisha was only 18, and
    lived to be 73 as a lonely widow!
    One can find many more examples to this effect, but I think that I have
    said enough to illustrate the purpose and nature of the so- called
    Islamic Law. However, I may add that the poverty-stricken Muslims of
    India believed that the Islamic Law stood for economic equality. We all
    were led to think that way. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto openly equated the
    Islamic Law with the Marxist concept of nationalization, for this
    reason, whereas the truth is that Islam allows unlimited accumulation
    of wealth in any form, including land, and is the only source of
    feudalism in the modern age.
    It is this ambiguity about the Islamic Law, which has become the bane
    of Pakistan. Half a century has elapsed but Islamic Law has not yet
    been enforced in Pakistan despite the fact that India was divided for
    this reason. The truth is that there is no Islamic Law to be enforced.
    What is called the Islamic Law is the result of the far-fetched
    interpretations of the Koran and Hadith; it also includes the vestiges
    of the legal contrivances that were developed by the Arab and Turkish
    rulers to meet the demands of their times.
    In fact, the Islamic Law is the biggest myth that the Muslim divines
    have dreamt up all over the world. It is because, the Prophet Muhammad
    declared himself to be the Behavioral Model for the believers:
    "You have a good example in God's Messenger ( Muhammad ) for whosoever
    hopes for God and the Last Day." (The Confederates, 33: 20)
    As seen above, the Prophet was not bound by any law. This is the
    essence of his being the Behavioral Model. Therefore, there is no such
    thing as the Islamic Law. Since Jinnah did not explain this point
    including the Islamic Economics, he was leading the Muslims of India to
    the God that did not exist. As he did not live an Islamic life, and
    only talked about it, one can easily see that he only wanted to elevate
    himself, and was least interested in the Islamic ideology..
    3. It is difficult to believe that Jinnah even believed in the
    integrity of Pakistan itself. Eventually, when the Hindus agreed to the
    partition of India, they sprang a surprise on him. They demanded that
    certain parts of the Punjab and Bengal, which were to constitute
    Pakistan, must also be divided. Instead of defending the integrity of
    the yet unborn Muslim state, he succumbed to the Hindu pressure and
    accepted its truncation as if it were a play! It was the Muslims of
    these provinces, who suffered untold loss of life and property.
    It is not surprising because the man who had no loyalty to his
    Motherland (India) how could he care about the integrity of Pakistan,
    which was still in a notional state.
    4. While assessing the personality and intentions of Jinnah, one should
    also bear in mind that he accepted Pakistan without knowing its exact
    boundaries and without agreeing to the division of assets that were to
    be shared between India and Pakistan.
    The Boundary Commission that was headed by Radcliff, delivered its
    verdict after the declaration of Pakistan. Though the Hindus failed to
    have Lahore included in India despite their frantic efforts, they did
    succeed in securing Ferozepur. This arbitrary demarcation is the
    fountain of the Kashmir problem, which has become the bane of Pakistan.
    Had Jinnah made sure that these affairs were settled before the
    Partition, the trail of murder and loot that ensued from this folly,
    would not have occurred. Why was he in such a hurry?
    The true reason was, his search for personal glory. He had been
    seriously ill for a long time but hid it successfully even from his
    closest colleagues to avoid a challenge for the leadership of his
    party. He suffered from tuberculosis, which was a fatal disease at that
    time. He could see the specter of death hover over his head. So, he was
    in a desperate hurry to create even a truncated Pakistan as quickly as
    possible to glorify himself. It is not surprising that he died within
    two years after the Partition. His admirers say that he died of hard
    work. The truth is that he did not have the physical capacity for hard
    work; he died of tuberculosis, which had reached its climax by then.
    That he did not care a jot for the Muslims, is proven by his treatment
    of the Indian Muslims. As Jinnah left for Karachi to be the ruler of
    Pakistan, in a valedictory message, he wished his Indian followers well
    and told them to be the loyal citizens of India! These were the people
    who were his most zealous adherents, but were now in a horrendous
    situation. The Hindus had come down on them like a ton of bricks. Their
    life, property and honor were under siege. Fancy the Qaid-E-Azam
    leaving them in their hour of need to become the Governor General of
    Pakistan! He should have stayed with them in India and let someone else
    govern Pakistan. This was the minimal demand of loyalty and sincerity.
    He deserted them most ignobly, yet he is considered a Saint.
    Judging by his actions, Gandhi was a greater friend of the Muslims than
    Jinnah, who claimed to be their leader.
    5. Finally, I may discuss the most lethal theory that nationhood is
    formed by religion. When deserted by Jinnah, the Muslims of India
    realized that they had been deceived by him because until the last
    moment they thought that they would be treated as Pakistanis within the
    boundaries of Bharat, the divided India. Simply stated, they believed,
    the two-Nation Theory meant that they would have the same political
    rights in India as their fellow-Muslims in Pakistan. Nobody ever
    explained the whole truth to them. They were used by Jinnah as pawns in
    the political game.
    It is high time that somebody states boldly that people of the Indian
    subcontinent are One Nation and not Two, just because they have
    different religions. It is quite clear from the split of Pakistan that
    nationhood is not formed by religion. If it were true, the fifty-two
    countries of the world that claim to be Muslim, would have been One
    State, but it has not happened, and there is no chance of its ever
    happening because the factors that constitute a nation, are opposed to
    the theory of religious nationhood, which is just an emotional mumbo -jumbo.
    What are the components of nationhood? Such components are many but the
    major ones are the following;1. Homeland
    It is a matter of common observation that children born in good homes
    fare better than those, who are born in caravans, or on the roadside.
    History shows that Civilization means gradual shifting from nomadic
    ways to sedentary life. It clearly demonstrates that man has a natural
    tendency to move away from wandering in search of a home. In fact,
    homelessness is a great curse. Ask any homeless person looking for
    asylum, and he will confirm that no blight is worse than homelessness.
    What a home is to an individual or a family, a homeland is to a group
    of people. Since homelessness fosters a sense of insecurity and acts as
    a barrier to one's personal development, one yearns for a home. This is
    the reason that fighting homelessness has always been an integral part
    of every social revolution. Thus desire for a home is a natural
    instinct and acts as the fountain of love for one's home.
    The geographical tract, which provides home to a large number of people
    inhabiting it, counts as their homeland. As without proper care, an
    individual's home is likely to become derelict, creating nasty problems
    for its dwellers, without constant vigilance, a homeland is bound to
    fall prey to the designs of the foreign predators. This is the reason
    that every modern state spends tremendous sums of money on its defense.
    Anyone, who does not take part in protecting one's homeland or behaves
    in a way, which is derogatory to the safety or dignity of the homeland,
    is considered a traitor.2. Lineage:
    It refers to the common ancestry of a group of people and therefore, it
    is an expanded form of a family. As blood ties make the members of a
    family father, mother, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, uncles,
    aunts, grand-parents, etc., and foster mutual love, consideration and
    respect in them, exactly the same way they create a nation, which is an
    enlarged form of the family. Of course, mankind is the ultimate form of
    humanity but it is too large a unit that can be administered socially
    and politically. The dedication to humanity is the greatest virtue but
    there are only a few who can live up to such an ideal; for 99% of all
    people, it is not a practicality. The size of a nation is eventually
    determined by the boundaries of the homeland .
    As everyone is born into a family, exactly the same way, we all are
    members of a nation, whether we like it or not. Of course, one can
    emigrate and adopt a new nationality or one can come to live among
    other people and become a part of them by naturalization, but these are
    exceptions and do not affect the basic role of sanguinity i.e. bloodties.
    Frankly speaking, I ought to add that Civilization is not possible
    without recognizing the sanctity and significance of the blood-
    relationships. Without it, there will be no father, no mother, brother
    or sister in the sense we know it. There will be no concepts of
    morality or law of inheritance, no ancestry, no family life and so on.
    In view of this fact, it is mad to deny the natural existence ofnationhood.
    3. Language:May be nobody is born with a language, yet the truth is that we are
    usually allotted the language of our parents. It is their language
    which serves as the means of communication between children and
    parents, next door neighbors, the city-dwellers and people of the
    country. This is the reason that a common language arouses feelings of
    oneness, intimacy and friendship. This is why that two strangers, say,
    an Arab Muslim and an Indian Muslim cannot speak to each other during a
    journey but two Indians irrespective of their religions, shall talk to
    each other with a sense of intimacy and friendship. Here is a small
    episode which appeared in the Daily Sang, London, on second May, 1997:
    In 1986, the Punjabi language stopped the imminent war between India
    and Pakistan. The negotiation for peace, was being conducted through
    the English language, and was heading towards a stalemate. During the
    tea break, the Pakistani General, who came from the Punjab, started
    speaking in the Punjabi language to his Indian Counterpart, who also
    belonged to the Indian Punjab. The warmth of the language mellowed
    their attitudes, eliminating the looming threat of war."
    Again, language creates poetry and literature, which represents the
    culture of the people, whose tongue it is. It, thus, creates a bond of
    common kinship.
    Of course, a nation can adopt a foreign language, and can maintain its
    national spirit, but it is a rare occurrence. Even then the adopted
    language represents the culture of the nation that has adopted it. As a
    general rule, every nation has been endowed with its own language,
    which acts as the vehicle of communication.
    In the Indian context, Arabic has never represented the Indian culture.
    Therefore, it cannot form part of the Indian nationhood. Its influence
    on India has been anti-national, anti-social and anti-rational.
    Urdu, on the contrary, is an Indian language, having its grammar, idiom
    and ethos like any other Indian language such as Hindi, Punjabi,
    Bengali, Madrasi, etc. It is an offshoot of Sanskrit and not Arabic or
    Persian though it has been made to look as such through a foreign
    script and abundance of Arabic and Persian words.4. Culture:
    It is the geographical conditions, the general traditions, and the
    lingual influences that basically act as constituents of nationhood.
    One cannot exaggerate that it is culture that shapes the destiny of a
    nation. Pride in one's own culture makes a nation great, grand and
    gorgeous, but indifference leads to disunion, diminution and
    devastation. Of course, great nations willingly accept foreign
    influences when they are likely to prove beneficial but the second
    class nations such as Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis do so for
    lack of dare, determination and dourness. Owing to absence of respect
    for the indigenous culture, they become docile, dastardly and
    despondent. As time goes on, they become blind imitators, for having no
    cultural backbone of their own. Take for instance the Arabs. They have
    lost their political pomp for the last 1,000 years and are one of the
    developing nations, yet they are the most revered people in the whole
    world because they practice, not only their own culture known as Islam,
    but have been marvelously successful in imposing it on the Muslim
    nations, who have been completely brainwashed in the name of religion.
    The Arab excellence shines like a major star every year when millions
    of pilgrims perform Hajj, which is essentially an Arab Cultural rite,
    at the same time displaying their own national inferiority by spending
    all they had saved during their life-time.
    Culture represents the character of a nation. The nations which give up
    their culture, lose their national ethos.5. Religion:
    It is a great folly to think of religion as an ingredient of
    nationhood. Religion in this context, is like a garment but lineage is
    a person's skin: the former can be discarded but the latter cannot.
    Since blood-relationship is the foundation of nationhood, a son
    maintains his kinship with his parents and family even when he changes
    his religion. It is for this reason that a Jew remains a Jew even when
    he no longer believes in Judaism. The Arabs are one nation because they
    are racially one people having the same culture. They preach Islamic
    nationhood because it is extremely beneficial to them at the expense of
    other Muslim peoples. If Arabs really believed in Islamic nationhood,
    they Would share their oil-wealth with them and make their land a free
    zone for Muslims of foreign lands. in fact, they treat Muslims from
    other countries as foreigners like any other nation.
    Why did Bangladesh break away from Pakistan despite the fact that the
    Bengali Muslims have a greater devotion. to Islam than the Pakistanis?
    It is simply because religion is a mythical element of nationhood.
    Muslims all over the world have never been able to form one government
    or come under the same banner for any length of time. The hysteria
    of "One-Muslim-Nation" is generated by those who specialize in fooling
    the Muslim faithful to promote their own interest.6. Economic Interest:
    As in any partnership, the pursuit of profit unites its members and
    they try for its success and survival, the common economic interest
    creates love for the geographical boundaries of a homeland. It may lead
    to the union or confederation of the adjoining lands whose economic
    interests as well as liberties are better served this way. Great
    Britain and the United States of America are some of the examples.
    However, it must be borne in mind that the economic interest in no way
    negates the value of the ingredients of nationhood already discussed;
    it serves as a complementary national factor only when people have a
    lot in common such as cultural values.7. Color:
    Color is not a significant factor of nationhood; it is one of the means
    of identification, say, in an all-white or all-black country.
    From the above discussion, one may conclude- that I believe in racism
    or fanatic nationalism, such as Nazism or Fascism. This type of
    nationalism is a form of mental illness, and borders on inhumanity. To
    me, nationalism is an expanded form of family, which serves as the
    basis of mutual love and consideration. There is no internationalism
    without nationalism. As one's love of family is not a rational cause
    for hating other people's families but a source of respect for this
    institution, the love of one's nation must inspire reverence for other
    nationalities because it is the sum total of nationalities, which
    constitutes the overall concept of humanity. The nationalism which does
    not achieve this goal, is the fountain of moral degradation, leading to
    inhumanity. All nations are equal and entitled to equal rights.
    This is the type of nationhood that I adore, and I adore it because
    this is the foundation-stone of social organization, and the fountain
    of innumerable benefits. The person, who thinks of his nation, has the
    collective consciousness and acts nobly. On the contrary, a religious
    fanatic believes in his own salvation and whatever he does, he does to
    promote his personal end; his acts of piety are no more than a veneer
    of hypocrisy.
    Even the animals have what is called "herd instinct," that is birds of
    a feather flock together. The only exception to this rule seems to be
    the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. To gratify their inferiority
    complex, they pretend that they are children of the foreign Muslim
    invaders, and to make this claim good, they have given them Arabic and
    Persian names whereas the truth is that 95% of them are Hindu converts,
    and are thus racially Hindus. The remaining 5%, who have lived in India
    for several centuries, do qualify as Indians through permanent domicile
    and adoption of the Indian culture. The person who claims to be an
    Arab, Iranian or Mughal, despite having lived on the Indian soil so
    long, has got to be grossly misled or mentally retarded.
    This inferiority-complex of the Indian Muslims was exploited by Jinnah
    and his troupe. The plain truth is that the Muslims of the Indian
    subcontinent share the same nationhood with the Hindus because:
    1. They have the same homeland.2. They have the same lineage i.e. blood ties.
    3. Their provincial languages, including Urdu, spring from Sanskrit,
    and not Arabic.
    It is a false assumption, indeed, that the Muslims of India, Pakistan
    and Bangladesh practice a common Islamic Culture.
    The basic social principle practiced by both the Hindus and Muslims is
    the Caste System, which is considered Vedic. Most rites performed at
    birth and death are also Vedic except circumcision and burial, which
    are the result of the Arab dominance. Dowry, ancestor-worship, the
    joint family system, monism, general way of dressing, speaking etc.,
    are very much the same, and are totally different from those of the
    Arabs. One can tell an Arab from an Indian, but it is not easy to tell
    an Indian Muslim from a Hindu.
    An equally important cultural fact is, that the Muslims of the Indian
    subcontinent practice the Vedic fine arts such as poetry, music, drama,
    dance, painting and sculpture, which are presided over by the Vedic
    goddesses Ila, Saraswati and Mahi. These arts are expressly forbidden
    by Islam, yet the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent learn and enjoy
    them because it is a part of their cultural heritage, which they hold
    in common with the Hindus.
    Why did Jinnah advocate the Two-Nation Theory despite the opposition of
    the Muslim divines? The first reason is that he was a highly ambitious
    person and wanted to go down in history. Secondly, it was in his family
    background to hate the Hindus, and he sought revenge to appease his
    ego. Louis Fischer has stated on page 151 of "Gandhi":
    " ......Jinnah was a Khoja Muslim. The Khojas were recent converts to
    Islam. Many Khojas maintain the Hindu joint family system and carry
    Hindu names in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Khojas
    attempted to return to Hinduism but were repeatedly rebuffed. This may
    have been an unconscious factor in Jinnah's hatred of Hindus .... "
    This is highly likely. The belief that a person can be Hindu by birth
    only and all non-Hindus are untouchable, has wrought the ruination of
    Mother India. Pakistan, which is the Muslim symbol of hatred against
    the Hindus, is the creation of these unsocial and inhuman Hinduattitudes.
    Stated politely, the third cause is Jinnah's own unhappy disposition.
    He was a sad person; hardly anyone ever saw him laugh. When he was
    forty-two, he married an eighteen-year-old Parsee girl (Dina). The
    marriage broke down after seven years in such a manner that he never
    felt the desire to marry again. As his daughter grew up, he stopped her
    marrying a man of her own choice on religious grounds, and threw her
    out for good. He also ruined the life of his sister, Fatima, by
    forbidding her going through a nuptial ceremony with a non-Muslim
    despite the fact that he himself had married a Parsee woman! Possibly,
    it was a deliberate manipulation. Having lost his family, he wanted his
    sister to remain his companion for life. And so she did. It is likely
    that he treated his daughter and sister harshly to restore his
    reputation as a sincere Muslim for enhancing his political career. His
    character had been tarnished by the fact that he had married a non-
    Muslim woman against the Islamic behest; he also ate and drank what
    Islam expressly forbids.
    Obviously, the man who had lacked personal happiness, could not care
    much about the happiness of others and wanted to vent his grief by
    making others unhappy. This is the reason that one million Muslims
    suffered carnage at the inception of Pakistan, and are still getting
    deeper into misery, malice and malevolence. Yet this man is called Qaid-E-Azam!
    Everything has been misinterpreted to create the Two-Nation Theory for
    turning the Muslims against the Hindus: Take for example, Dr. Iqbal, a
    great intellectual and poet, who believed in the integrity of India,
    but has been projected as the thinker of the concept of Pakistan. So
    great has been the force of propaganda that I myself thought of Iqbal
    as the one who had initiated the notion of Pakistan i.e., a separate
    homeland for the Muslims of India. This is what led me to some wrong
    conclusions about him. I was pleased to read in the Daily Jang, London,
    of 8th May, 1996, the statement of Muneeb Iqbal, the grandson of the
    late Dr. Iqbal. He said: " ...Dr. Iqbal's financial condition was not
    very sound. Once he had expressed his desire to be appointed as a
    judge, hoping that it might cure his financial ills, but the then Chief
    Justice Sir Shadi Lal turned him down. Had Dr. Iqbal been made a judge,
    he would have pressed some other hobby, and the concept of Pakistan
    would have receded into oblivion."
    Continuing his statement, Muneeb stressed: "Dr. Iqbal had never dreamt
    the partition of India. He only wanted to see the Muslims of India
    economically happy, but they are still in the same pickle as they were
    at that time."
    Even in the much-quoted Allahabad session of the Muslim League in 1930,
    he did not advocate a separate homeland for the Muslims of India. He
    did express his desire to amalgamate into one state the provinces of
    the Punjab. North West Frontier, Sindh and Balochistan, but it was to
    remain a part of the federal India.
    As far as I know, Iqbal was the first Indian national poet of any
    consequence. He believed India to be the best of all homelands; he
    taunted at the Brahmin "who observed God in the statutes only" whereas
    he (Iqbal) could see God in every particle of the Indian dust. Of
    course, this is also true that later his poetry took an Islamic turn,
    but even then it seeks an ideological grouping of the Muslims as Millat
    i.e. general brotherhood of the Muslims-of various countries. He had
    begun to think of the concept of homeland as a symbol of profanity. How
    could he have advocated the idea of a separate homeland?
    People quote Iqbal as anti-Hindu. This is a malicious propaganda to
    widen the Muslim-Hindu rift. Iqbal had Hindu blood in his veins. It was
    his grandfather, Sahaj Ram Sapru, a Kashmiri Brahmin, who adopted
    Islam, and settled in Sialkot. How is it possible for one to forget the
    culture of one's grandfather? Thus he was culturally Hindu as well. In
    fact, he believed in, and preached the Hindu philosophy. Let me give
    two examples:1. As Mard-E-Qalandar or Sufi, he believed in the monism (Hama Ost)
    of "Pir Raumi," which is strictly a Hindu doctrine, explicitly
    described in the Rgveda and several Upanishads .
    2. His philosophy of "Khudi" (self) is nothing but a copy of the Hindu
    doctrine known as Atman. It is a pity that his overzealous anti-Hindu
    annotators go out of the way to ascribe it to the influence of
    Nietzsche and Bergson. These European thinkers might have influenced
    Iqbal in some other ways, but his concept of Khudi or Self is nothing
    but the Hindu doctrine of Atman. To understand its meaning, we must
    realize that the Hindus believe in "an uncreated, eternal, infinite,
    transcendent and all embracing principle, which being the sole reality,
    is the source and goal of all existence. This ultimate Reality is
    called Brahman. Since everything emanates from Brahman (God), He is in
    every thing and is the Self of all living beings." It appears in
    Iqbal's poetry as "khudi" i.e. the self of every human. Only the naive
    interpret Iqbal's concept of Khudi as self-respect. It is the spiritual
    ego, whose development raises man's status to that of Divinity.
    Now add to this description, the mystical approach which is the essence
    of Hinduism, but a blasphemy in Islam. It says that the ultimate goal
    of man is to seek the union of Self (roughly translated as soul) with
    that of Brahman (God). This Hindu doctrine has been copied by the
    Muslim mystics all over the world as soul's union with God, without
    ever acknowledging its source. Since in Islam, God is the Master and
    Man is slave, the union between the two is unthinkable. This is the
    reason that Mysticism i.e. Tasawwaf, that Iqbal preached, has been held
    as un-Islamic by the orthodox Muslims .Iqbal's famous verse:
    PUCHCHE BATA TERI TAZA KYA HAI" is an echo of the Hindu doctrine i.e.
    union of man's self with God because this verse suggests that man must
    raise his self to the height that man's will becomes God's will. This
    is another description of man's union with God, and can be understood
    with reference to his several other poems on the subject.
    Iqbal was neither anti-Hindu nor a separatist. He seems to have been
    offended by the rejection of the Hindu Chief Justice, Sir Shadi Lal,
    and the chagrin thus engendered might have led to his extreme pro-
    Islamic proclivities.
    Pakistan as a separate homeland for the Muslims of India was a
    brainchild of Chowdhry Rahmat Ali. As his name (Chowdhry) clearly
    demonstrates, he was a man of Indian descent, yet he preached that the
    Muslims were not the natives of India, but had come from abroad as
    invaders. Further, he stressed that India was not a country but a
    continent inhabited by several nations, and each nation had maintained
    its separate identity until the British advent on the Indian scene.
    Thus Muslims of India were a separate nation, entitled to an
    independent homeland, which ought to be named as Pakistan. This is the
    theme that Jinnah took up, and publicly declared in August,
    1942: "Before the coming of the British, India had never been under the
    rule of one government. India is divided among more nations than Europe
    is. Therefore, we (the Muslims) want a government of our own. "
    Though a man of Hindu lineage, Rahmat Ali, harbored a special grudge
    against the Hindus. I do not know its exact cause but am inclined to
    put it down to the evil Hindu doctrine, which refuses to accept back
    non-Hindus into its fold. Through the slavish mentality that they have
    developed over the many centuries, the Hindus have become mule-headed,
    and lost their sense of national honor, which requires patriotic unity
    at all costs.
    Of course, it has been remarked lately that it is not Chowdhry Rahmat
    Ali, who had dreamt the concept of Pakistan but Khwaja J. A. Rahim, who
    coined the term Pakistan and made a demand for it, but being a civil
    servant, could not take part in politics. True it may be, but Rahmat
    Ali's name has come to be associated with the concept of Pakistan so
    strongly that it cannot be removed without a cogent proof to thecontrary.
    What did Rahmat Ali want? Exactly the same thing that Jinnah desired.
    He sought immortality through India-bashing. In a letter published in
    the Daily Jang of April, 1997, the correspondent revealed: "Owing to
    his efforts for the creation of Pakistan, while he was in England,
    Chowdhry Rahmat Ali wanted to be appointed the President of the Muslim
    League, but when this dignity was bestowed on Jinnah, he became a
    bitter enemy of both Jinnah and Muslim League." So great was his
    disgust that he decided to live in England permanently, and made a will
    to the effect that his bones must be interred in the English soil.
    What a love for the land of Pakistan this man had! And can he be taken
    seriously as the messiah for the Muslims of India?
    There is no genuine reason to believe that Pakistan was created for the
    benefit of the ordinary Muslims. Of course, the Hindu doctrine of
    untouchability was derogatory to the Muslims, but so was the Muslim
    conviction that held Hindus as the Kafirs. There is no doubt that the
    Hindu Baniyas had become leeches to the Muslims, but they were even
    greater leeches to the Hindus themselves. A Baniya is a Baniya; he is a
    businessman; his Dharma is making money; religion is no part of it. The
    truth is that the Hindu- Muslim hatred had been manipulated by the
    politicians of both faiths for their personal gains. The Muslims had
    won almost all the battles against the Hindus, and in the United India,
    they would have secured a commanding position. Even now, the Muslims of
    Bharat are more affluent than their Pakistani counterparts, and the
    same applies to civil liberties. In fact, the Bharti Muslims enjoy a
    favorable discrimination against the Hindus. This truth is quite
    conspicuous in the fields of education and religious privileges such asHajj.
    The real fear of the Muslim League was not the degradation of the
    Muslim populace but the fact that in the Undivided India, democracy was
    bound to prevail as the form of government, which would be in a
    position to attract Muslim votes by passing legislation favorable to
    the ordinary people, including the Muslims, who were practically
    enslaved by their own feudal lords. The undivided India meant the same
    thing to the Muslim feudal lords and business magnates what deposition
    is to a hereditary ruler; the law of monogamy is to a polygamist or
    loss of blackmail-money is to a scoundrel .
    There is no exaggeration in this point of view. The history vouches for
    this truth: all the Muslim feudal from the Punjab, for instance,
    aligned to the Unionist Party, promptly switched over to the Muslim
    League. Feudalism in Sindh, the land of the Bhuttos, is the worst in
    the world even today.
    The Muslims were led to believe that the Islamic concept of equality,
    also applies to economic sharing, whereas the truth is that Islam is
    the patron of feudal because "Allah gives unlimited wealth to whom He
    likes." This deliberate connivance of the truth also applies to the
    post-partition Indian Muslims, who believed that they would be treated
    as Pakistanis living in India, having the same rights as the Pakistanis
    themselves. Fancy, the man given the title: "Qaid-E-Azam" by these
    zealous fools, deserting them when their life, property and honor were
    threatened with annihilation. Jinnah's act of deserting the Indian
    Muslims in their most critical hour of need is no different from that
    of a bridegroom, who runs away with his mistress on his wedding night,
    or the sentinel, who sets fire to the building he is supposed to guard,
    or the insane mother eager to boil her own baby to satisfy her hunger.
    The fact that he did nothing to weld "his" people into a nation, and
    relied on the mythical unity of the religious appeal is an unpardonable
    crime. The Eastern Wing of Pakistan collapsed in December 1971 for lack
    of national solidarity. What is left of Pakistan suffers terribly from
    provincial hatred. There are four distinct nations, each feeling sick
    of the other and waiting for the opportunity to break away. The biggest
    tragedy is that those who migrated from India to settle in their new
    home, Pakistan, do not think of themselves as Pakistanis because after
    fifty years, they still call themselves "Mohajirs" (immigrants), and
    not citizens of Pakistan. Equally, they are rebuffed by the Pakistanis.
    Addressing a meeting in Kasur (Punjab) on May 3rd, 1995, Mrs. Bhutto,
    the Prime Minister of Pakistan, said, "Thief (Mohajirs) hearts are not
    with you (the Pakistani people). They have not that blood which runs in
    your veins nor those tears which roll down your eyes. They have no love
    for the soil of Pakistan, which reverberates in your hearts."
    Had Jinnah dreamt of a prosperous, powerful and prestigious nation and
    succeeded in securing this aim, he would have certainly earned the
    title: The Qaid-E-Azam. Since what he has achieved is exactly the
    opposite; which makes Pakistan a flaming hell morally, legally,
    economically and socially, bestowing such an honor on this man appears
    to be an irony of history. Making fun of the Hindus as idolaters, has
    been a favorite pastime of the Muslims. The truth is that the Muslims
    of India have inherited this tendency from their Hindu ancestors. Fancy
    treating an ordinary politician as the equivalent of the Prophet
    Muhammad by calling him the Qaid-E-Azam. Worse still, the criticism of
    Jinnah renders one as much a criminal as criticism of the Prophet
    Muhammad makes the critic: Shatim-E-Rasul. If this is not idolatry,
    then what is it?
    Since Pakistan has failed to materialize as the Messianic ideal, and is
    in a real danger of further disintegration, Jinnah is being shown over-
    reverence to create him as the central force of political unity. The
    truth is that the colleagues of Jinnah, who had offered him unswerving
    loyalty, believing him to be a sincere idealist, lost respect for him
    soon after the creation of Pakistan. He neither offered himself for re-
    election, even as reverence to the doctrine of democracy, nor did he
    consult anyone, including the Parliament in appointing ministers.
    Realizing that he thought of himself to be the proprietor of Pakistan,
    they turned against him. When Jinnah was in a sanatorium at Ziarat
    (Balochistan), he was suddenly visited by the Prime Minister, Liaqat
    Ali Khan. Before he came in, Jinnah said to his sister, Fatima, " Do
    you know why he has come ... he wants to know if I am going to last anylonger."
    Nobody knows the exact contents of the conversation that took place
    between them but when the Prime Minister left after an hour, and
    Jinnah's personal doctor entered, he found him in tears for
    experiencing emotional distress. Refusing to take the medicine, he
    said, "I do not want to live any longer."
    His death certainly took place in mysterious circumstances. As his
    airplane landed at the Karachi Airport, nobody came to receive him. Not
    only the ambulance that was sent to pick hum up, ran out of petrol
    after a journey of four miles but also it became immovable owing to
    some technical failure. The second ambulance did not appear for several
    hours! As he reached the Governor General's House, he was treated
    immediately, but it was too late to save him. This is how the man, who
    had played with the lives and honor of millions for personal glory, met
    his Maker. No matter what has happened to Pakistanis, he has certainly
    become "Hazrat Qaid-E-Azam Aleh Rahmat." Like Gandhi, Jinnah also
    touched the spiritual pinnacle.What a tale of this Gujrati Saint!

    Durrango, if you are going to start pasting articles by "Anwar Sheikh" here then you better be prepared for the gloves to come off.

    You might not like some of the stuff that I put here but at least there is some basis in fact to what I say.

    Anwar Shaikh is a concoction. Have you ever seen a picture of him? Can you trace his family roots? His place of residence? Any neighbours who can remember him? Don't give me that garbage of "he was born to a strict muslim family" nonsense. I know what's being propounded by the Hindu press.

    Anwar Sheikh is nothing more than a Hindu creation, and a pretty badly disguised one at that. It would be more convincing if at evry dig he has at Islam he didn't laud Hindus and Hinduism to the skies. There are loads of anti-muslim web sites (mostly run by Hindus) with this sort of crap.

    You've got till tomorrow to withdraw it or you can expect some fun and games. "Anwar Sheikh" makes Rushdie look like Allamah Iqbal. If you are going to bring his filth here then I consider it an act of war.


      Durango, your cut & paste skill doesn't prove any thing out of this article. It just tells about the state of mind of this author. It'd be better if you add your comments and views as well about this article.