Dazed, Confused, Clueless Majid Nizami, The Nation & NawaiWaqt.

WHAT did Nur Khan say in Karachi on August 3, at a seminar devoted to 'The Armed Forces and Nation Building'? He said that our leaders, by design, took the country to war twice, and, by design, lost both wars; that we are neither capable of going to war successfully against India nor of taking it on in an arms race. Sensible. Five days later in Lahore, at a seminar devoted to '50 years of Journalism in Pakistan', Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, extolling freedom of expression and of the Press, said that he welcomed criticism as it helped the government pinpoint its weaknesses and failings. Majid Nizami, when he spoke, warned the government against establishing trade relations with India until the resolution of the Kashmir issue. He urged the government to forfeit the pension of Air Marshal Nur Khan for advocating what he termed "a surrender to India." Dr Nasim Hasan Shah, who normally is seen sitting by the side of Nizami, also spoke. We are at one as far as freedom of expression and Press freedom is concerned, so I rang him, and suggested he attempt to drive some sense into the minds of his war-mongering hawkish friends. Were they ignorant of how wars were lost? Did they wish to lose yet one more? Would you, I asked the Doctor, take on someone double your size? Quick on the draw, he retorted, "Was not Ghulam Ishaq double my size?" Laughing, I accepted his David and Goliath comparison, and asked him to explain just what right Majid Nizami had to state that the government should stop Nur Khan's pension? Is that not the same as my saying that the government should ban Nizami's newspapers? REFERENCE: REFERENCE: Nuts! Ardeshir Cowasjee DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 23 August 1997 Issue:03/34 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/23Aug97.html#nuts

ISLAMABAD, Sept 5: Air Marshal (retired) Nur Khan, the man who led the airforce achieve complete superiority over the three times bigger Indian airforce on the very first day of the 1965 war, had all but resigned the post the very day that he took command of Pakistan Air Force on July 23, 1965. “Rumours about an impending operation were rife but the army had not shared the plans with other forces,” Air Marshal Nur Khan said. Sharing his memoirs with Dawn on the 40th anniversary of 1965 war, Air Marshal Khan said that he was the most disturbed man on the day, instead of feeling proud. Air Marshal (retired) Asghar Khan while handing over the command to Nur Khan had not briefed him about any impending war because he was not aware of it himself. So, in order to double check, Nur Khan called on the then Commander-in-Chief, General Musa Khan. Under his searching questions Gen Musa wilted and with a sheepish smile admitted that something was afoot. Nur Khan’s immediate reaction was that this would mean war. But, Gen Musa said you need not to worry as according to him Indians would not retaliate. Then he directed a still highly skeptical Nur Khan to Lt-Gen Akhtar Hasan Malik, GOC Kashmir, the man in-charge of “Operation Gibraltar” for further details. The long and short of his discussion with Gen Malik was, “don’t worry, because the plan to send in some 800,000 infiltrators inside the occupied territory to throw out the Indian troops with the help of the local population”, was so designed that the Indians would not be able retaliate and therefore the airforce need not get into war-time mode. A still incredulous Nur Khan was shocked when on further inquiry he found that except for a small coterie of top generals, very few in the armed forces knew about “Operation Gibraltar”. He asked himself how good, intelligent and professional people like Musa and Malik could be so naive, so irresponsible. For the air marshal, it was unbelievable. Even the then Lahore garrison commander had not been taken into confidence. And Governor of West Pakistan, Malik Amir Mohammad Khan of Kalabagh did not know what was afoot and had gone to Murree for vacations. It was at this point that he felt like resigning and going home. But then he thought such a rash move would further undermine the country’s interests and, therefore, kept his cool and went about counting his chickens — the entire airforce was too young and too inexperienced to be called anything else then — and gearing up his service for the D-day. REFERENCE: Nur Khan reminisces ’65 war By Our Special Correspondent September 6, 2005 Tuesday Shaban 01, 1426 http://archives.dawn.com/2005/09/06/nat2.htm

ISLAMABAD, Aug 29: Former Air Force chief Air Marshal Nur Khan has roundly condemned the ruling Muslim League leadership, specially its president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and its secretary-general Mushahid Hussain Syed, for continuing to serve the Gen Musharraf regime even after the murder of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti at the hands of a contingent of Army. They claim to have been very good friends of the late Bugti. Shujaat never tires of expressing his indebtedness to the Nawab for saving his father’s life when Z.A.Bhutto, the then prime minister, had reportedly instructed Bugti, then governor of Balochistan to have his father Chaudhry Zahoor Elahi who was then in the provincial jail, killed. And look at Mushahid. He was among the three whom Bugti had named for hearing his case and had promised to accept whatever their verdict. Is this how one pays back trusted friends? asked Nur Khan. The two seem to be running with the hare and hunting with the hound, he added bitterly.

Nur Khan said, it was the PML which is providing the military junta the all important political life support, without which, Gen Musharraf would not last single day. “But without Gen Musharraf the PML will not last a single minute and that perhaps is why it feels compelled to go along with the military dictator no matter what the moral and political price”, he added. Nur Khan, who as the governor of the defunct West Pakistan, had negotiated with the estranged Baloch Sardars, including Akbar Khan Bugti, in the late 1960s and brought them back into the mainstream politics, said he had found all these Sardars to be highly patriotic and devoted to Pakistan.

“I would trust them more than I would trust any other Pakistani to die for Pakistan”, he said. They were alienated because of the way the Centre was treating them and their people. Because of the continuous neglect a sense of deprivation had taken hold of them. They needed to be given a sense of belonging. “They were all men of honour. So, it was not all that difficult for me then to negotiate with them and get them back into the mainstream”, he added. He said Bugti’s death would add a new and perhaps even a violent urgency to the demands of provincial autonomy by the smaller provinces and the Centre would ultimately be forced to concede to the very demands for which Bugti and his clan had taken up arms against the Musharraf regime. Referring to Musharraf’s warning that whoever wanted to harm Pakistan nationally or internationally would have to fight him first, Nur Khan advised the president “to have a look in the mirror”. He would find that he himself is the guilty party. He said Bugti’s murder had dealt a severe blow to the unity of the country. REFERENCE: Killing of Bugti a blow to national unity: Nur Khan By A Reporter http://www.dawn.com/2006/08/30/nat7.htm

Majeed Nizami is the Editor-in-Chief (read virtual dictator) of the Nawa e Waqt Group which publishes the Urdu daily Nawa e Waqt and the English daily The Nation.

Anybody who has had the "sharf" of reading these two papers, especially the Urdu one can attest that besides the ultra right wing stance and conspiratorial mindset, much like other business in Pakistan, it operates as a family business. Majeed Niazmi is praised every week and this article starts by praising him as well. So long for journalistic freedom and objectivity.

The problem is that Majeed Nizami considers himself to be the guardian of his own version of the two nation theory. He time and again starts mongering about war and spews venom against India. Although there can be many, indeed many reasonable justifications for hating India, the problem is that Majeed Niazmi starts painting war pictures as the only real solution and as the paper is very widely read across Pakistan, the effect is extremely negative.

I remember him addressing (who invited him to speak?) the Kashmir Day convention last year at Convention Centre and in his opinion "Kashmir ka wahid hal jang hai" (the only solution to Kashmir is war). Such irrational and unrealistic statements add to the already irrational mindset that has besieged our nation. War can never be the solution, especially for nuclear powers.

Old people should be forgiven for what they say but to claim that one or two cities being lost to Indian attacks is justifiable loss in his vision to destroy India is utter lunacy. http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/63151-sorry-state-urdu-journalism-man-majeed-nizami.html

The government is the biggest source of corruption in the country and it can only be eliminated if discretionary powers are done away with, subjective laws removed from the statutory books, the Access to Information Act enforced and all institutions, including the army and the judiciary, treated on an equal footing in matters of accountability. This view emerged at an inter-active workshop on the “Role of the media in combating corruption.” The workshop was organized by Defence Journal on Saturday in a local hotel. Majid Nizami was the chief guest. There were three sessions presided over by former Balochistan governor Lt- Gen Sardar F.S. Lodi, Chief Executive of Herald Publications Hameed Haroon, and former Sindh governor Kamaluddin Azfar, respectively. Each session was followed by questions and answers from the participants. The Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau, Lt-Gen Munir Hafeez, gave his remarks on the workshops’ proceedings. Ikram Sehgal summed up the proceedings. Earlier, in his brief address of welcome, Mr Sehgal highlighted the objectives of the workshop and the mode of its proceedings. A recorded message of veteran journalist Zamir Niazi was also played on tape recorder.

Recalling the role of the press in the struggle for Pakistan and its reconstruction, Majid Nizami said the press which was supposed to combat corruption itself had landed in the dock. He said Pakistan was created for the people, but it had been taken over by the army as though it were created for the army. Since Ayub Khan’s martial law in 1958 a game of musical chairs was being played. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif were brought to power for brief periods, but power mostly remained in the hands of the army since the creation of the country. He said politicians and generals were equally indulging in corruption. There was a need to see that when a general became ruler what assets he had when he came to power, and what were his assets when he stepped down. Mr Nizami said, undoubtedly, there were corrupt elements in the media as they accepted bribes in the form of “envelopes, brief cases and plots.” Also, there were mediapersons on the pay list of secret agencies, and even investigative reporting was based on reports provided by agencies. “As far as journalists are concerned, we don’t say we all are Mr cleans. But it should also be looked into to what extent the khaki bureaucracy and other bureaucracy harmed the country,” he stressed. He claimed that a COAS was given away a bungalow when he retired. How much lands in Sindh were allotted to those in khaki uniforms, he asked. An air marshal, who live in Abbottabad, owned land in Sindh. How long this sordid affair would go on, he asked and warned that “we are heading for a bloody revolution.” “We conceded to the US demand to save Afghanistan and helped create Tora Bora there. Now by succumbing to the US pressure, God forbid, we might face a Tora Bora of our own,” he said. REFERENCE: KARACHI: Accountability process selective: media experts By Our Staff Reporter July 7, 2002 Sunday Rabi-us-Sani 25,1423 http://dawnnews.tv/2002/07/07/local19.htm

On the eve of General Pervez Musharaf's resignation, M.D Nawa-i-waqt group Majid Nizami grants an exclusive interview to WAQT News's program Barwaqt with Waheed Hussain, watch the interview and do note the flaws in Majid Nizami's statements, Mr. Nizami needs a Crash Course in History and International Politics.

Majid Nizami Interview - Waqt News - 01

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHFP530HRo4

How "Blatantly", Mr Majid Nizami lied about General Zia's Death and declared that it was only an "Accident", read the background

I also spoke to an American chemical warfare expert about poison gases that could have been used. He explained that Chemical agents capable of knocking a flight crew, while extremely difficult to obtain, are not beyond the reach of any intelligence service, or underground group with connections to one. He also pointed out that a gas capable on insidiously poisoning a whole flight crew (and leaving the pilot's fingers locked on the radio switch) had been used in neighboring Afghanistan. According to the State Department's special report 78 on "Chemical Warfare in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan," which he sent me, corpses of rebel Muejadeen guerrillas were found still holding their rifles in firing positions after being gassed. This showed that they had been the victims of "an extremely rapid acting lethal chemical that is not detectable by normal senses and that causes no outward physiological responses before death." This gas manufactured by the Soviet would have done the trick. But so would American manufactured "VX" nerve gas, according to a scientist at the U.S. Army chemical warfare center in Aberdeen, Maryland. "VX" is odorless, easily transportable in liquid form, and a soda-sized can full would be enough, when vaporized by a small explosion, and inhaled, to causes paralyzes and loss of speech within 30 seconds. According to him, the residue it would leave behind would be phosphorous. And, as it turned out, the chemical analyzes of debris from the cockpit showed heavy traces of phosphorous.

Such an act of sabotage would probably leave other detectable traces. The chemical agent that killed or paralyzed the pilots could probably be determined through an autopsy of their bodies. If it was a sophisticated nerve gas, it had to be obtained from one of the few countries that manufactures it, transported across international borders, and packaged with a detonator and fuse mechanism into bomb that would burst at the right moment after take off. All this could be trace back, just as the bomb on Pan Am 103 in Scotland was eventually identified and traced. Moreover, in Pakistan, the device had to be delivered to an agent capable of planting it on Pak One at a military air base. And someone had to supply him with intelligence about Zia's movements, the operations of Pak One, and the gaps in its security. Since access was limited to a few dozen persons, these people were vulnerable to discovery through an ordinary police investigation. Access to American intelligence resources, such as the technical labs of the FBI, the counter-terrorist profiles of the CIA, and the electronic eavesdropping archives of the National Security Agency, might also have helped locate the source of the intelligence (especially if it had been broadcast). But I found no such determined investigation took place. REFERENCE: Brigadier (R) Imtiaz, Death of General Zia & American Conspiracy! WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/09/brigadier-r-imtiaz-death-of-general-zia.html

Majid Nizami Interview - Waqt News - 02

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ0W7PmIfPI

Majid Nizami is also clueless about the recent Role of Lawyers in the Alleged Lawyers Movement.

Why do we forget that Lawyers Movement was basically a game to ease out Pakistan Army from the mess which was the creation General Pervez Musharraf and Military Establishment. CJ basically attained a lot from 2000 to 2007 [March to be precise]. I wonder how an Incommunicado CJ was issuing statement often published in The New York Times/Washington Post “during his days in Bastille” - [I still fail to understand that when CJ was sacked in March 2007, he and the press said the CJ is under house arrest and held incommunicado whereas the very next day Air Marshal [R] Asgher Khan “successfully” met him As per Daily Dawn dated March 12, 2007 Monday Safar 22, 1428

"ISLAMABAD, March 11: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has demanded that the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) should hold open proceedings on the reference against him sent by President Gen Pervez Musharraf. This was stated by seasoned politician Air Marshal (retired) Asghar Khan after a meeting with Justice Chaudhry here on Sunday. The demand made by the suspended chief justice indicates that he is not ready to resign and is determined to contest the allegations levelled against him. - But one day earlier the CJ was held incommunicado - “There is no other way to describe the situation as no one is being allowed to meet him,” he said after police officials stopped him and other lawyers from going inside the chief justice’s residence. REFERENCES: Justice Iftikhar seeks open SJC proceedings: Asghar By Iftikhar A. Khan March 12, 2007 Monday Safar 22, 1428http://www.dawn.com/2007/03/12/top1.htm CJ held incommunicado; lawyers slam ‘arrest’ By Nasir Iqbal http://www.dawn.com/2007/03/11/top1.htm Sanctimonious Lawyers: Barrister Akram Sheikh & Mehran Bank Scandal http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/04/sanctimonious-lawyers-barrister-akram.html

"One wonders how an Incommunicado CJ was issuing statement often published in The New York Times/Washington Post and "successfully" telecast on CNN "during his days in Bastille"

Reality of Lawyers Movement in Pakistan.

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkzkHS6WRSE

Majid Nizami Interview - Waqt News - 03

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yaHmvjLw6Y

Despite being a very Senior Journalist and Editor too, Majid Nizami has no clue about 911 some very Harsh & Disturbing Facts

Pakistan’s chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad “was in the US when the attacks occurred.” He arrived in the US on the 4th of September, a full week before the attacks. He had meetings at the State Department “after” the attacks on the WTC. But he also had “a regular visit of consultations” with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon during the week prior to September 11. REFERENCE: Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration? The Role of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks by Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal Posted at globalresearch.ca 2 November 2001 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html


Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa. TFF Associates http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/tff/people/m_chossudovsky.html

AFTER 9/11.

In the afternoon, Mahmood was invited to CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia, where he told George Tenet, the CIA director, that in his view Mullah Omar, the Taliban chief, was a religious man with humanitarian instincts and not a man of violence! This was a bit difficult for the CIA officials to digest and rightly so as the Taliban’s track record, especially in the realm of human rights, was no secret. General Mahmood was told politely but firmly that Mullah Omar and the Taliban would have to face US Military might if Osama Bin Laden along with other Al-Qaeda leaders were not handed over without delay. To send the message across clearly, Richard Armitage held a second meeting with Mahmood the same day, informing him that he would soon be handed specific American demands, to which Mahmood reiterated that Pakistan would cooperate. {Bush at War by Bob Woodward, published by Simon & Schuster, 2002, New York}, p 32. {Pakistan: Eye of the Storm by Owen Bennett Jones, published by New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002}, p. 2.

General Mahmood on September 13, 2001, was handed a formal list of the US demands by Mr. Armitage and was asked to convey these to Musharraf and was also duly informed, for the sake of emphasis, that these were “not negotiable.” Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, and the assisstant secretary of state, Christina Rocca, had drafted the list in the shape of a “non-paper”. It categorically asked Pakistan:

Stop Al-Qaeda operatives coming from Afghanistan to Pakistan, intercept arms shipments through Pakistan, and end ALL logistical support for Osama Bin Laden.

Give blanket overflight and landing rights to US aircraft.

Give the US access to Pakistani Naval and Air Bases and to the border areas betweeen Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Turn over all the intelligence and immigration information.

Condemn the September 11 attacks and curb all domestic expressions of support for terrorism.

Cut off all shipments of fuel to the Talibans, and stop Pakistani volunteers from going into Afghanistan to join the Taliban. Note that, should the evidence strongly implicate Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda Network in Afghanistan, and should the Taliban continue to harbour him and his accomplices, Pakistan will break diplomatic relations with the Taliban regime, end support for the Taliban, and assist the US in the aforementioned ways to destroy Osama and his network.

Having gone through the list, Mahmood declared that he was quite clear on the subject and that “he knew how the President thought, and the President would accept these points.” {Bush at War by Bob Woodward, published by Simon & Schuster, 2002, New York}, p 58-59. Interview: Richard Armitage, “Campaign Against Terror,” PBS (Frontline), April 19, 2002}

Mahmood then faxed the document to Musharraf. While the latter was going through it and in the process of weighing the pros and cons of each demand, his aide de camp that Colin Powell was on the line. Musharraf liked and respected Powell, and the conversation was not going to be a problem. He told him that he understood and appreciated the US position, but he would respond to the US demands after having discussed these with his associates. Powell was far too polite to remind him that he in fact was the government, but did inform him that his General in Washington had already assured them that these demands would be acceptable to the government of Pakistan. {Pakistan’s Drift into Extremism : Allah, the Army, and America’s War on Terror by Hassan Abbas, published by An East Gate Book , M.E. Sharpe Armonk, New York. London, England.}. NOTES/REFERENCES - Pakistan: Eye of the Storm by Owen Bennett Jones, published by New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002. Interview: Richard Armitage, “Campaign Against Terror,” PBS (Frontline), April 19, 2002; last accessed June 2, 2003, at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/campaign/interviews/armitage.htm Bush at War by Bob Woodward, published by Simon & Schuster, 2002, New York. Pakistan’s Drift into Extremism : Allah, the Army, and America’s War on Terror by Hassan Abbas, published by An East Gate Book , M.E. Sharpe Armonk, New York. London, England

Majid Nizami Interview - Waqt News - 04

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dMSWiO_55k

Majid Nizami should have quoted Original WikiLeaks:) on Musharraf's Safe Exit (Majid himself advocated "Pardon to Musharraf"), Majid denying himself while saying so:)))

"The fact that a former prime minister believes the US could control the appointment of Pakistan's chief of army staff speaks volumes about the myth of American influence here," the ambassador noted tartly afterwards.But some dispatches make it clear that the Americans do wield great clout. After General Pervez Musharraf resigned as president in 2008, ambassador Patterson pressed Zardari to grant him immunity from prosecution. "We believed, as we had often said, that Musharraf should have a dignified retirement and not be hounded out of the country," she said. The US – and Kayani – worried that Zardari would renege on his word. "Zardari is walking tall these days, hopefully not too tall to forget his promise to Kayani and to us on an immunity deal," wrote Patterson. If Zardari didn't protect Musharraf then it would make him look bad. "I have to bring the army along with me," he said, also noting that the delay "does nothing for Zardari's reputation for trustworthiness". REFERENCE: Zardari named sister as succeeding president: WikiLeaks Updated at: 2215 PST, Wednesday, December 01, 2010 http://www.thenews.com.pk/latest-news/6023.htm

Majid Nizami Interview - Waqt News - 06

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pSZteTOH8s

Majid Nizami should have quoted WikiLeaks rather his brother in faith Mr. Ansar Abbasi on War on Terror. He also said that Musharraf was given disgraceful exit, O please, come on Mr Nizami, please don't insult the intelligence becuase not everybody has short memory like you!

LAST GUARD OF HONOUR FOR GENERAL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYe_HAF6-iQ&feature=related

No less shocking is the way the Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has been opening his heart and mind before the Americans, including the US ambassador. Otherwise giving the impression of being a man of few words, the Army chief spoke before the Americans against President Zardari and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, and also talked of getting resignation from the president and tailoring democracy to his sweet choice. He also hinted at supporting Asfandyar Wali Khan, the leader of the Awami National Party, as the new president. Kayani even made it clear to Ms Patterson, the former US ambassador, that regardless of how much he disliked Zardari, he distrusted Nawaz even more. Such hobnobbing of the military chief with any foreign diplomat or official, what to talk of Americans, is undoubtedly a violation of discipline and breach of his oath. Unluckily, we have a tainted president, tainted prime minister and tainted political leaders otherwise this is a fit case of seeking explanation from the Army chief. With such leadership, both political and military, Pakistan’s future is really bleak. Whom should we trust? Who is free from the US influence? Can we become a sovereign nation? Can we take our own decisions? Why do we have more faith in Washington than in God? How could we save Pakistan from being destabilised after reading what our president, prime minister, political leaders and Army chief have said to a minnow American — Anne Patterson? With such leadership, how can we tackle the problem of terrorism? Who would save us from disgrace and shame? REFERENCE: After the WikiLeaks deluge By Ansar Abbasi Thursday, December 02, 2010 http://beta.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=2415&Cat=13&dt=12/2/2010 Reversing the crossed red lines is imperative By Ansar Abbasi Monday, December 06, 2010 http://beta.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=2487&Cat=13 Monday, December 06, 2010, Zilhajj 29, 1431 A.H http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/dec2010-daily/06-12-2010/main3.htm

On Kashmir and Indian Issues, here are some Eye Openers for Mr. Majid Nizami:)

General (Retd) Ziauddin Butt exposing the lies of of GEO TV's Kamran Khan in Jawab Deyh on 31 Oct 2010 with with Iftikhar Ahmad - Part 1

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KpBC9k0a0w
General (Retd) Ziauddin Butt exposing the lies of of GEO TV's Kamran Khan in Jawab Deyh on 31 Oct 2010 with with Iftikhar Ahmad - Part 2

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6c72JVCl60&feature=related
General (Retd) Ziauddin Butt exposing the lies of of GEO TV's Kamran Khan in Jawab Deyh on 31 Oct 2010 with with Iftikhar Ahmad - Part 3

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s17v_LQqvZk&feature=related
General (Retd) Ziauddin Butt exposing the lies of of GEO TV's Kamran Khan in Jawab Deyh on 31 Oct 2010 with with Iftikhar Ahmad - Part 4

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j84Su1waiXY&feature=related


Meray Mutabiq Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani Part 1
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK_WAtLcu5s

Meray Mutabiq Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani Part 2

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kihk7y9NyQ&feature=related

Meray Mutabiq Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani Part 3
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpeaO119CDE&feature=related

Meray Mutabiq Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani Part 4

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TohR-kQv0l8&feature=related

Mr Majid Nizami is also clueless about Two Nation Theory and Secularism

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6LJCUbZqlA

Jinnah & Gandhi

Al-Hajj Sir Chaudhry Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, KCSI (6 February 1893 - 1 September 1985) was a Pakistani diplomat who was appointed by Jinnah and Mr Zafar was Quadiyani.

LATE. MR JINNAH’S RELIGION:

On 24 September 1948, after the demise of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, his sister Fatimah Jinnah and the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, submitted a jointly signed petition at the Karachi High Court, describing Jinnah as ‘Shia Khoja Mohamedan’ and praying that his will may be disposed of under Shia inheritance law. On 6 February, 1968 after Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah'’ demise the previous year, her sister Shirin Bai, moved an application at the High Court claiming Fatimah Jinnah’s property under the Shia inheritance law on grounds that the deceased was a Shia. As per Mr. I. H. Ispahani who was a family friend of Jinnah, revealed that Jinnah had himself told him in 1936 that he and his family had converted to Shiism after his return from England in 1894. He said that Jinnah had married Ruttie Bai according to the Shia ritual during which she was represented by a Shia scholar of Bombay, and Jinnah was represented by his Shia friend, Raja Sahib of Mehmoodabad. He however conceded that Jinnah was opposed in Bombay elections by a Shia Conference canditate. Ispahani was present when Miss Fatima Jinnah died in 1967. He himself arranged the Ghusl and Janaza {Funeral Bath and Funeral} for her at Mohatta Palace according to the Shia Ritual before handing over the body to the state. Her Sunni Namaz-e-Janaza was held later at Polo Ground, Karachi after which she was buried next to her brother at a spot chosen by Ispahani inside the mausoleum. Ritualistic Shia talqin (last advice to the deceased) was done after her dead body was lowered into the grave. (Jinnah had arranged for talqin for Ruttie Bai too when she died in 1929). Allama Syed Anisul Husnain, a Shia scholar, deposed that he had arranged the gusl of the Quaid on the instructions of Miss Fatimah Jinah. He led his Namaz-e-Janaza in a room of the Governor General’s House at which such luminaries as Yousuf Haroon, Hashim Raza, and Aftab Hatim Alvi were present, while Liaquat Ali Khan waited outside the room. After the Shia ritual, the body was handed over to the state and Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, an alim belonging to Deoband school of thought known for its anti-Shia belief, read his Janaza according the Sunni ritual at the ground where the mausoleum was later constructed. Other witnesses confirmed that after the demise of Miss Fatimah Jinnah, alam and panja (two Shia symbols) were discovered from her residence, Mohatta Palace. Despite all this Jinnah kept himself away from Shia politics. He was not a Shia; he was also not a Sunni; he was simply a Muslim.

Pakistan came into being through a Horse !  Allama Zamir Akhtar Naqvi - Zuljinah and Father of Nation Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Founder of Pakistan)

Leader of Nation “Liaquat Ali Khan” too was a "Shia" ! Allama Zamir Akhtar Naqvi

Funeral (Janaza) of Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah Under The “ALAM” of Ghazi Maula Abbass (Prince of Princes)

[PAKISTAN: Behind the Ideological Mask (Facts About Great Men We Don’t Want to Know) by Khaled Ahmed, published by VANGUARD Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad. The Murder of History: A critique of history textbooks used in Pakistan by K.K. Aziz, published by VANGUARD Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad].

Three months before the partition of the subcontinent, in an interview with Doon Campbell of Reuters, Jinnah firmly stated: "The new state will be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of religion, caste or creed." He repeated this on August 11, 1947, whilst addressing the members of his Constituent Assembly, making it doubly clear to them that religion is not the business of the state. He told them: "You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State."

On August 11, 1947, before the flag of Pakistan had even been unfurled, Jinnah told his people and their future legislators:

"You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

Jinnah addressed his Constituent Assembly at Karachi. He told the future legislators :

". . . . . . . you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.

"Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fair play without any, as is put in political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and cooperation I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest

nations of the world."

Indian Congresswoman and poet, Mrs Sarojini Naidu, after meeting Jinnah for the first time at the 1906 annual session of Congress held at Calcutta.

Now to what Mohammed Ali Jinnah had to say on the future constitution of Pakistan in his broadcast to the American people in February 1948: "The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam.

"Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught the equality of men, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims - Hindus, Christians and Parsis – but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan. "

Jinnah's views against mixing religion with politics

"Jinnah left the Home Rule League and the Congress after Gandhi took them over because he (Jinnah) strongly disapproved of the introduction of religion into politics by Gandhi, and because he disapproved equally strongly of unconstitutional means to secure swaraj." H.M. Seervai -- Legend and Reality, p.169

"Jinnah had told him that he (Gandhi) had ruined politics in India by dragging up a lot of unwholesome elements in Indian life and giving them political prominence, that it was a crime to mix up politics and religion the way he (Gandhi) had done." Transfer of Power Documents, Vol.VI, p. 617

"Jinnah, however, warned Gandhiji not to encourage the fanaticism of Muslim religious leaders and their followers. Indeed, he was not the only person who foresaw danger in the Khilafat Movement." K.M. Munshi, Pilgrimage to Freedom -- p. 22

"Jinnah made it clear, however, that he had no intention of playing the role of an Islamic Khalifah. As Pakistan's Governor-General, he intended to see to it that all its citizens, irrespective of religious or cultural orientation, were, politically and before the law, similar and equal." The Pakistan in the Twentieth Century -- A Political History by Lawrence Ziring - pp. 66, 67

"Jinnah's insistence on balance and fairness to all, irrespective of religious persuasion or cultural

identity, projected a secular approach that was now obscured in the Muslim League's struggle to achieve parity with the Congress." Ibid, p. 39

"Jinnah, the 'ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity', had worked hard to get the Congress and the League to co-operate and deplored the opportunistic alliance between the Mahatma and the Khilafat Muslims." The Sole Spokesman -- Jinnah, the Muslim League, and the Demand for Pakistan by Ayesha Jalal -- pp. 8, 9

Quaid-e-Azam never referred to Pakistan as "Islamic Republic" but as the "State of Pakistan," "Sovereign State of Pakistan," "Dominion of Pakistan" or "Federal Republic of Pakistan".

Pakistan not to be a theocratic state

"Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state? You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means." Jinnah's press conference in New Delhi on July 14, 1947, Jinnah -- Speeches and Statements 1947-1949, Oxford University Press, p.15

"But make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it..." Jinnah's address to the people of Australia on Feb. 19,1948 -- Ibid, p.118

"In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State--to be ruled by priests with a divine mission." Jinnah's address to the people of the United States of America in February 1948, Ibid, p.125

Equal status, and rights, and protection to minorities

"Minorities, to whichever community they may belong, will be safeguarded. Their religion or faith or belief will be secure. There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship. They will have their protection with regard to their religion, faith, their life, their culture. They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed". Jinnah's press conference in New Delhi on 14th July 1947, Ibid, p. 13

"You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed--that has nothing to do with the business of the State". Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly on Aug.11, 1947.

"Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State." Ibid.

"We have many non-Muslims- Hindus, Christians, and Parsis--but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan." Jinnah's address to the people of the United States on February 1948, p.125

Almost all authors of the books on the Quaid-e-Azam, including Stanley Wolpert, Lawrence Ziring, Ayesha Jalal, H.M. Seervai and K.M. Munshi, substantiate and support the view that the Quaid was himself secular and always wanted Pakistan to be a secular state.

Ulema and Pakistan Movement

Muslim religious organisations of the sub-continent --Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, Majlis-i- Ahrar- i-Islam and Jamat-i-Islami [1]-- were politically very active during the struggle for Pakistan but all of them opposed tooth and nail the creation of a separate homeland for the Muslims. The opposition of Jamiat and Ahrar was on the plea that Pakistan was essentially a territorial concept and thus alien to the philosophy of Islamic brotherhood, which was universal in character. Nationalism was an un-Islamic concept for them but at the same time they supported the CongressParty' s idea of Indian nationalism which the Muslim political leadership considered as accepting perpetual domination of Hindu majority. Jamat-i-Islami reacted to the idea of Pakistan in a complex manner. It rejected both the nationalist Ulema's concept of nationalism as well as the Muslim League's demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims.

The most noteworthy feature of the struggle for Pakistan is that its leadership came almost entirely from the Western-educated Muslim professionals. The Ulema remained, by and large, hostile to the idea of a Muslim national state. But during the mass contact campaign, which began around 1943, the Muslim League abandoned its quaint constitutionalist and legalist image in favor of Muslim populism which drew heavily on Islamic values. Wild promises were made of restoring the glory of Islam in the future Muslim state. As a consequence, many religious divines and some respected Ulema were won over.[2]

The Muslim political leadership believed that the Ulema were not capable of giving a correct lead in politics to the Muslims because of their exclusively traditional education and complete ignorance of the complexities of modern life. It, therefore, pleaded that the Ulema should confine their sphere of activity to religion since they did not understand the nature of politics of the twentieth century.

It was really unfortunate that the Ulema, in general and the Darul Ulum Deoband in particular, understood Islam primarily in a legal form. Their medieval conception of the Shariah remained unchanged, orthodox and traditional in toto and they accepted it as finished goods manufactured centuries ago by men like (Imam) Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf. Their scholasticism, couched in the old categories of thought, barred them from creative thinking and properly understanding the problems, social or philosophical, confronting the Muslim society in a post-feudal era. They were intellectually ill-equipped to comprehend the crisis Islam had to face in the twentieth century. [3]

The struggle for Pakistan -- to establish a distinct identity of Muslims -- was virtually a secular

campaign led by men of politics rather than religion and Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his lieutenants such as Liaquat Ali Khan who won Pakistan despite opposition by most of the Ulema.

Jinnah was continuously harassed by the Ulema, particularly by those with Congress orientation. They stood for status quo as far as Islam and Muslims were concerned, and regarded new ideas such as the two nation theory, the concept of Muslim nationhood and the territorial specification of Islam through the establishment of Pakistan as innovations which they were not prepared to accept under any circumstance. It was in this background that Jinnah pointed out to the students of the Muslim University Union: "What the League has done is to set you free from the reactionary elements of Muslims and to create the opinion that those who play their selfish game are traitors. It has certainly freed you from that undesirable element of Molvis and Maulanas. I am not speaking of Molvis as a whole class. There are some of them who are as patriotic and sincere as any other, but there is a section of them which is undesirable. Having freed ourselves from the clutches of the British Government, the Congress, the reactionaries and so-called Molvis, may I appeal to the youth to emancipate our women. This is essential. I do not mean that we are to ape the evils of the West. What I mean is that they must share our life not only social but also political." [4]

The history of the Ulema in the sub-continent has been one of their perpetual conflict with intelligentsia. The Ulema opposed Sir Syed Ahmad Khan when he tried to rally the Muslims in 1857. Nearly a hundred of them, including Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, the leading light of Deoband, ruled that it was unlawful to join the Patriotic Association founded by him. However, the Muslim community proved wiser than the religious elite and decided to follow the political lead given by Sir Syed Ahmad.

The conflict between conservative Ulema and political Muslim leadership came to a head during the struggle for Pakistan when a number of Ulema openly opposed the Quaid-i-Azam and denounced the concept of Pakistan. It is an irony of history that Jinnah in his own days, like Sir Syed Ahmad before him, faced the opposition of the Ulema.

The Ahrar Ulema -- Ataullah Shah Bukhari, Habibur Rahman Ludhianawi and Mazhar Ali Azhar – seldom mentioned the Quaid-i-Azam by his correct name which was always distorted. Mazhar Ali Azhar used the insulting sobriquet Kafir-i-Azam (the great unbeliever) for Quaid-i-Azam. One of the resolutions passed by the Working Committee of the Majlis-i-Ahrar which met in Delhi on 3rd March 1940, disapproved of Pakistan plan, and in some subsequent speeches of the Ahrar leaders Pakistan was dubbed as "palidistan" . The authorship of the following couplet is attributed to Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, a leading personality of the Ahrar:

Ik Kafira Ke Waste Islam ko Chhora

Yeh Quaid-i-Azam hai Ke hai Kafir-i-Azam. [6]

(He abandoned Islam for the sake of a non-believer woman [7], he is a great leader or a great

non-believer)

During the struggle for Pakistan, the Ahrar were flinging foul abuse on all the leading personalities of the Muslim League and accusing them of leading un-Islamic lives. Islam was with them a weapon which they could drop and pick up at pleasure to discomfit a political adversary. Religion was a private affair in their dealings with the Congress and nationalism their ideology. But when they were pitted against the Muslim League, their sole consideration was Islam. They said that the Muslim League was not only indifferent to Islam but an enemy of it.

After independence, the Ahrar leaders came to Pakistan. But before coming, the All India Majlis-i-Ahrar passed a resolution dissolving their organization and advising the Muslims to accept

Maulana Azad as their leader and join the Congress Party.[8]

The Jamat-i-Islami was also opposed to the idea of Pakistan which it described as Na Pakistan (not pure).

In none of the writings of the Jama'at is to be found the remotest reference in support of the demand for Pakistan. The pre-independence views of Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamat-i-Islami were quite definite:

"Among Indian Muslims today we find two kinds of nationalists: the Nationalists Muslims, namely those who in spite of their being Muslims believe in Indian Nationalism and worship it; and the Muslims Nationalist: namely those who are little concerned with Islam and its principles and aims, but are concerned with the individuality and the political and economic interests of that nation which has come to exist by the name of Muslim, and they are so concerned only because of their accidence of birth in that nation. From the Islamic viewpoint both these types of nationalists were equally misled, for Islam enjoins faith in truth only; it does not permit any kind of nation-worshipping at all.[9]

Maulana Maududi was of the view that the form of government in the new Muslim state, if it ever came into existence, could only be secular. In a speech shortly before partition he said: "Why should we foolishly waste our time in expediting the so-called Muslim-nation state and fritter away our energies in setting it up, when we know that it will not only be useless for our purposes, but will rather prove an obstacle in our path." [10]

Paradoxically, Maulana Maududi's writings played an important role in convincing the Muslim intelligentsia that the concept of united nationalism was suicidal for the Muslims but his reaction to the Pakistan movement was complex and contradictory. When asked to cooperate with the Muslim League he replied: "Please do not think that I do not want to participate in this work because of any differences, my difficulty is that I do not see how I can participate because partial remedies do not appeal to my mind and I have never been interested in patch work."[11]

He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he was convinced that the Muslims would be drawn away from Islam if they agreed to merge themselves in the Indian milieu. He was interested more in Islam than in Muslims: because Muslims were Muslims not because they belonged to a communal or a national entity but because they believed in Islam. The first priority, therefore, in his mind was that Muslim loyalty to Islam should be strengthened. This could be done only by a body of Muslims who did sincerely believe in Islam and did not pay only lip service to it. Hence he founded the Jamat-i-Islami (in August 1941).[12]

However, Maulana Maududi's stand failed to take cognizance of the circumstances in which the Muslims were placed [13] at that critical moment.

The Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind, the most prestigious organization of the Ulema, saw nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan. Its president, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, who was also Mohtamim or principal of Darul Ulum Deoband opposed the idea of two-nation theory, pleading that all Indians, Muslims or Hindus were one nation. He argued that faith was universal and could not be contained within national boundaries but that nationality was a matter of geography, and Muslims were obliged to be loyal to the nation of their birth along with their non-Muslim fellow citizens. Maulana Madani said: "all should endeavor jointly for such a democratic government in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Parsis are included. Such a freedom is in accordance with Islam." [14] He was of the view that in the present times, nations are formed on the basis of homeland and not on ethnicity and religion.[15] He issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims from joining the Muslim League.

Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani accepted the doctrine of Indian nationalism with all enthusiasm and started preaching it in mosques. This brought a sharp rebuke from Dr. Mohammad Iqbal. His poem on Hussain Ahmad [16] in 1938 started a heated controversy between the so-called nationalist Ulema and the adherents of pan-Islamism (Umma).

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a member of Indian National Congress regrets that he did not accept Congress president ship in 1946, which led Nehru to assume that office and give the statements that could be exploited by the Muslim League for creation of Pakistan and withdrawal of its acceptance of the Cabinet Plan that envisaged an Indian Union of all the provinces and states of the sub-continent with safeguards for minorities. [17] He had persuaded the pro-Congress Ulema that their interests would be better safeguarded under a united India, and that they should repose full confidence in Indian nationalism. However, they should make efforts to secure for themselves the control of Muslim personal law, by getting a guarantee from the Indian National Congress, that the Muslim personal law would be administered by qadis (judges) who were appointed from amongst the Ulema.[18]

In a bid to weaken the Muslim League's claim to represent all Muslims of the subcontinent, the Congress strengthened its links with the Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind, the Ahrars and such minor and insignificant non-League Muslim groups as the Momins and the Shia Conference.[ 19]

Along with its refusal to share power with the Muslim League, the Congress pursued an anti-Muslim League policy in another direction with the help of Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind . It was not enough to keep the Muslim League out of power. Its power among the people should be weakened and finally broken. Therefore, it decided to bypass Muslim political leadership and launch a clever movement of contacting the Muslim masses directly to wean them away from the leadership that sought to protect them from the fate of becoming totally dependent on the sweet will of the Hindu majority for their rights, even for their continued existence. This strategy -- called Muslim Mass Contact Movement -- was organized in 1937 with great finesse by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. [20]

Congress leaders .... employed Molvis to convert the Muslim masses to the Congress creed. The Molvis, having no voice in the molding of the Congress policy and program, naturally could not promise to solve the real difficulties of the masses, a promise which would have drawn the masses towards the Congress. The Molvis and others employed for the work tried to create a division among the Muslim masses by carrying on a most unworthy propaganda against the leaders of the Muslim League. [21] However, this Muslim mass contact movement failed.

It is pertinent to note here that a small section of the Deoband School was against joining the Congress. Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943) was the chief spokesman of this group. Later Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Othmani (1887-1949), a well-known disciple of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and a scholar of good repute, who had been for years in the forefront of the Jamiat leadership quit it with a few other Deoband Ulema, and became the first president of the Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Islam established in 1946 to counteract the activities of the Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind. However, the bulk of the Deoband Ulema kept on following the lead of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and the Jamiat in opposing the demand for Pakistan.

Contrary to the plea of the nationalist Ulema, the Muslim intelligentsia was worried that the end of British domination should not become for the Muslims the beginning of Hindu domination. They perceived through the past experience that the Hindus could not be expected to live with them on equal terms within the same political framework. Therefore they did not seek to change masters. A homeland is an identity and surely the Muslims of the sub-continent could not have served the cause of universal brotherhood by losing their identity, which is what would have inevitably happened if they had been compelled to accept the political domination of the Hindus. The Ulema thought in terms of a glorious past and linked it unrealistically to a nebulous future of Muslim brotherhood. This more than anything else damaged the growth of Muslim nationalism and retarded the progress of Muslims in the sub-continent. [22]

The nationalist Ulema failed to realize this simple truth and eventually found themselves completely isolated from the mainstream of the Muslim struggle for emancipation. Their opposition to Pakistan on grounds of territorial nationalism was the result of their failure to grasp contemporary realities. [23] They did not realize that majorities can be much more devastating, specifically when it is an ethnic, linguistic or religious majority which cannot be converted into a minority through any election.[24]

The Ulema, as a class, concentrated on jurisprudence and traditional sciences. They developed a penchant for argument and hair splitting. This resulted in their progressive alienation from the people, who while paying them the respect due to religious scholars, rejected their lead in national affairs. While their influence on the religious minded masses remained considerable, their impact on public affairs shrank simply because the Ulema concentrated on the traditional studies and lost touch with the realities of contemporary life.[25]

Notes:

1. After independence "some of the Ulema decided to stay in India, others hastened to Pakistan to lend a helping hand. If they had not been able to save the Muslims from Pakistan they must now save Pakistan from the Muslims. Among them was Maulana Abul Aala Maududi, head of the Jamat-i-Islami, who had been bitterly opposed to Pakistan." Mohammad Ayub Khan, Friends not

Masters, P-202

2 Ishtiaq Ahmed, The Concept of an Islamic State in Pakistan, p-66

3. Ziya-ul-Hasan Faruqi, The Deoband School and the Demand for Pakistan, p79-80

4. Speech on Feb. 5, 1938

5 Afzal Iqbal, Islamization of Pakistan, p-28

6. Ibid. p-54

7. Alluding to Quadi-i-Azam' s marriage to a Parsi girl.

8. Munir Report, p-256

9. Maulana Maududi, Nationalism and India, Pathankot, 1947, p-25

10. The Process of Islamic Revolution, 2nd edition, Lahore 1955, p-37

11. Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Tehrik-i-Adazi- e-Hind aur Mussalman (Indian Freedom Movement and Muslims), pp 22-23

12. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, Ulema in Politics, p-368

13. Ibid., p-368

14. Zamzam 17.7.1938 cited by Pakistan Struggle and Pervez, Tulu-e-Islam Trust, Lahore, p-614

15. Ibid. p-314

16. Hasan (rose) from Basrah, Bilal from Abyssinia, Suhaib from Rome, Deoband produced Husain Ahmad, what monstrosity is this? He chanted from the pulpit that nations are created by countries, What an ignoramus regarding the position of Muhammad! Take thyself to Muhammad, because he is the totality of Faith, And if thou does not reach him, all (thy knowledge) is Bu Lahaism.

17. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, in his biography, India Wins Freedom, fixes the responsibility for the partition of India, at one place on Jawaharlal Nehru, and at another place on Vallabh-bhai Patel by observing that "it would not perhaps be unfair to say that Vallabh-dhbai Patel was the founder of Indian partition." H.M. Seervai, Partition of India: Legend and Reality, p-162

18. Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, op. cit., p-328

19. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, p-237

20. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, Ulema in Politics p-334

21. Justice Sayed Shameem Hussain Kadri - Creation of

Pakistan - Army Book Club, Rawalpindi ,1983 -- p-414

22. Ayub Khan, op. cit., p-200

23. According to Dr. Mohammad Iqbal, the present state of affairs of the Moslem world. Dr. Iqbal said: "It seems to me that God is slowly bringing home to us the truth that Islam is neither nationalism nor imperialism but a league of nations which recognizes artificial boundaries and racial distinctions for facility of reference only and not for restricting the social horizon of its members." (Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p-159) Dr. Iqbal had apparently in mind the following verse from the Holy Quran: O Mankind ! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. (49:13)

24. Qureshi, op. cit., p-378

25. Afzal Iqbal, Islamization in Pakistan, p-26

26. Ayub Khan, op. cit.,p-202

27. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Modern Islam in India, Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1963, p-173

28. Afzal Iqbal, op. cit., p-29

29. Qureshi, op. cit., p-383

30. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Islam in History, p-215

31. Munir Report, p-205

32. Ibid. p-218

33. Ibid. p-219

34. Anita M. Weiss, Reassertion of Islam in Pakistan, p-2

35. Leonard Binder, Islam and Politics in Pakistan, University of California Press, 1961, p-29

36. Anita M. Weiss, p-21

37. Ibid. p-21

38. When Pakistan appeared on the map, they (Ulema) found no place for themselves in India and they all came to Pakistan and brought with them the curse of Takfir (calling one another infidel). Munir, From Jinnah to Zia, p-38

39. Prof. Rafi-ullah Shehab - The Quaid-e-Azam and the Ulema - The Pakistan Times, Islamabad 25.12.1986.

40. Ahmad Bashir, Islam, Shariat and the Holy Ghost, Frontier Post, Peshawar, 9.5.1991

41. Ibid.

[Courtesy: Mr. Abdus Sattar Ghazali]