Murder of History in Pakistan.

PAKISTAN is a part of India and P.V. Narasimha Rao is the prime minister of the country. This is being taught to school students in some Indian states, according to a member of parliament. S. Semmalai, of the Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (ADMK), highlighted these monstrosities in Lok Sabha on Wednesday while referring to the controversy over an Ambedkar cartoon in textbooks during a discussion on an amendment bill concerning educational institutions. Dr B.R. Ambedkar, born into a lower caste family, was a crusader for Dalit rights who headed the body that drafted India’s post-independence constitution. “In the textbooks of Karnataka, it is mentioned even now that Pakistan is a part of India. It went on to state that American constitution is based on capitalism. Class-III students of Urdu medium in Andhra Pradesh are taught that P.V. Narasimha Rao is the prime minister of the country,” Semmalai said, evoking laughter all around the house. Finding further fault with the textbooks, he said: “In some textbooks a forest is defined as a group of trees and heavy industry is defined as one where heavy type of raw materials are used.” The member said that only 15 per cent of graduates were suitable for employment. It reflects the poor quality of education at all levels, from primary to higher levels. He lamented: “If this is the quality and stuff that we provide to our students, one can imagine what will be the standard of our students. “Unless we make concerted efforts to allocate six per cent of the GDP to education, our goal will remain unreachable,” he added. REFERENCE: Karnataka textbook says Pakistan part of India http://dawn.com/2012/05/17/karnataka-textbook-says-pakistan-part-of-india/

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad predicting Pakistan


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q7p3_fZCKw

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: The Man Who Knew The Future Of Pakistan Before Its Creation by Shorish Kashmiri, Matbooat Chattan, Lahore http://www.newageislam.com/books-and-documents/maulana-abul-kalam-azad--the-man-who-knew-the-future-of-pakistan-before-its-creation/d/2139

Most significantly, Allama Iqbal favoured, in his Sixth Lecture, the concept of real ‘ijtihad’ (reinterpretation) on the ‘nas’ (clear edict) of the Quran. That is the only ‘ijtihad’ useful to the Muslims. Nothing has gone right with Islamisation, starting from ‘zakat’ to ‘diyat’ (blood money) and the ‘hudood’. When the Muslims have done ‘ijtihad’ on the ‘nas’ they have done ‘ijtihad-e-ma’akoos’ (retrogressive reinterpretation) as in the case of the Quranic ‘nas’ on the law of divorce . Few will disagree that Allama Iqbal was a great poet. But there is a reaction against him in some circles after the state of Pakistan adopted him as its founding philosopher and selectively hyped up his message. One has to be careful not to lose objectivity over Allama Iqbal. Self-serving politicians and ulema quote him to advance their dubious causes. Finally the greatness of the poet will rest neither in the hype nor in the angry reaction against him. GEO (November 3, 2004) had Ghazi Salahuddin discussing Allama Iqbal with Dr Mubarak Ali on his Main Nahin Manta programme. Dr Mubarak Ali said that Allama Iqbal had no message for the world of today. He wrote poetry for the middle class Muslims and his objective was Muslim ummah which did not exist. He was not a supporter of democracy and it was an exaggeration to call him a national poet. One scholar present in the programme said that Allama Iqbal had defended democracy in his Lectures. Jinnah was finally to take the cue from Iqbal’s address of 1930. Dr Mubarak Ali said that Iqbal was a great poet but it was not fair to call him a national poet. He said his main aim was to create pride among Muslims whom he thought downtrodden at the time. Dr Mubarak Ali’s rather intemperate opinion (to which he was entitled) was rebutted by the audience effectively. If he wanted to win over the audience he failed because he was so extreme in posture as to be inaccurate. In his famous Lectures, Allama Iqbal favoured democracy. Most significantly, he favoured, in his Sixth Lecture, the concept of real ijtihad (reinterpretation) on the nas (clear edict) of the Quran. Those who hold him up as the thinker of the fundamentalist state should be chastened by this. His 1930 speech in Allahabad has been completely misinterpreted through selective reading by the state. His diatribe against the fundamentalist ulema has also been ignored by the state, while his anti-West verse has been exploited by politicians and the ulema to create xenophobia in Pakistan. Allama Iqbal cannot be rejected out of hand. When the ayatollahs of Iran did it, Dr Ali Shariati arose to his defence and told them they were wrong. GEO (November 3, 2004) programme Chchoti Khabar Bari Baat discussed the situation in Lyari saying the criminal mafias had taken over there and the police had become their informers. Lyari Town in Karachi had become impossible to control because of the fight between two rival mafias: Pappu Dakait and Rehman Dakait. In two and a half months 24 people had lost their lives there. The fight was over bhatta (protection money). The town had no water and no law and order. PPP MNA Gabol said that Lyari had fallen on bad times because it was traditionally a PPP constituency. The governments in the past were not interested in allowing any development there because of this factor. He said in 1996 when the PPP was in power there was no crime in Lyari. He said the police was on the payroll of the dacoits. He also said that ministers in Balochistan were backing the dacoits. When pressured he named chief minister of Balochistan, Jam Yusuf. He said many ministers in Sindh government, too, were taking money from the dacoits of Lyari. Police officer Imran Shaukat admitted police weakness but claimed that he was making headway. He said Lyari had only 100 criminals who could be taken care of. He said the dacoits had started ‘gate politics’ which was cutting off localities with no-go gates. He said every street had its small dacoits. He said he had brought 350 commandos and had deployed 240 policemen in the area. But Gabol said mukhbari (informers) was still going on by police and thana officers were changed on the orders of the mafia. And policemen also ran away. Police officer said Lyari could be normalised in one month. Lyari is the microcosm of a state which has gradually surrendered its writ. The involvement of the feudal and tribal politicians in crime through patronage of dacoits is well known in Sindh and Balochistan. This is the alternative state in existence. Their alternative state is opposed by another class which has been empowered by the state through jihad and the consequent surrender of internal sovereignty: the religious parties and their militias. This is armageddon, the big war in which everyone is a satan. GEO (November 5, 2004) had Aniq Ahmad in his Alif programme discussing dialogue among religions with Prof Manzur Ahmad, and clerics from sects plus a Christian priest. One cleric said that the Quran had said the Jews were firm enemies and so were the pagans (India) but the Christians were soft on Islam and there could be dialogue with them. Christians were not proud and were educated too. Prof Manzur said dialogue was not tabligh (proselytising) and Muslims should not approach a dialogue with other faiths in order to convince them to leave their religion and join Islam. Christian Father said that first one will have to decide what kind of minds had been developed in Pakistan. If the mind was inflexible then it will not dialogue with anyone. The Shia cleric said there was no ban on dialoguing with the Jews in the Quran. He said Quran was negative only about the Jews of Madina. Sunni cleric insisted that Quranic verse was daemi (eternal) therefore Jews were enemies even today. Aniq said the Quran ordained that both Christians and Jews were enemies of Islam; how could the Christians be good then? Christian Father said Muslims could do ijtihad whereupon Aniq asked could there be ijtihad on the verse of the Quran? This was a most absurd discussion with Dr Manzur Ahmed alone talking sense. The clerics were unfit for any human dialogue (even with Muslims) because of their intellectual rigidity. The Sunni was divided with Shia over whether to talk to other faiths. If Islam is to talk to other faiths the ulema will have to be kept out of it. Finally, the discussion made shipwreck on the issue of ijtihad: whether a Muslim could reinterpret a clear verse of the Quran. One fallacy among Muslims is that they allow reinterpretation of faith. The truth is that they live in taqleed (imitation) of the fiqh (jurists) of later times. The only ijtihad useful to Muslims would be ijtihad on the nas of the Quran, as proposed by Allama Iqbal in his Sixth Lecture and rejected by General Zia and the clergy. That is why nothing has gone right with Islamisation, starting from zakat to diyat (blood money) and the hudood. When the Muslims have done ijtihad on the nas they have done ijtihad-e-ma’akoos (retrogressive reinterpretation) as in the case of the Quranic nas on the law of divorce. * REFERENCE: SECOND OPINION: The persistent greatness of Allama Iqbal —Khaled Ahmed’s TV Review uesday, December 14, 2004 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_14-12-2004_pg3_5

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUKr3bCaNJY

Text of Prof. Karrar Memorial Lecture on 2 November 2002 in Karachi delivered by Prof. Hamza Alavi On Religion and Secularism in the making of Pakistan by Prof. Hamza Alavi http://www.sacw.net/2002/HamzaAlaviNov02.html

On Religion and Secularism in the Making of Pakistan SACW 2002 Hamza Alavi Nov 2002

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Wu9vrqOD8

Rewriting the History of Pakistan by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Abdul Hameed Nayyar [Source: Islam, Politics and the State: The Pakistan Experience, Asghar Khan (ed.) Zed Books, London, 1985, pp. 164-177.] www.sacw.net | February 6, 2005 http://www.sacw.net/HateEducation/1985HoodbhoyNayyar06022005.html

Rewriting the History of Pakistan by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Abdul Hameed Nayyar

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wj92twKzps

Pakistan: Curriculum of hatred in schools Saturday 5 May 2012 Policy Brief - The Continuing Biases in Our Textbooks By Zubeida Mustafa Policy Brief - Jinnah Institute http://www.sacw.net/article2666.html

Pakistan Curriculum of Hatred in Schools by Zubeida Mustafa

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3AhD8KO1L0

History and interpretation: Communalism and problems of historiography in India by Irfan Habib http://www.sacw.net/India_History/IHabibCommunalHistory.html

Communal Ism and Problems of Historiography in India SACW Irfan Habib

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyZNawOgi1M

Radicalization of State and Society in Pakistan by Rubina Saigol http://www.boell-pakistan.org/downloads/Chapter_Rubina_Final.pdf

Radicalization of State and Society in Pakistan by Rubina Saigol

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 6


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMTtBq-t2ew

ISLAM is a great and good religion, as are the other major faiths of the world, when interpreted and put into practice by true men of God learned, balanced, fair-minded, sensible, compassionate and benevolent. I am a Zarathushti, a follower of the prophet Zarathushtra. I am not a Parsi by religion, but by race. The origin of the word ‘Parsi’ goes back 1,368 years when a group of Zarathushtis from the province of Pars in Iran arrived to settle on the west coast of Hindustan, then ruled by the benign king, Jadav Rana. It was the Hindustanis who bestowed upon the community the name ‘Parsis’ the men from Pars. Zarathushtra taught his followers that life was a gift of God to be lived to the full, and that they should do unto others as others and they would be done by. He taught them that religion is a matter that rests entirely between man and his God, that intolerance, bigotry and dogmatism are the bitterest enemies of religion as they render it a tyranny and a form of persecution. Bigotry stifles reason, is blind and savage, sectarian bigotry and inter-religious bigotry being equally evil. Man has no right to demand that his neighbour shall address his God as does he, nor that he shall pray, worship, and sacrifice to God in the manner that he does. No thinking man’s idea of God and religion can ever be the same at all times and in all places on earth. True men of religion know that they have no right to impose their way of thinking upon others, that they must remain free from the spirit of sectarianism and fanatic zeal. Zarathushtra’s teachings, as do the teachings of all the great prophets, define cleanly and clearly the difference between religion and religiosity.

The Parsis living in the four provinces of Pakistan inherited this country. They chose to remain in Jinnah’s Pakistan, and with relief and happiness accepted his creed as proclaimed on August 11, 1947, in the Constituent Assembly. He was clear and concise when he told the members that all men are equal, that religion is not the business of the state. Jinnah’s Pakistan died with him. Zarathushti blood was not shed in the making of Pakistan, though Zarathushti support was given unstintingly. Now to Nawaz Sharif. To gain the two-thirds majority necessary for the smooth passage of the Fifteenth Amendment through the National Assembly and (particularly) the Senate, he will have to buy men. He has done it before, and will do it again. The process has already started. This week, Chaudhry Shujaat was sent off to Balochistan. Closely followed by trusted briefcase carrier, Saifur Rahman, to meet my friend Nawab Mohammad Akbar Shahbaz Khan, Tumandar of all the Bugtis, who owns and controls five vital Senate votes. The Nawab has his own perception of Islam, as is his right, which may not necessarily tally with the concept as followed in Raiwind. Towards the end of last year, inspired by the incompetence of Nawaz Sharif’s government, I had a bet with him that Nawaz Sharif would not survive as PM beyond July 31. I lost. When I asked Akbar where I should send my cheque, he told me he did not want it. Being a good Muslim, he cannot accept a Kafir’s money. One must wonder if, had he lost the bet, would he have held, as a good Muslim, that he cannot pay a Kafir?

The day before yesterday, I read in Dawn that the Nawab had acknowledged that he has received a cheque from a Kafir, but since Islam prohibits a Muslim to use money won on a bet he must pass it on. He has done so, to the Quetta Press Club. This is typical, and enjoyable, Akbar Bugti logic. His Islam did not prohibit him from making a bet with a Kafir, only from accepting a Kafir’s money. He has his own views on Zardosht as he calls him, and why not? He must have had fun with Saifur Rahman (I would have loved to have been with them at their meeting). Nawaz Sharif sits within three cabinets. Firstly, in the Raiwind cabinet, headed by Abbaji who is advised by his cardiologist Dr Shahryar, Judge Afzal Lone, Son Shahbaz, and Child Prodigy Hussain. Second is the kitchen cabinet he himself heads, made up of his Mians and Chaudhrys ( ‘Lahore Lahore hai’). The third, in order of importance, is the official cabinet at Islamabad.

Crisis or no crisis, the third cabinet probably meets formally twice or so in a hundred days. It can broadly be divided into three groups. One comprises the gung-ho table-thumpers, who hang on Nawaz Sharif’s every utterance, echoing each one with a ‘Wah-wah, Mian Sahib’ before he has even completed his sentence, pride of performance going to ‘Mushahidsaab’. Then there is the group made up of the sour-faced, grim and silent lot, whose lips remain sealed unless they are specifically urged to speak up on their own specific subjects. To this second group belongs Khalid Anwer, an intelligent man who has proved to be a bitter disappointment. He cannot match his predecessor in office, law champion of all governments, Jadoogar Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, who at least is honest enough to laugh and say. ‘Accept me as I am, with warts, blemishes, briefcases and all. If it were not for all the weak and corrupt governments of Pakistan, I would not be where I am today.’ Sharifuddin never places himself on a pedestal, seldom looks down on a lesser mortal, Khalid Anwar would do well to re-read paragraph 301 of his written statement, filed in the Supreme Court in response to Benazir Bhutto’s petition against her 1996 dismissal:

"The doctrine of collective responsibility has different facets and aspects. At its most basic, the doctrine means that the ministers are collectively, and as a body, known as the cabinet, responsible to the National Assembly. Individual ministers do not have the choice or luxury of agreeing only with some government decisions and not others. However much a minister may disagree with a policy or decision taken by the cabinet, he must in public and in particular before the National Assembly give it his full and unstinting support. If he finds it impossible to accept or abide by the decision or to support it, he must then resign from office. A minister’s choice to remain in the cabinet is tantamount to his accepting responsibility for all cabinet decisions and government policy."

The third cabinet group is headed by those of practical pragmatic minds, such as Ghous Ali Shah, whose decisions are based on the fear of where they would be should Nawaz Sharif fall. Dogged by the misfortunes that have beset them since the death of Jinnah, the people of Pakistan now face the daunting prospect of Nawaz Sharif manipulating his Fifteenth Amendment through Parliament and then declaring himself, Amirul Momineen and Commander of the Faithful for life. His duties, as he presumably sees them, would enable him, inter alia, to:

Pass an Act whereby a constitutional amendment can go through Parliament by a simple majority (at present the Constitution provides for a two-thirds majority).

Declare the Quran and Sunnah to be the constitution and nominate a body of ‘pious’ Muslims to interpret it.

Declare that all state functionaries, including judges, must strictly follow government directives whether they consider them to be right or wrong.

Dissolve the provinces as being contrary to the concept of Millat.

Abolish Parliament, or just the senate, and nominate a Shoora of ‘pious’ Muslims.

Declare opposition to be un-Islamic, hence banned.

Declare that public offices be restricted to ‘pious’ Muslims.

Declare restrictions on the rights of women, thus banning them from holding public office (bye-bye BB).

Declare any sect of Muslims to be non-Muslim and thus minorities.

Declare that minorities have no rights other than the practice of their religion, of their personal laws, traditions and customs, thus depriving them of their right to vote and other fundamental rights. Subject them to payment of Jazya.

Introduce flogging, amputation, lapidation, the death penalty, and public executions for various major and minor offences.

prohibit western education and declare Islamic education to be compulsory.

Restrict communications with the outside world, such as the Taliban -style banning of television.

Declare interest to be haram and thus not payable on international debts.

All this will be done in the name of a good religion as interpreted at Raiwind.

REFERENCE: Not the business of the state Ardeshir Cowasjee DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 12 September 1998 Issue : 04/36 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1998/12Sep98.html#nott