Salman Rashid is Pakistan’s most widely travelled travel writer with few places in the country that do not carry his footprint. Acclaimed as ‘the most erudite travel writer of the country’, he is the author of eight books that include anthologies of his newspaper articles. This book is the outcome of nearly a quarter century of the Deosai romance over several visits to the plateau. During the chaos of partition in 1947, something dreadful happened in the city of Jalandhar in Punjab. As a result of this, Salman Rashid's family fled Jalandhar for Pakistan, the newly created country across the border. They were among the nearly two million people uprooted from their homes in the greatest transmigration in history. Besides those who fled, other members of the family became part of a grimmer statistic: They featured among the more than one million unfortunate souls who paid with their lives for the division of India and creation of Pakistan. After living in the shadow of his family’s tragedy for decades, in 2008, Rashid made the journey back to his ancestral village to uncover the truth. A time of madness tells the story of what he discovered with great poignancy and grace. It is a tale of unspeakable brutality but it is also a testament to the uniquely human traits of forgiveness, redemption and the resilience of the human spirit. References: A Time of Madness: A Memoir of Partition 13 Dec 2017 https://www.amazon.in/Salman-Rashid/e/B001JWT62G/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1 A TIME OF MADNESS: A MEMOIR OF PARTITION BY : SALMAN RASHID http://www.libertybooks.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=44018
Introduction of Salman Rashid
And in the end, when Rashid does indeed uncover the terrible secret, when the last clue to the puzzle has fallen in place, when he finds himself standing face to face with the man whose father had led a murderous mob, when he understands the reason for his family’s long silence, he finds nothing in his heart but understanding and compassion. As to why this had to happen, the only solace, if there can be solace in a situation like this, is in the fact that such a tragedy did not just fall to his lot; it happened to millions. However, if violence and bestiality are followed by guilt and remorse, forgiveness is possible. A heart-felt apology, even after seven decades, can heal old wounds. A Time of Madness seems to be telling us that while we may fall victims to the madness unleashed by political and religious leaders causing us to fall into pits of unimaginable darkness, it is up to us to find our way back to light. Only genuine remorse and real forgiveness can show us the way. Reference: 'A Time of Madness: A Memoir of Partition' review: Darkness to light by Rakhshanda Jalil JANUARY 06, 2018 http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-reviews/a-time-of-madness-a-memoir-of-partition-review-darkness-to-light/article22382614.ece
Ammara's Adda with Salman Rashid
Salman Rashid’s latest book, published in India, is the story of his grandfather’s pre-partition household. A Time of Madness – A memoir of partition narrates how Rashid’s grandfather was murdered by a Sikh neighbour. Ten years ago, Rashid met the son of the murderer in Jalandhar and he narrated the tale of the entire household to the audience. The talk was moderated by academic Shaista Sirajuddin and senior journalist Khaled Ahmed, both close friends of the author, who had heard of these stories already and read the book closely. Sirajuddin understood the author’s sentimental relationship with the story and carefully directed the talk while giving the author room to breathe and grieve. The hall was full of Rashid’s fans, some sitting on the ground, others standing on the stairs. The audience had many interesting questions to supplement Rashid’s intriguing story. Reference : Authors, readers, bibliophiles http://tns.thenews.com.pk/authors-readers-bibliophiles/ by Ammara Ahmad March 4, 2018 ---- A Time of Madness http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/a-time-of-madness/ Shaista Sonnu Sirajuddin on Salman Rashid’s memoir of Partition – a deeply personal journey, yet one which is relevant to us all (The Friday Times 02 March 2018)
Despite my repeated requests to not to drag me in your personal point scoring and petty nitpicking but people tried to drag me in debates of which I dont want to be a part. I have many friends and followers on Social Media (Twitter and Facebook) and they are from different professions having different and quite diverse ideologies and opinions but since they are my friends too and I respect my friends and don't want to see them embarrass on my timelines on Twitter or Facebook because I follow a primitive code that once you share/break bread with anybody then honour him/her and don't allow anyone to mock or ridicule him/her in any way and that too by tagging me. Personally I don't follow any School of Thought but I dont target anyone's Belief, Caste, Creed, Language and Culture and neither do I blindly follow any Political Leader e.g. Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, Sir Syed, Iqbal, Mawdudi, Bhutto what to talk of nowadays pygmies like Benazir Bhutto, Asif Ali Zardari, Nawaz Sharif, Altaf Hussain, Mullahs of every Sect or born again Jinnah i.e. Imran Khan. Therefore, if any of you want to badmouth each other then please do and keep doing it but don't tag me like a noted Defence Analysts, Former Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission and a Retired Army Officer and now a Diplomat did & tried to dictate me what should I tweet, what should I post and what I shouldn't and all have been shown the door from my profile and permanently blocked, don't thrust your opinion down my throat, don't patronize because I am least bothered what Crap you Unload on your timeline. There is an absurd debate going on Ad nauseam to prove that Jinnah was Secular and Jinnah wasn't Secular, Islamic Democracy and Non Islamic Democracy etc etc. Whatever Islamist or Secularist say about Jinnah, Islamic Democracy, Secular Democracy is just a matter of opinion and anyone can have any opinion he/she like but problem starts when someone try to shove his/her opinion down your throat to accept that opinion as a Cardinal Truth. Those politicians (including Jinnah/Bhutto etc.) who are and were very fond of using and mixing Islam with Democracy are least bothered that Muslim Masses would never accept any modern interpretation of Islam because Mullahs wouldn't allow that and thats why mixing Religion with State is dangerous. Jinnah's or Bhutto's Modern Interpretation of Islam wouldn't be valid because when someone talks of Islam then there would only be two sources 1 - Quran and 2 Hadith not the Manifestos of All India Muslim League, Jinnah's quotes or PPP's Red Book a La Islamic Socialism. Therefore, don't mix Islam and Democracy , State and Religion because this wont work and stop quoting Jinnah , Jinnah became invalid the day Liaquat Ali Khan imposed Objectives Resolution and Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani who was the brain behind this Resolution is on record had declared that he knew that Jinnah was a Flagrant Sinner (Reference Khutbat-e-Usmani compiled by Professor Muhammad Anwaarul Hasan Sherkoti - Published 1972 Lahore)
My interpretation of Islam is quite Literal and I follow the Literal Interpretation of Islam , now lets have a look at the claim of those who quote Jinnah's Vision of Islamic Democracy and love to mix Islam with Democracy and I would rely on a Saudi Fatwa (Religious Edict) on Democracy & Democratic System,
"QUOTE"
Democracy is not an Arabic word. Rather it is derived from the Greek, and it is a composite of two words: demos, meaning the masses or the people, and kratia, meaning rule. So what is meant is the rule of the masses or the rule of the people. Democracy is a system that is contrary to Islam, because it gives the power of legislation to the people or to those who represent them (such as members of Parliament). Based on that, in democracy legislative authority is given to someone other than Allah, may He be exalted; rather it is given to the people and their deputies, and what matters is not their consensus but the majority. Thus what the majority agree upon becomes laws that are binding on the nation, even if it is contrary to common sense, religious teaching or reason. Read More Concept of democracy in Islam https://islamqa.info/en/98134 Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is. It says in Mawsoo’at al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah (2/1066, 1067): Undoubtedly the democratic system is one of the modern forms of shirk, in terms of obedience and following, or legislation, as it denies the sovereignty of the Creator and His absolute right to issue laws, and ascribes that right to human beings. Read More Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system https://islamqa.info/en/107166
"UN-QUOTE"
Leonard Binder wrote,
"QUOTE"
The leaders of the Muslim League hoped for much too, but whether through the operation of Islamic law is questionable. Many persons thought they saw an opposite tendency in Jinnah's words at the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan:
. . . you will find that in the 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.
However Jinnah may have felt in August, 1947, the atmosphere had so changed that by the end of January, 1948, he felt compelled to say:
I cannot understand why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Sharl'at Law? There is one section of the people who keep on impressing everybody that the future constitution of Pakistan should be based on the Shari'ah. The other section deliberately want to create mischief and agitate that the Sharl'at Law must be scrapped.
Reference : C.A.P. Debates, Vol. I, no. 2 (Aug. 11, 1947), Dawn, Jan. 26, 1948 (from an address before the Sindh Bar Association, on the occasion of the Prophet Day). Religion & Politics in Pakistan by Leonard Binder (Published 1963, University of California, Los Angeles USA)
"UN-QUOTE"
Ayesha Jalal wrote,
"QUOTE"
"So long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan remained at the helm, the ideologues of an Islamic State in Pakistan had to rest content with symbolic gestures. As a politician who knew the importance of playing to the gallery, Jinnah made references to Islam that were compatible with his secular & democratic vision of a Pakistan with opportunities for all, regardless of caste, community or creed.
Reference: The Struggle for Pakistan: A Muslim Homeland and Global Politics By Ayesha Jalal
"UN-QUOTE"
Renowned Secular thinker and Liberal Pakistani Philosopher Mr Khaled Ahmed wrote in his book, Pakistan: Behind The Ideological Mask (Facts about Great Men we dont want to know) Published by Vanguard Press Lahore) that in 1989 the Punjab Government awarded Ghulam Ahmed Perwez posthumously The Tehreek Pakistan Gold Medal, citing his close relationship with Quaid-e-Azam & his contribution to the scheme of Pakistan. There are letters from Quaid testifying to Perwez's advisory capacity to the Quaid.
Ghulam Ahmed Perwez important books were Did Quaid-e-Azam Want to Make Pakistan a Secular State, Finality of Prophethood and Ahmadiyya Movement, Reality of Sufism & countless others attacking Several Schools of Thought's very basic beliefs particularly against Deobandis, Shias, Barelvis and Ahl-e-Hadith but his main target was Jamaat-e-Islami, quite an Irony that the man who was with Jinnah later became and Un-Official adviser of General Ayub Khan who declared Ms. Fatima Jinnah an Indian Agent.
I fully understand the concern of a whole range of intellectuals representing an assortment of liberals and leftists who steadfastly and heroically keep writing that Jinnah was a secularist, he wanted Pakistan to be a secular state or at least an inclusive Muslim state. As far as an inclusive Muslim state is concerned they are right to a point, but they are dead wrong when they assert that Jinnah was a secularist or that he wanted Pakistan to be a secular state. A secularist being defined in terms of a western life style and unorthodox dietary habits is a loose and poor use of the term and concept of secularism. Secularism is a political term which means a separation of religion and state. Except for the 11 August 1947 speech which can reasonably and legitimately be read as one based on secularism there is no such vision or argument in what he said before that day or afterwards that suggests that Hindus and Muslims can be equal citizens of Pakistan. Therefore, one sunny day does not make a summer or more accurately one swallow does not make a summer. In other words, exceptions are not the rule. Jinnah was not in favour of a Muslim state which would institutionalise discrimination against minorities. He thought that Pakistan could be an inclusive Muslim state. Reference: Jinnah’s prerogatives Jinnah enjoyed unique power and authority and thus unique prerogatives. He could make decisions and appointments which other Pakistani leaders would have hesitated to by Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed DECEMBER 10, 2017 https://dailytimes.com.pk/156051/jinnahs-prerogatives/
Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed's Lecture on Jinnah, Secularism and Pakistan (Part - 1)
Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws?… Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago…. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught equality, justice and fair play to everyone’(Ibid). In the same speech he said: ‘Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim which regulates his life and his conduct in even politics and economic and the like…’ (Ibid). Speaking at the Edwards College, Peshawar on 18 April 1948 he described Pakistan’s distinctiveness as ‘Islamic, Muslim rule, as a sovereign independent state’ (Ibid), On 1 July 1948 at the opening ceremony of the State Bank of Pakistan in Karachi he emphasised the importance of, ‘an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind’ (Ibid). The religious minorities in Pakistan are not a conquered minority and therefore the jizya does not apply them technically. We need to examine how their rights can be guaranteed by an inclusive Muslim state which was enunciated in the Objectives Resolution. Religious minorities in Pakistan are not a conquered minority and therefore the jizya does not apply to them technically. We need to examine how their rights can be guaranteed by an inclusive Muslim state which was enunciated in the Objectives Resolution. Reference Jinnah, Muslims and minorities On 14 August 1947 a distinct shift in Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan from an ostensibly secular to an Islamic was made explicit in his speech to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly by Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed December 14, 2017 https://dailytimes.com.pk/158815/jinnah-muslims-minorities/
Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed's Lecture on Jinnah, Secularism and Pakistan (Part - 2)
There is enough evidence that Jinnah made contradictory promises just because he wanted to maximise Muslim support. To keep harping on one speech of August 11th 1947, while ignoring how in 1940-47 Jinnah relentlessly kept saying that Hindus and Muslims can never be one nation is wrong. I have already quoted Jinnah in previous articles where he had termed Sharia as the primary source of law for Pakistan, and this was after his August 11th speech. Unless we speak the truth, we will not be able to make Pakistan an inclusive Muslim state. There is ample literature to show how the British master-minded the partition of India, Bengal and the Punjab — a partition which caused the deaths of at least one million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. Reference Jinnah’a multifarious pledges To keep harping on one speech of August 11th 1947, while ignoring how in 1940-47 Jinnah relentlessly kept saying that Hindus and Muslims can never be one nation is wrong by Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed DECEMBER 23, 2017 https://dailytimes.com.pk/158815/jinnah-muslims-minorities/
Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed's Lecture on Jinnah, Secularism and Pakistan (Part - 3)
Jinnah has become such a symbol of wisdom in the Pakistani society that people visualize Pakistan with his reference. His vision, his agenda, his dream and his ideals, all.remained unaccomplished because he died soon after the independence. It is commonly believed that had he lived some more years, history of Pakistan would have been different. There are few nations who rely so heavily on one individual. No doubt, Jinnah was a great leader of his people. He was a man of integrity and honesty, but to make him an idol and not allow anybody to emerge out of his shadow is pathetic. Every generation has its own dreams and vision which it wants to accomplish without interference. Not imitation but freedom is required to build a new world. Therefore, attempt should not be made to repeat but to make a new history. People should be liberated from the shadow and allow them to flourish in a free atmosphere. Great leaders should be respected but not worshiped. Reference: Jinnah: Making a myth
by Mubarak Ali (2 October 2000) http://www.sacw.net/aii/MakingJinnah_a_myth.html
To repeat (and it bears repetition ad nauseam), when Jinnah addressed the first constituent assembly of the country on August 11 1947 he embodied in his speech the core of his philosophy, his ideas, and his vision for the state he had founded. It was a fine piece of rhetoric; too fine, too moral, too democratic, too liberal, too full of justice, too idealistic for the Philistines. This speech has been interpreted in many different ways, it has been subject to distortion, it has inspired fear in successive governments, which would have been far happier had it never been delivered. It is to the misfortune of the people of this country that their so-called leaders have refused to live with, or up to, the principles by which Jinnah wished them to be guided. It is a matter of national shame that, from top to bottom, the citizens of this country live in dread of contamination by the truth - such is the measure of self-deception, insecurity, disunity, indiscipline, and faithlessness.
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. As you know, history shows that in England conditions some time ago were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some states in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the nation. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal.....".
[This particular passage has been subject to deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, inspiring the dishonest dogmatists who misappropriated the country after his death with such fear and unease that in the official biography of Jinnah commissioned by the Government of Pakistan, written by Hector Bolitho, published in 1954, it was censored to falsely read: ".....You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State..... Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal....". (Most of the above passages were ommitted).] REFERENCE: The sole statesman BY ARDESHIR COWASJEE (18-06-2000) http://www.dawn.com/news/1072301/the-sole-statesman
Pathological lying (PL) is a controversial topic. There is, as yet, no consensus in the psychiatric community on its definition, although there is general agreement on its core elements. PL is characterized by a long history (maybe lifelong) of frequent and repeated lying for which no apparent psychological motive or external benefit can be discerned. While ordinary lies are goal-directed and are told to obtain external benefit or to avoid punishment, pathological lies often appear purposeless. In some cases, they might be self-incriminating or damaging, which makes the behavior even more incomprehensible. Despite its relative obscurity, PL has been recognized and written about in the psychiatric literature for more than a century. The German physician, Anton Delbruck,1 is credited with being the first to describe the concept of PL. He observed that some of his patients told lies that were so abnormal and out of proportion that they deserved a special category. He sub-sequently described the lies as "pseu- dologia phantastica." Reference: Pathological Lying: Symptom or Disease? By Charles C Dike, MD, MPH, MRCPsych June 01, 2008 http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/pathological-lying-symptom-or-disease
For sake of clarity a full paragraph from Will Durant's voluminous Story of Civilization is reproduced here from which OMJ picked up a quotation: "Writing continued, even to the nineteenth century, to play a very small part in Indian education. Perhaps it was not to the interest of the priests that the sacred or scholastic texts should become an open secret to all. As far as we can trace Indian history, we find a system of education, always in the hands of the clergy, open at first only to the sons of Brahmans, then spreading its privileges from caste to caste until in our time it excludes only the Untouchables. Every Hindu village had its schoolmaster, supported out of the public funds; in Bengal alone, before the coming of the British, there were some 80,000 native schools — one to every four hundred population. The percentage of literacy under Ashoka was apparently higher than in India today." Will Durant in this section was discussing the education system in ancient India but OMJ picked up a Bengal-related sentence and forcibly linked it with the Mughal period to create a misleading impression. Intellectual honesty demanded that OMJ should have also told his readers what Will Durant wrote in the same book about the Muslim rulers in India. For instance, Durant writes about our hero idol-smasher: "Each winter Mahmud descended into India, filled his treasure chest with spoils, and amused his men with full freedom to pillage and kill; each spring he returned to his capital richer than before." We are told that the idol breaker would sometimes spare the population of the ravaged cities and "took them home to be sold as slaves; but so great was the number of such captives that after some years no one could be found to offer more than a few shillings for a slave." Similarly referring to other rulers of the pre-Mughal era, Durant writes, "There was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging the victims and putting them to death in crowds." OMJ fondly mentions Firoz Shah about whom Durant writes, "Firoz Shah invaded Bengal, offered a reward for every Hindu head, paid for 180,000 of them, raided Hindu villages for slaves." Similarly, Sultan Ahmad Shah is said to have feasted for three days whenever the number of defenceless Hindus slain in his territories in one day reached 20,000. Based on such numerous examples, Durant says, "The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilisation is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within." Durant in his work appreciates the art and sculpture of India. However, he laments, "We shall never be able to do justice to Indian art, for ignorance and fanaticism have destroyed its greatest achievements, and have half ruined the rest." OMJ in his concluding lines makes a passing reference to Lord Cornwallis, accusing him of establishing a religious seminary in 1781 to destroy educational system of Muslim rulers. Interestingly, in 1781, Major General Cornwallis was in America with a mixed record against rebel colonists culminating in the capitulation of his force at Yorktown and came to India in 1786. Cornwallis, however, is credited with establishing an institution that OMJ never found detestable: the Indian Civil Service. Hope our former deputy commissioner would be more careful with both dates and facts of history. The writer teaches public policy in the UK and is the founding member of the Rationalist Society of Pakistan. REFERENCES: OVER A COFFEE : Postcard for Orya Maqbool Jan — Dr Haider Shah October 27, 2012 http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/editorial/27-Oct-2012/over-a-coffee-postcard-for-orya-maqbool-jan-dr-haider-shah OVER A COFFEE : History telling the Nasim Hijazi way — Dr Haider Shah December 01, 2012 http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/editorial/01-Dec-2012/over-a-coffee-history-telling-the-nasim-hijazi-way-dr-haider-shah Orya Maqbool Jan on Jinnah's 11 th August 1947 Speech (Daily Dunya) http://dunya.com.pk/news/authors/detail_image/x5529_16461313.jpg.pagespeed.ic.pvzOK79idJ.jpg
Mr. Jinnah has been the subject of onslaught by both the right and the left- both want to paint a beard on Jinnah. Both have repeatedly failed. But the difference between the left and the right is that the left at least does not deny facts. For example a leftist will not claim that Jinnah’s 11 August speech never existed or that it did not speak of a secular state. Not true of Orya Maqbool Jan, a right wing crook and liar who is also in the civil service. In his most recent column, the Orya claims that Jinnah in fact never made the 11 August Speech because he could not find any reference in the newspapers. Typical. First a civil servant Ch. Muhammad Ali stopped it from being released and now a civil servant claims – see it never existed. Well here is the problem for crooks and liars like Orya Maqbool Jan – the Pakistan Constituent Assembly record DOES exist. I refer to Jinnah Papers Volume IV Appendix IX, Item 4: President’s address. Reference: Lying Orya Maqbool Jan caught with his pants down December 30th, 2013 By Yasser Latif Hamdani The 11 August speech is there in full as is precisely how it is quoted. And since Mr. Jan goes by media coverage here is http://pakteahouse.net/2013/12/30/lying-orya-maqbool-jan-caught-with-his-pants-down/
Hassan Jafar Zaidi, a renowned historian, is professionally an engineer, yet his passion is history and political analysis. He graduated from UET, Lahore in Electrical Engineering in 1974, but started contributing political analysis in the weekly Nusrat in 1970, and then on continued to write for many Urdu and English newspapers like Daily Musawat and Dawn. He served as Joint-Secretary of Halqa-i-Arbab-i-Zouq, Lahore, a renowned literary forum of Pakistan from 1974 to 1976. Then he devoted to a multi-volume project of research on history of Pakistan and Muslim history. Twelve volumes on Political History of Pakistan; and four volumes on Political History of Muslims have already been published from this project. Another fifteen volumes on Muslim History and ten volumes on the history of sub-continent are under publication. He has been delivering lectures almost every year in LUMS since 1999, on subjects of current interest on politics in international and regional context, and history of sub-continent with special focus on Pakistan. He appears in discussions on different TV channels of national repute. Hassan Jafar Zaidi http://tehqeeq.org/people/
My interpretation of Islam is quite Literal and I follow the Literal Interpretation of Islam , now lets have a look at the claim of those who quote Jinnah's Vision of Islamic Democracy and love to mix Islam with Democracy and I would rely on a Saudi Fatwa (Religious Edict) on Democracy & Democratic System,
"QUOTE"
Democracy is not an Arabic word. Rather it is derived from the Greek, and it is a composite of two words: demos, meaning the masses or the people, and kratia, meaning rule. So what is meant is the rule of the masses or the rule of the people. Democracy is a system that is contrary to Islam, because it gives the power of legislation to the people or to those who represent them (such as members of Parliament). Based on that, in democracy legislative authority is given to someone other than Allah, may He be exalted; rather it is given to the people and their deputies, and what matters is not their consensus but the majority. Thus what the majority agree upon becomes laws that are binding on the nation, even if it is contrary to common sense, religious teaching or reason. Read More Concept of democracy in Islam https://islamqa.info/en/98134 Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is. It says in Mawsoo’at al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah (2/1066, 1067): Undoubtedly the democratic system is one of the modern forms of shirk, in terms of obedience and following, or legislation, as it denies the sovereignty of the Creator and His absolute right to issue laws, and ascribes that right to human beings. Read More Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system https://islamqa.info/en/107166
"UN-QUOTE"
Leonard Binder wrote,
"QUOTE"
The leaders of the Muslim League hoped for much too, but whether through the operation of Islamic law is questionable. Many persons thought they saw an opposite tendency in Jinnah's words at the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan:
. . . you will find that in the 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.
However Jinnah may have felt in August, 1947, the atmosphere had so changed that by the end of January, 1948, he felt compelled to say:
I cannot understand why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Sharl'at Law? There is one section of the people who keep on impressing everybody that the future constitution of Pakistan should be based on the Shari'ah. The other section deliberately want to create mischief and agitate that the Sharl'at Law must be scrapped.
Reference : C.A.P. Debates, Vol. I, no. 2 (Aug. 11, 1947), Dawn, Jan. 26, 1948 (from an address before the Sindh Bar Association, on the occasion of the Prophet Day). Religion & Politics in Pakistan by Leonard Binder (Published 1963, University of California, Los Angeles USA)
"UN-QUOTE"
Ayesha Jalal wrote,
"QUOTE"
"So long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan remained at the helm, the ideologues of an Islamic State in Pakistan had to rest content with symbolic gestures. As a politician who knew the importance of playing to the gallery, Jinnah made references to Islam that were compatible with his secular & democratic vision of a Pakistan with opportunities for all, regardless of caste, community or creed.
Reference: The Struggle for Pakistan: A Muslim Homeland and Global Politics By Ayesha Jalal
"UN-QUOTE"
Renowned Secular thinker and Liberal Pakistani Philosopher Mr Khaled Ahmed wrote in his book, Pakistan: Behind The Ideological Mask (Facts about Great Men we dont want to know) Published by Vanguard Press Lahore) that in 1989 the Punjab Government awarded Ghulam Ahmed Perwez posthumously The Tehreek Pakistan Gold Medal, citing his close relationship with Quaid-e-Azam & his contribution to the scheme of Pakistan. There are letters from Quaid testifying to Perwez's advisory capacity to the Quaid.
Ghulam Ahmed Perwez important books were Did Quaid-e-Azam Want to Make Pakistan a Secular State, Finality of Prophethood and Ahmadiyya Movement, Reality of Sufism & countless others attacking Several Schools of Thought's very basic beliefs particularly against Deobandis, Shias, Barelvis and Ahl-e-Hadith but his main target was Jamaat-e-Islami, quite an Irony that the man who was with Jinnah later became and Un-Official adviser of General Ayub Khan who declared Ms. Fatima Jinnah an Indian Agent.
I fully understand the concern of a whole range of intellectuals representing an assortment of liberals and leftists who steadfastly and heroically keep writing that Jinnah was a secularist, he wanted Pakistan to be a secular state or at least an inclusive Muslim state. As far as an inclusive Muslim state is concerned they are right to a point, but they are dead wrong when they assert that Jinnah was a secularist or that he wanted Pakistan to be a secular state. A secularist being defined in terms of a western life style and unorthodox dietary habits is a loose and poor use of the term and concept of secularism. Secularism is a political term which means a separation of religion and state. Except for the 11 August 1947 speech which can reasonably and legitimately be read as one based on secularism there is no such vision or argument in what he said before that day or afterwards that suggests that Hindus and Muslims can be equal citizens of Pakistan. Therefore, one sunny day does not make a summer or more accurately one swallow does not make a summer. In other words, exceptions are not the rule. Jinnah was not in favour of a Muslim state which would institutionalise discrimination against minorities. He thought that Pakistan could be an inclusive Muslim state. Reference: Jinnah’s prerogatives Jinnah enjoyed unique power and authority and thus unique prerogatives. He could make decisions and appointments which other Pakistani leaders would have hesitated to by Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed DECEMBER 10, 2017 https://dailytimes.com.pk/156051/jinnahs-prerogatives/
Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed's Lecture on Jinnah, Secularism and Pakistan (Part - 1)
Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws?… Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago…. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught equality, justice and fair play to everyone’(Ibid). In the same speech he said: ‘Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim which regulates his life and his conduct in even politics and economic and the like…’ (Ibid). Speaking at the Edwards College, Peshawar on 18 April 1948 he described Pakistan’s distinctiveness as ‘Islamic, Muslim rule, as a sovereign independent state’ (Ibid), On 1 July 1948 at the opening ceremony of the State Bank of Pakistan in Karachi he emphasised the importance of, ‘an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind’ (Ibid). The religious minorities in Pakistan are not a conquered minority and therefore the jizya does not apply them technically. We need to examine how their rights can be guaranteed by an inclusive Muslim state which was enunciated in the Objectives Resolution. Religious minorities in Pakistan are not a conquered minority and therefore the jizya does not apply to them technically. We need to examine how their rights can be guaranteed by an inclusive Muslim state which was enunciated in the Objectives Resolution. Reference Jinnah, Muslims and minorities On 14 August 1947 a distinct shift in Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan from an ostensibly secular to an Islamic was made explicit in his speech to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly by Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed December 14, 2017 https://dailytimes.com.pk/158815/jinnah-muslims-minorities/
Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed's Lecture on Jinnah, Secularism and Pakistan (Part - 2)
There is enough evidence that Jinnah made contradictory promises just because he wanted to maximise Muslim support. To keep harping on one speech of August 11th 1947, while ignoring how in 1940-47 Jinnah relentlessly kept saying that Hindus and Muslims can never be one nation is wrong. I have already quoted Jinnah in previous articles where he had termed Sharia as the primary source of law for Pakistan, and this was after his August 11th speech. Unless we speak the truth, we will not be able to make Pakistan an inclusive Muslim state. There is ample literature to show how the British master-minded the partition of India, Bengal and the Punjab — a partition which caused the deaths of at least one million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. Reference Jinnah’a multifarious pledges To keep harping on one speech of August 11th 1947, while ignoring how in 1940-47 Jinnah relentlessly kept saying that Hindus and Muslims can never be one nation is wrong by Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed DECEMBER 23, 2017 https://dailytimes.com.pk/158815/jinnah-muslims-minorities/
Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed's Lecture on Jinnah, Secularism and Pakistan (Part - 3)
Jinnah has become such a symbol of wisdom in the Pakistani society that people visualize Pakistan with his reference. His vision, his agenda, his dream and his ideals, all.remained unaccomplished because he died soon after the independence. It is commonly believed that had he lived some more years, history of Pakistan would have been different. There are few nations who rely so heavily on one individual. No doubt, Jinnah was a great leader of his people. He was a man of integrity and honesty, but to make him an idol and not allow anybody to emerge out of his shadow is pathetic. Every generation has its own dreams and vision which it wants to accomplish without interference. Not imitation but freedom is required to build a new world. Therefore, attempt should not be made to repeat but to make a new history. People should be liberated from the shadow and allow them to flourish in a free atmosphere. Great leaders should be respected but not worshiped. Reference: Jinnah: Making a myth
by Mubarak Ali (2 October 2000) http://www.sacw.net/aii/MakingJinnah_a_myth.html
Knowing Pakistan- A dialogue with Yasser Latif Hamdani - http://www.theanalystworld.com/knowing-pakistan/ Yasser Latif Hamdani (“YLH”) is a lawyer and an author based in Lahore, Pakistan. He is a regular columnist for Daily Times and is also the author of the upcoming book “Jinnah; Myth and Reality”. He co-edits pakteahouse.net, a leading blogzine in Pakistan and also blogs about legal issues on YLH & Co, Advocates and Solicitors http://globallegalforum.blogspot.com/
Jingoism: Jingoism is extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy.[1] In practice, it is a country's advocation of the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests. Colloquially, it refers to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism. The term originated in Britain, expressing a pugnacious attitude towards Russia in the 1870s. "Jingoism" did not enter the American vernacular until near the end of the 19th century. This nationalistic belligerence was intensified by the sinking of the battleship USS Maine in Havana harbour that led to the Spanish-American War of 1898. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism
Fascism: is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek elevation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity. They are united by suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics. Fascism seeks to eradicate perceived foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture. Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views. Fascists have commonly opposed having a firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum, considering it inadequate to describe their beliefs, though fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior is identified as a prominent far-right theme. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Artists, Intellectuals, Scholars, Authors are universal, they have no boundaries, they are watched, read, quoted, and consulted respectively without any passport and immigration but Talat Hussain (a property of Hameed Haroon and Amber Saigol and Dawn News) think otherwise recently when Giant Pakistani Artist Mehdi Hasan passed away people of India expressed deep sorrow and grief without bothering about Partition, his nationality, colour, religion, passport, or any other divide and duly honoured Great Mehdi Hasan with Respect and Good words, Talat Hussain, Hameed Haroon and Amber Saigol's Alleged Honour was sleeping somewhere when Indians were praising Mehdi Hasan but suddenly "The Sick Patriotism" comes alive in Talat Hussain, Hameed Haroon, Amber Saigol and Dawn News when Pakistanis reciprocated the same honour to a recently departed Indian Artist Rajesh Khanna. Talat Hussain and Dawn News vomited venom in an already venomous atmosphere without bothering about the fact that Mehdi Hasan was born on that side of Border which is now India (in Rajasthan) and Rajesh Khanna had his roots in Burewala, Punjab, Pakistan A K Hangal born in Sialkot (Punjab) and now both sides are two different countries courtesy alleged Founding Fathers and Alleged Freedom Fighters of now Both sides. By the way A K Hangal lived early part of his life in Sialkot, Peshawar, and Karachi. Now Talat Hussain and no good Hameed Haroon and Dawn News should start Tabbarra on Sialkot, Peshawar, and Karachi. Tribute to Rajesh Khanna (1942 to 2012) Part - 1 http://amughal.blogspot.com/2012/08/tribute-to-rajesh-khanna-1942-to-2012.html Tribute to Rajesh Khanna (1942 to 2012) Part - 2 http://amughal.blogspot.com/2012/08/tribute-to-rajesh-khanna-1942-to-2012_15.html Tribute to Ghazal Maestro Mehdi Hasan by Alauddin Khanzada & Asif Noorani. http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/12/tribute-to-ghazal-maestro-mehdi-hasan.html Tribute to Ghazal Maestro Mehdi Hasan by Alauddin Khanzada & Asif Noorani http://amughal.blogspot.com/2010/12/tribute-to-ghazal-maestro-mehdi-hasan.html
A K Hangal with Comrade Sobho Gianchandani Honouring Sajjad Zaheer: NEW DELHI: India’s distinguished movie actor and communist ideologue A.K. Hangal died in a Mumbai hospital on Sunday following a brief illness, Press Trust of India said. It said his son Vijay Hangal, a retired still cameraman in Bollywood, appealed for help after failing to meet Hangal’s medical expenses. Several Bollywood celebrities like the Bachchans, producer-director Vipul Shah, and actors Mithun Chakraborty, Aamir Khan and Salman Khan came forward to help him. The 95-year-old character actor and veteran of the fabled progressive cultural troupe, the Indian Peoples’ Theatre Association (IPTA), passed away at 9am at the Asha Parekh Hospital in suburban Santacruz in Mumbai, where he was admitted on Aug 16 after fracturing his thigh bone. Best known for his one-liner from blockbuster Sholay — Itna sannaata kyun hai bhai (why so much silence is there), Hangal entered Bombay cinema when he was in his 40s and went on to act in over 200 films. He endeared himself to the audience by playing the role of the lovable old man in films like Sholay, Shaukeen and Namak Haram, “This is really a sad thing…now I am left all alone. I have no words to describe his loss,” Vijay Hangal told PTI. “He was a strong man…he has been a great support to me,” he said. Avtaar Veenit Kishan Hangal was born in a Kashmiri Pandit family in Sialkot and came to the city of dreams — then known as Bombay — at the age of 21. PT said he made an impressive mark as the old man who gets up and joins the troupe in the song Ghanan Ghanan, where he sang one line Kale Megha Kale Megha Pani To Barsao in Aamir Khan-starrer Lagaan. The actor was honoured with the Padma Bhushan for his contribution to Hindi cinema in 2006, was in the news last year for living a life in penury. Recently, he returned to face the studio lights after several years for TV series Madhubala, PTI said. REFERENCE: Legendary Indian actor Hangal dies in penury http://dawn.com/2012/08/27/legendary-indian-actor-hangal-dies-in-penury/ Veteran Indian actor A.K. Hangal dies at 95 http://dawn.com/2012/08/26/veteran-indian-actor-a-k-hangal-dies-at-95/
AK Hangal dies at 97, bigwigs skip funeral : Not a single big name from the film industry turned up for the cremation of veteran character actor A K Hangal on Sunday. The 97-year-old, a veteran of over 225 films, passed away early in the morning at Asha Parekh hospital in Vile Parle following a brief illness aggravated by a fracture of his thigh bone. Only character actors like Rakesh Bedi and Raza Murad and friends like Ila Arun were present for the last rites. But that didn't really matter to a man who had dedicated his life to theatre, cinema and social issues. Some theatre enthusiasts posted comments on social networking sites. One of these said that another acting academy had shut down. Hangal was one of the most endearing old men of the film industry with roles in Sholay, Namak Haram and Shaukeen. His one-liner from Sholay, 'Itna sannata kyon hain bhai', achieved cult status.
Sholay's Rahim Chacha had to depend on Bollywood for aid to fight illness. But the actor, who swore by leftist philosophy, believed that the state needs to accept the responsibilities of senior citizens. His son Vijay said, "My father was highly spirited and fought till the end. He survived even after life support was taken off." He added, "He even shot a small scene for the TV serial Madhubala despite his poor health. The moment the camera was switched on, his energy came back.'' Fashion designer Riyaz Gangji, who would visit the actor almost every day, said, "When I asked him if he wanted life support back, he said no.'' Hangal had walked the ramp for the designer last year. Murad said, "The actors would've come if a political party summoned them. But they didn't have an hour to spare to pay their last respects to the man who gave 50 years to the industry and worked with all top stars.'' Hangal started his film career rather late. The actor, who participated in the freedom movement, started off as a tailor. He got associated with actors like Balraj Sahni, Sardar Jafri and Kaifi Azmi, who persuaded him to act. He entered the film industry at the age of 50 with Basu Bhattacharya's Teesri Kasam.
Though new to the industry, he was not afraid to express his anger over Raj Kapoor walking onto the set late. Hangal was very vocal about his political views. He had faced a ban on his film career after the Shiv Sena objected to his attending a function organized by the Pakistan consulate in Mumbai in the 1990s. A Communist Party of India member, Hangal continued to renew his membership every year. Hangal acted in over 225 films in his film career spanning over four decades. He played the roles of a father, uncle or housekeeper to many a big star, including Jaya Bachchan, Sanjeev Kumar, Rajesh Khanna and Amitabh Bachchan. He had cut down on acting for 10 years, but did small roles in Aamir Khan's Lagaan and Shah Rukh Khan's Paheli. The actor's financial condition became an issue with his health falling and his son Vijay having to stop work to look after his father. After reports about Hangal's poor financial condition, the information and broadcasting ministry announced a plan for health insurance of retired actors which has not yet materialized. Vijay said, "The industry's aid did help us pull through all his medical needs. Though film industry bigwigs were not there, his friends from IPTA and character actors attended the cremation. We are planning a condolence meeting at Prithvi Theatre at 4pm on Monday.'' AK Hangal dies at 97, bigwigs skip funeral TNN | Aug 27, 2012, 05.53AM IST http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/AK-Hangal-dies-at-97-bigwigs-skip-funeral/articleshow/15795100.cms
AK Hangal: Bal Thackeray once called him a traitor Hangal was drawn to Indian People's Theatre Association (IPTA) in India. He started working with Balraj Sahni and Kaifi Azmi in IPTA. In his late 40s, Hangal was offered the part of Raj Kapoor's brother in 1966 film "Teesri Kasam" by director Basu Bhattacharya but his scenes were removed from the film. There was no looking back for him after that. He starred in over 200 films. His mostly played roles of father, uncle, grandfather or that of a meek and harassed old man, an image he could never get rid off. The veteran actor suffered a political backlash in 1993 when he applied for visa to visit his birthplace in Pakistan. He was invited and attended the Pakistan day celebrations by the consulate in Mumbai thereby incurring the wrath of the Shiv Sena. Shiv Sena Supremo Bal Thackeray took offence and called him a traitor. A call to boycott his films was made, his effigies were burnt and his scenes were deleted from films. He bounced back after two years with character roles in Amitabh Bachchan's home production "Tere Mere Sapne" and Aamir Khan's "Lagaan". He last shot for Shah Rukh Khan starrer "Paheli" in 2005.
He was awarded Padma Bhushan for his contribution to Hindi cinema in 2006.
The actor was in news last year for living a life in penury. His son Vijay, a retired still cameraman in Bollywood, appealed for help after failing to meet Hangal's medical expenses. Several Bollywood celebrities like the Bachchans, producer-director Vipul Shah, and actors Mithun Chakraborty, Aamir Khan and Salman Khan came forward to help him. He returned to face the studio lights again recently after a gap of seven years for TV show 'Madhubala'. Having reached the sets on wheelchair, Hangal was not sure if he would be able to handle it physically. But he came in his elements once the cameras started rolling. He has a 74-year-old son Vijay with late wife Manorama. REFERENCE: AK Hangal: Bal Thackeray once called him a traitor PTI Aug 26, 2012, 11.05AM IST http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-26/news-interviews/33402013_1_bal-thackeray-tv-show-madhubala-mithun-chakraborty
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/
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
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
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
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
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.
Salman Rashid is Pakistan’s most widely travelled travel writer with few places in the country that do not carry his footprint. Acclaimed as ‘the most erudite travel writer of the country’, he is the author of eight books that include anthologies of his newspaper articles. This book is the outcome of nearly a quarter century of the Deosai romance over several visits to the plateau. During the chaos of partition in 1947, something dreadful happened in the city of Jalandhar in Punjab. As a result of this, Salman Rashid's family fled Jalandhar for Pakistan, the newly created country across the border. They were among the nearly two million people uprooted from their homes in the greatest transmigration in history. Besides those who fled, other members of the family became part of a grimmer statistic: They featured among the more than one million unfortunate souls who paid with their lives for the division of India and creation of Pakistan. After living in the shadow of his family’s tragedy for decades, in 2008, Rashid made the journey back to his ancestral village to uncover the truth. A time of madness tells the story of what he discovered with great poignancy and grace. It is a tale of unspeakable brutality but it is also a testament to the uniquely human traits of forgiveness, redemption and the resilience of the human spirit. References: A Time of Madness: A Memoir of Partition 13 Dec 2017 https://www.amazon.in/Salman-Rashid/e/B001JWT62G/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1 A TIME OF MADNESS: A MEMOIR OF PARTITION BY : SALMAN RASHID http://www.libertybooks.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=44018
