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)
As I looked at him I thought of Train to Pakistan and tried to imagine the murderous frenzy that overtook Punjab following Partition as Sikhs and Hindus massacred Muslims and Muslims massacred Sikhs and Hindus and a huge transfer of population took place to and from the Indian and Pakistani parts of the Punjab as the land of the five rivers got bloodily divided. I was looking at him and thinking how it would have been for him to witness that genocide of Punjabis by Punjabis and how aptly he described it in Train to Pakistan. As if he had sensed my thoughts he said to me, “Do you know the Sikhs are now rebuilding mosques destroyed during the violence of Partition? In one village of the Indian Punjab the local Sikhs have rebuilt a demolished mosque, handed it over to the Muslims and now Sikhs stand guard outside the mosque as Muslims pray inside. Do get hold of this week’s Outlook and read the wonderful article by Chander Suta Dogra.” I got it the same evening. It turned out that “around 200 mosques across Punjab have been repaired, rebuilt or built from scratch with the help of Sikhs and Hindus in the last 10 years… In the months after Partition, some 50,000 mosques across present day Punjab, Haryana and Himachel Pardesh were destroyed, burnt or converted into temples, gurdwaras, homes, even. Today, Muslims just comprise 1.5 per cent of Punjab’s population, mostly migrant labour from UP and Bihar… in addition to small pockets of Muslims, such as those belonging to Malerkotla, who did not go to Pakistan in 1947”. The article further informs the reader that the Malerkotla chapter of the Jamaat-e-Islami (Hind) has also been rebuilding mosques through the active help and co-operation of local Hindus and Sikh landlords. I told Khushwant Singh about the large Gurdwara in Sargodha that is now called the Ambala Muslim High School. Sargodha was the district headquarters of the district Shahpur of which Khushab was a tehsil. In 1947 the population of Sargodha city was 36,000 with only 6,000 Muslims and a very large Sikh presence. All Hindus and Sikhs went to India as post-Partition violence erupted and the city was taken over by Muslim refugees from the east Punjab city of Ambala. The large Sikh Gurdwara located in the city centre was converted to a school for boys. There was an exceedingly deep and sad look on his face as he thought of the horrors he had witnessed. REFERENCE: Pakistan’s best friend By Asim Awan Published: August 3, 2010 http://tribune.com.pk/story/32403/pakistans-best-friend/
The special train left Amritsar at two in the afternoon and reached Mughalpura eight hours later. Many of the passengers were killed on the way, many were injured and a few were missing. When Sirajuddin opened his eyes the next morning, he found himself lying on the cold ground of a refugee camp. There was a seething crowd of men, women and children all around him. Bewildered by it all, he lay staring at the dusty sky for a long time. There was a lot of noise in the camp, but old Sirajuddin was deaf to it. He didn’t hear anything. Anyone who saw him, would have assumed that he was in deep and agonised thought about something. His mind, however, was blank. Sirajuddin lay gazing absent-mindedly at the dusty sky, till he suddenly caught sight of the sun. The warmth of the sun’s rays penetrated every nerve of his body. He woke up with a start. A nightmarish vision rose before his eyes – flames, loot… people running… a station… firing… darkness and Sakina. Overcome by fear and anxiety, he began searching for Sakina in the crowd like a demented person. For three long hours he called out “Sakina… Sakina.” He looked for her in every corner of the camp, but found no trace of his young and only daughter. There was an uproar all around – some of the refugees were searching for their children, others for their mothers; some for their wives and others for their daughters.
Dejected and tired, Sirajuddin sat down, and tried to recall exactly where and how he had lost Sakina. Suddenly, the nightmarish vision of his wife’s body flashed before his eyes – he saw her lying on the ground with her entrails hanging out. After that his mind went blank. Sakina’s mother was dead. She had been killed before his very eyes – but where was Sakina? Before closing her eyes for ever, Sakina’s mother had urged him, “Don’t worry about me – run, take Sakina away at once…” Sakina was with him – both of them had run barefoot. Sakina’s dupatta had slipped to the ground. She had screamed at him when he had tried to pick it up, “Let it be, Abba!” But he had picked it up. As soon as he remembered that, he put his hand in his coat pocket and pulled it out. He still had Sakina’s dupatta… but where was Sakina? Sirajuddin tried to think, but he couldn’t. Had Sakina managed to reach the station with him? Had she boarded the train with him? Had he fainted when the rioters had attacked the train? Had they abducted her? He could find no answers to any of his questions. Sirajuddin needed help and sympathy, but then everyone around him needed help and sympathy. He wanted to cry, but he could shed no tears. He had lost the capacity to moan. A few days later, Sirajuddin pulled himself together and talked to some people who were willing to help him. They were eight young men who owned a truck and were armed with guns.
He showered them with his blessings, and described what Sakina looked like. “She is fair and very beautiful – takes after her mother, not me – She has large eyes, black hair and a big mole on her right cheek. She is my only daughter. If you bring her back, God will bless you.” Those self-appointed social workers reassured Sirajuddin, with a great deal of confidence and sincerity, that if his daughter was alive they would find her and bring her back in a few days. The young men tried their best to find her. At the risk of their lives, they went to Amritsar. They managed to rescue many men, women and children and helped them locate their families. But even after ten days of searching, they couldn’t find Sakina. One day, as they were returning to Amritsar to help a few more refugees, they saw a girl standing by the roadside. The moment she heard the truck, she began to run. The social workers stopped the truck and ran after her. They caught her in a field – she was beautiful and had a large mole on her right cheek. One of the young men said to her, “Don’t be frightened. Is your name Sakina?” Her face became even paler. She didn’t reply. The other young men reassured her, only then did she admit that she was indeed Sirajuddin’s daughter The eight young men were very kind to Sakina. They fed her, offered her milk, helped her into the truck – she didn’t have a dupatta and felt rather awkward. She tried to cover her breasts again and again with her hands. Many days passed – Sirajuddin received no news about Sakina.
Each morning, he visited different camps and offices looking for Sakina. He failed to get any information about her. Each night, he prayed for the success of those young social workers, who had promised him that if his daughter was alive, they would bring her back to him in a few days. One day, he saw the social workers in the camp. They were sitting in their truck. The truck was about to leave. He ran up to them and asked one of them, “Son… Have you found my Sakina?” “We’ll find her, we’ll find her,” they said simultaneously, and drove off. Sirajuddin again prayed for the success of the young men, and felt a little relieved. That evening there was some commotion in the camp very near the place where Sirajuddin was sitting. Four people, walked past him, carrying someone. When he inquired, he learnt that they had found a girl lying unconscious near the railway tracks and had brought her to the camp. He followed them. They handed the girl over to the hospital. Sirajuddin stood leaning against a pole outside the hospital for sometime. Then he slowly walked into the hospital. There was no one in the room. Only the body of a girl lay on the stretcher. He walked up closer to the girl. Someone suddenly switched on the lights. He saw a big mole on the girl’s face and screamed, “Sakina!” A The doctor, who had switched on the lights, asked, “What’s the matter?” He could barely whisper, “I am… I am her father.” The doctor turned towards the girl and took her pulse. Then he said, “Open the window.” The girl on the stretcher stirred a little. She moved her hand painfully towards the cord holding up her salwar. Slowly, she pulled her salwar down. Her old father shouted with joy, “She is alive. My daughter is alive.” The doctor broke into a cold sweat. REFERENCE: KHOL DO BY Late. Saadat Hasan Manto http://zjeddy.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/thanda-gosht-by-saadat-hasan-manto/ (Translated by Alok Bhalla)
India & Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation 2 of 6
Soon as Eesher Singh entered the room, Kalwant Kaur got up from the bed, stared at him with her sharp eyes and locked the door. It was past midnight and a strange and mysterious quietness seemed to have gripped the entire city. Kalwant Kaur sat on the bed yoga-style and Eesher Singh, who was probably unraveling his thoughts, stood there with a dagger in his hand. A few moments passed in complete silence. Annoyed with the silence, Kalwant Kaur moved to the edge of the bed and started dangling her legs. Eesher Singh still didn’t say anything. Kalwant Kaur was a well-built woman with wide hips, large and juggling upright breasts, sharp eyes and voluptuous grayish lips. The structure of her chin signified a strong woman. His tight headgear loosened, Eesher Singh stood quietly in the corner. His hand that held the dagger was trembling. From his built one could tell that he was a perfect man for a woman like Kalwant Kaur. Kalwant Kaur finally broke the silence, but the only words she could utter were “Eesher darling.” Eesher Singh looked at Kalwant Kaur but unable to bear the heat of her piercing eyes, looked the other way. “Eesher darling,” Kalwant Kaur shrieked but immediately controlled her tone, “where were you all these days?” “I don’t know.” Eesher Singh moved his tongue over his dry lips. “What kind of answer is that?” asked Kalwant Kaur angrily. Eesher Singh dropped his dagger on the floor and lied in bed. It seemed as if he had been ill for many days. Kalwant Kaur looked at the bed that was now filled with Eesher Singh and felt sorry for him. “What’s the matter with you, darling?” Covering Eesher Singh’s forehead with her palm Kalwant Kaur asked lovingly. Eesher Singh, who was staring at the ceiling, looked at Kalwant Kaur and gently stroked her familiar face. “Kalwant.”
His voice had deep pain. Kalwant Kaur hugged him hard and, biting on his lips, said, “Yes darling?” Eesher Singh took his headgear off, looked at Kalwant Kaur as if he were looking for support, spanked her wide hip, shook his head and mumbled to himself, “this girl is crazy.” His long hair fell open when he shook his head. Kalwant Kaur ran her fingers through his hair and asked affectionately, “Eesher darling, where were you all these days?” “Grandma’s house,” said Eesher Singh squeezing her breasts. “I swear to Waheguru, you are a real woman.” Charmingly hitting his hand to move it away, Kalwant Kaur said, “You swear on me and tell me where you were. Went to town?” “No,” said Eesher Singh folding his hair and making a knot. “You went to town, looted a lot of money and now are not telling me.” Kalwant Kaur was very annoyed with him. “I’m not son of my father if I tell you a lie.” Kalwant Kaur was quiet for a minute, then she suddenly started yelling, “But I don’t understand what happened to you that night. You were fine lying with me and had me wear all that jewelry you had looted the other day. You were kissing me all over then I don’t know what came over you that you suddenly got up, got dressed, and left.” Eesher Singh turned pale. Kalwant Kaur immediately noticed it. “See! Eesher darling, I swear to Waheguru, I smell a rat.”
“I swear there’s nothing wrong.” There was no life in Eesher Singh’s voice. Kalwant Kaur was now even more suspicious. Holding her lips tight and emphasizing each word, she said, “What’s the matter with you, Eesher darling? You are not the same person you were eight days ago.” Eesher Singh got up quickly as if someone had assaulted him. He held Kalwant Kaur in his strong arms and ran his hands all over her body. “Darling, it’s the same old me. I’m gonna hug you so hard that heat will be coming out of your bones.” Kalwant Kaur did not resist but kept complaining. “What happened to you that night?” “Grandma’s fever!” “You aren’t gonna tell me?” “There’s nothing to tell.” “Burn me with your hands if you lie.” Eesher Singh put his arms around her neck and pressed his lips hard against hers. His mustache hair got into her nostrils, she sneezed, and both started laughing. Eesher Singh took his jacket off, looked at Kalwant Kaur amorously, and said, “Lets play cards.” Kalwant Kaur’s lips moistened, she rolled her eyes charmingly and said, “Get lost!” Eesher Singh pinched her buttock. Kalwant Kaur moved away painfully, “Don’t do that Eesher darling, it hurts.” Eesher Singh sucked on her lips and bit on it. Kalwant Kaur melted like hot wax. He threw his shirt off. “So lets deal the cards.” Kalwant Kaur’s lips quivered. Eesher Singh peeled her clothes off as skin off a goat. He stared her at naked body, pinched her arm, and said, “I swear to Waheguru, you’re some woman!” Kalwant Kaur glanced at the red mark on her arm left by his pinch. “You’re so cruel, Eesher darling.” Eesher Singh smiled underneath his thick black mustache, “Let the cruelty begin.” He began his cruelty by kissing her lips and biting on her ear lobes. He squeezed her breasts, spanked her buttocks red, kissed her cheeks, and sucked her nipples wet. Kalwant Kaur started to boil like a hot pot on a blazing stove. But in spite of all that foreplay Eesher Singh could not get it up. Like a skilled wrestler, he used all the tricks in the book but none worked. Kalwant Kaur, who was brimming with sexual intensity, was getting irritated with his unnecessary moves. “Eesher darling, that’s enough. Just throw the trump card.” She moaned.
As if Eesher Singh’s entire deck of cards fell hearing that. He loosened his grip and fell next to Kalwant Kaur panting. His forehead was sweating bullets. Kalwant Kaur tried very hard to get it up for him but to no avail. Disappointed and infuriated, Kalwant Kaur got off the bed, picked the chador hanging on the nail on the wall and wrapped herself. Her nostrils expanded, she said furiously, “Eesher darling, who’s that bitch you’ve spent all these days with who has sucked you dry.” Eesher Singh kept lying in bed panting without saying a word. Kalwant Kaur was steaming. “I asked who’s that whore?” “No one, Kalwant, no one.” Eesher Singh sounded very tired. Kalwant Kaur put her hands on her wide hips and said with utter determination, “Eesher darling, I must know the truth, I swear to Waheguru. Is there another woman?” Eesher Singh tried to say something but Kalwant Kaur cut him off. “Before you swear, you should know that I’m the daughter of Nihal Singh. I’ll cut you to pieces if you lied. Now, swear to Waheguru. Is there another woman?” Eesher Singh shook his head sadly but affirmatively. Kalwant Kaur went berserk. She picked up the dagger from the floor, removed its cover like a banana-peel, and stabbed Eesher Singh in the neck. Blood gushed forth from Eesher Singh’s neck. In a frenzy, Kalwant Kaur kept stabbing him and cursing the other woman. “Let go, Kalwant, let go,” Eesher Singh said with his voice weakening. He had deep sadness in his voice. Kalwant Kaur pulled back. Blood was jetting to Eesher Singh’s mustache. He looked at Kalwant Kaur with the mixed feeling of gratitude and protest. “My darling, you acted too quickly. But it’s for the better.” Kalwant Kaur’s intense jealousy raised its head again, “Who’s she? Your mother?” Blood was now reaching Eesher Singh’s mouth. He tasted it and his whole body shivered. “And I…and I…killed six people with this same dagger.” “I asked who’s that bitch?” There was no other thought on Kalwant Kaur’s mind. Eesher Singh’s listless eyes sparkled for a brief moment, “Please don’t curse her.” “Who’s that bitch?” yelled Kalwant Kaur. “I’ll tell you.” Eesher Singh’s voice was breaking down. He touched his neck, felt the blood and smiled. “Man is so weird.” “Get to the point.” Furious Kalwant Kaur was waiting for an answer. Eesher Singh smiled again underneath his blood-filled mustache. “I’m getting to the point. You’ve slit my throat.
I’ve to tell it very slowly.” Cold sweat ran down his forehead as he began to recount. “Kalwant, my life, I cannot begin to tell you what happened to me. When the riot broke out in the city, like everyone else I also participated. I gave you the loot but did not tell you one thing.” Eesher Singh groaned with pain. Kalwant Kaur had no feelings for him and paid no attention to his suffering. “What was it?” Blowing on the blood-cot forming on his mustache, Eesher Singh said, “The house I attacked had seven people in it. I killed six of them, with the same dagger you stabbed me with. There was a beautiful girl in the house. I took her with me.” Kalwant Kaur was listening intently. Eesher Singh once more tried to blow the blood off his mustache. “Kalwant darling, I cannot tell you what a beautiful girl she was. I would’ve killed her too. But I said to myself, no, Eesher Singh, you enjoy Kalwant Kaur every day. Taste a different fruit.” “Oh” was the only word out of Kalwant Kaur’s mouth. “I put her on my shoulder and got out. On the way…what was I saying…oh, yes…on the way, near the river, I lay her down by the bushes. First I thought deal the cards. But then I decided not to…” Eesher Singh throat was completely dry. “Then what happened?” gulped Kalwant Kaur. “I threw the trump card…but…but…,” Eesher Singh’s voice was now a mere whisper. “Then what happened?” Kalwant Kaur shook him. Eesher Singh opened his tired and sleepy eyes and looked at Kalwant Kaur whose whole body was trembling. “She was dead, Kalwant, it was a dead body…a cold flesh…please hold my hand.” Kalwant Kaur put her hand over his. His hand was colder than ice. REFERENCE: THANDA GOSHT By Saadat Hasan Manto Translated from Urdu http://zjeddy.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/thanda-gosht-by-saadat-hasan-manto/
India & Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation 3 of 6
KASAULI, India — Just days before the official birth of independent India and Pakistan in August 1947, Khushwant Singh, a lawyer then practicing in the High Court in Lahore, drove alone across what would soon become a bloody frontier and arrived here at his family’s summer cottage in the foothills of the Himalayas. From here, along nearly 200 miles of eerily vacant road, he would drive on to Delhi and, on its outskirts, encounter a jeep full of armed Sikhs, who would boast of having slain a village full of Muslims. In the face of such ghastly swagger, Mr. Singh, also a Sikh, would realize that he would never return home to Lahore, for what he had just heard was a chilling echo of what he had heard on the other side of the soon-to-be border, except that there Sikhs and Hindus were the victims. That solitary drive would also give shape to “Train to Pakistan,” Mr. Singh’s slim, seminal 1956 novel whose opening paragraphs contain one of its most unsettling lines: “The fact is, both sides killed.” An estimated one million people were killed during the partition, and more than 10 million fled their homes: Hindus and Sikhs pouring into India, Muslims heading in the other direction, to Pakistan. The novel tells the story of an uneventful border village that gets swept up in that violent storm. Now, in a new edition of the novel, Roli Books in New Delhi has paired his story with 66 unflinching black-and-white photographs of the Partition era, some never before published, by the American photojournalist Margaret Bourke-White. This new incarnation of “Train to Pakistan,” which Roli hopes to find international distributors for at the Frankfurt Book Fair next month, has given the book what its author happily calls “a new lease on life.” It has also given Mr. Singh, who at 91 has borne witness to several rounds of carnage in his country, an occasion once again to warn against forgetfulness.
“The wounds of partition have healed,” he likes to say as often as he can. “The poison is still in our system.” Bourke-White, known equally well in India and Pakistan for her portraits of Gandhi at his spinning wheel and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s founder, sitting straight-backed in a chair, was among the most effective chroniclers of those wounds. The photographs reproduced in the book are gut-wrenching, and staring at them, you glimpse the photographer’s undaunted desire to stare down horror. There is a street littered with corpses, an audience of vultures looking down from a roof. There is a dead man in a hand cart, his open eyes staring through the spokes of the wheel. There is an old man, only skin and bones, leaning on his pile of bedding, vacantly staring at the sky. Two years before Bourke-White shot these pictures, she photographed the liberation of the Nazi concentration camp at Buchenwald. She was the first woman the United States Army accredited as a war correspondent during World War II. The photographs were displayed recently at the posh shopping center Khan Market, near Mr. Singh’s home in Delhi; Khan Market was once known as a “resettlement” hub, where refugee traders from Pakistan were offered storefronts. The only thing more astonishing than the images blown up large as life was the number of shoppers who seemed not to register them, marching on instead to inspect the latest running shoes or stem crystal. There was at least one passionate response. Pramod Kapoor, the publisher of Roli, recalled a sweeper at the market telling him that he felt like tearing up the pictures. Today there is not a single memorial to the partition in India, Mr. Kapoor points out, let alone a museum. It is only remembered, or forgotten, by the people who lived it.
Mr. Singh, whose father constructed much of Delhi, a city reinvented by the flow of partition refugees, is among the last survivors of the era. For his generation he is unusual for wanting to speak of that horror, again and again. He reminds in words what Bourke-White’s photographs seem to scream on the page. “People should know this thing happened,” Mr. Singh insists. “It did happen. It can happen again.” India has been reminded of the bloodshed of partition many times over its 59 years of independence by further episodes of violence, and Mr. Singh has chronicled them all. In 1984 there was the massacre of Sikhs, in Delhi and elsewhere, after the assassination of the prime minister, Indira Gandhi, by two Sikh bodyguards apparently avenging an attack by the Indian Army on the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the Sikhs’ holiest shrine. In 1992 a mob of Hindu radicals tore down a 400-year-old mosque in the north Indian town of Ayodhya with its bare hands, sparking Hindu-Muslim clashes across India. In 2002 a fire consumed 50 Hindu pilgrims on a train in western Gujarat state — whether it was an accident or arson remains in dispute — fueling a burst of killings and rapes against Muslims. Even in recent months homemade bombs have been planted inside houses of worship, both Hindu and Muslim. The police say they are designed to spark Hindu-Muslim violence; they have not, or not yet.
“You kill my dog, I kill your cat” is how Mr. Singh described India’s history of tit-for-tat violence. “It’s a childish and bloody game, and it can’t go on.” Mr. Singh says he is not a believer, though he has a weakness for religious music, and his claws are sharpest with those who inject religion into politics: from Islamist religious radicals in next-door Pakistan to the Hindu-nationalist leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party, who led India’s coalition government until they were ousted in elections two years ago and continue to serve as the principal opposition party. (They are not his fans either.) “That’s what bothers me about India the most, the resurgence of fundamentalism,” he said on a recent morning in the shade of his porch here in Kasauli. He blames the carnage on a competition for precious resources. “Any excuse to get rid of your neighbor who doesn’t share your faith is a good enough excuse,” he grumbled. Perched on a hill, with a view of snow and cloud, the house in Kasauli, a former British cantonment town, shows off Mr. Singh’s affinities. His study contains a framed photograph of Gandhi. Next to a large statue of the Buddha in the living room is a pile of empty whiskey bottles.
Mr. Singh’s critics point out an important omission in his record of outspokenness. In 1975, when Mrs. Gandhi imposed emergency rule, drawing the country into one of the most repressive periods in its history, Mr. Singh endorsed the move. He now says he did so because of the chaos that preceded the emergency, and because he thought it would be short-lived. It was not. It went on for two years and ultimately resulted in voters’ ousting Mrs. Gandhi in the next elections. Mr. Singh is a servant to routine, and he is anything but idle. He says he rises by 4 every morning, reads and writes after breakfast, rests in the afternoon and receives visitors in the evening at home in Delhi, at exactly the same hour (7 p.m.) and for exactly one hour, during which he drinks two pegs of whiskey. Mr. Singh goes through an average of five crossword puzzles daily. He writes two newspaper columns a week. He is at work on a book, a collection of his favorite verses and quotes in the five languages he knows: English, Hindi, Persian, Punjabi and Urdu. One of the verses he likes to quote is from an Urdu poem, and it reveals the old man’s sardonic wit. “The truth is good, but if somebody else dies for the truth, it is better.” REFERENCE: Author Bears Steady Witness to Partition’s Wounds By SOMINI SENGUPTA Published: September 21, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/books/21sing.html?pagewanted=all
India & Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation 4 of 6
In Sind the Sikh population was not large, though the Hindus formed about 30% of-the population of the province. Out of the total non-Muslim population of 14 Lakhs, now1 only about 2 lakhs are left in Sind, the rest having come to India as refugees. The turning out of non-Muslims from Sind is very amply illustrative of the naked policy of turning out of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan, for no other reason whatever except that they were not Muslims. There was a policy of systematic terrorization of Hindus. Their business premises were looted, their womenfolk molested, and the avenues of normal respectable life entirely closed to them. Thus, through terror and intimidation, within the period of less than a year twelve lakhs out of the fourteen lakhs of Hindus in Sind have been forced to migrate to India. This has happened in spite of the fact that in the words of Shri Mansukhani, Secretary, Sind Congress Refugee Relief Committee, New Delhi, “not one single Muslim lost his life at the hands of Hindus in any act of retaliation or self-defence, not to talk of any act of aggression; but where from the first day of the birth of Pakistan, Hindus have been systematically done to death, by the knife, by the bullet. by the throwing out of the windows and doors of running trains. The object has been one and the goal clear. Pakistan has desired that it should be a theocratic state in the sense that all its citizens should be Muslims. This battle has been remorselessly waged on one long front of Western Pakistan.”
Hindus’ houses were forcibly occupied, in Karachi and everywhere else, their property and land snatched from them, and no option left for them but to, seek a safer life free from unbearable indignities, in India.
Other portions from Shri Mansukhani’s article, quoted above. are: -
“Soon after August 15, 1947, was organised the ousting of Hindus and Sikhs from their residences and business premises, from their agricultural lands and industrial concerns.
“No Hindu’s house was his castle, he had to retreat at the point of the dagger and run away from the back-door. The Police of the Province and the War-time established Rent Control Department helped ‘legally’ to throw out the members of the minority community.
Traces of Hinduism Erased
“It is not an uncommon phenomenon for prominent Hindus who are sticking on to the soil of Sind to be accosted while going about even on the main streets by Muslims and threateningly asked to either embrace Islam or go out of Pakistan.
“Hindu passengers can travel by railway only for short journeys and during day time and that too at great risk of their lives.
Our Shrines
“Our Gurmandir in Karachi became lately the residence of Sydney Cotton, the smuggler of arms to Nizam’s Hyderabad of yesterday. Most of our religious places, shrines, temples and Gurdwaras have been occupied by Muslims. The scriptures have been destroyed and the valuables have been pilfered and safely appropriated. Some of these places have also been turned into mosques where the Faithful congregate and read their Friday prayers to Allah. All educational institutions are similarly occupied and converted into the Schools and Colleges for Muslims.” (“The Tribune”-January 16, 1949)
As for the Sikhs, their elimination and extermination began at about the same time as in West Punjab. By August all Sikhs in large towns had left Sind, and came over to the Punjab. It was not infrequent for trains carrying these Sikh refugees to be attacked on the way. On the 2nd of August, Sikhs were attacked in several villages in Nawabshah District. On the 1st September, 1947 one train was stopped at Nawabshah, and the Sikh passengers attacked. Of these 15 were killed, and 17 injured. The only Sikhs in Sind after August, were those in the interior-small tradesmen, pedlars and craftsmen. These began to be evacuated. Their condition was described in news agency reports as being extremely miserable and pitiable, as they could not ply any trade, and were in the last stage of destitution. So much were the Muslims indoctrinated with the gospel of hate preached over years by the Muslim League, that on the 6th January, 1948, long after killing had stopped in East Punjab, a terrible massacre of evacuee Sikhs, awaiting embarkation for India occurred at Karachi. That this was no isolated incident of its kind in Pakistan is witnessed by the terrible Gujrat massacre of the 11th January, 1948, and the Parachinar massacre of the 23rd January, 1948. These three huge massacres of Sikhs and Hindus occurred in such quick succession at a time when all attacks on the Muslims in Indian territory had ceased three months before. Certain details of this above mentioned Karachi massacre are of interest as revealing the conspiracy, cynicism and heartlessness of the Government of Pakistan, in the matter of getting Sikhs murdered.
As for the details of the massacre, the District Magistrate’s report from Karachi is reproduced below:
“Communal trouble started in Karachi today when 184 Sikhs arrived from Shikarpur by the morning train. From the station they went to a Gurdwara near Ratan Talao. A mob of nearly 8,000 gathered on the arrival of the Sikhs and surrounded the Gurdwara and set fire to it, and started stabbing and killing and a number of persons2 were killed,” In the town of Karachi ‘there was looting in several quarters and there were four cases of arson.”3 There was looting on the next day as well, in the houses of Hindus. The situation was described in ‘an appeal’, issued by the Editors of several Karachi newspapers as ‘appalling’ while admitting that some Muslims gave shelter to ‘the Hindu victims of mob frenzy.’ In the Gurdwara, where the massacre took place, women and children were also killed, as admitted by the Sind Premier in his statement.
The result of the disturbances of January 6 was described in ‘The Civil and Military Gazette’ in these words:
“There was negligible loss of life suffered by the minority community (Hindus) compared to the looting that took place throughout the city…… The lives of members of the minority community (Hindus) were saved at the expense of their property.” About 10,000 Hindus had to be kept in refugee camps, and Hindus had to be evacuated early to India, to save them from being murdered by Muslims. Looting went on uninterruptedly. So bold and open was this loot, that police and employees of the Chief Court of Sind openly participated in it. The Chief Court building was used as a dump for this loot. The Chief justice, an Englishman, his patience exhausted, had at last to intervene and stop the loot from being stacked at least in the Chief Court Building.
This was the limit of the collapse of the law and good government in Pakistan.
Further facts in the situation are:
(1) About 800 Sikhs were killed in Karachi and not 184, as stated in the Pakistan communique.
(2) Not a word of regret was expressed by any responsible person in Pakistan over this tremendous loss of Sikh life. The Sind Premier made only the insulting statement that the sight of these Sikhs ‘provoked’ the Muslims and only added the still more insulting directive that Sikhs be not brought to Karachi ‘in open carriages.’ The Premier’s statement also makes it clear that no police precautions were taken for the protection of these Sikhs, whose lives were evidently so cheap that any one was at liberty to take them without the Pakistan Government moving its little finger.
The Governor-General of Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah, who sent a message of sympathy for the sufferers, did not so much as mention the Sikhs, who had been killed in overwhelming numbers. All that he said was that he had sympathy for the Hindus in their losses. This was symptomatic of the attitude of the Pakistan Government, which did not regard Sikh life as worthy of any kind of protection and as meriting any sympathy. The masses in Pakistan knew very well what their Government thought of any attack made on the Sikhs. Jinnah’s statement was, furthermore an attempt to create a rift between Hindus and Sikhs, which the Muslims have been trying to, by posing to dislike the Hindus less than the Sikhs. All these happenings occurred at a time when in India, Mahatma Gandhi undertook his last fast to get better treatment for the Indian Muslims. That was the response in Pakistan to the Mahatma’s gesture, and the faithfully carrying out of the Mahatma’s instructions by Hindus and Sikhs. Exactly when Delhi was being made safe for Muslims, in Karachi 800 Sikhs were massacred, and all Hindus looted and despoiled, had to move into refugee camps. REFERENCE: SIND http://voi.org/books/mla/ch11.htm#3a
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry remarked that it was a criminal negligence to bring changes in the documents like Objectives Resolution as former president General (retd) Zia ul Haq tampered with the Constitution in 1985 however, the sitting parliament had done a good job by undoing this tampering. At one point Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed that the word ‘freely’ was omitted from the Objectives Resolution in 1985 by a dictator, which was an act of criminal negligence, but the then parliament surprisingly didn’t take notice of it. He said the Constitution is a sacred document and no person can tamper with it. The chief justice said credit must go to the present parliament, which after 25 years took notice of the brazen act of removing the word relating to the minorities’ rights, and restored the word ‘freely’ in the Objectives Resolution, which had always been part of the Constitution. The chief justice further said that the court is protecting the fundamental rights of the minorities and the government after the Gojra incident has provided full protection to the minorities. “We are bound to protect their rights as a nation but there are some individual who create trouble.” - DAILY TIMES - ISLAMABAD: Heading a 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry termed as criminal negligence the deletion of a word about the rights of minorities from the Objectives Resolution during the regime of General Ziaul Haq in 1985. Ziaul Haq had omitted the word “freely” from the Objectives Resolution, which was made substantive part of the 1973 Constitution under the Revival of Constitutional Order No. 14. The clause of Objectives Resolution before deletion of the word ‘freely’ read, “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to ‘freely’ profess and practice their religions and develop their culture.” DAILY DAWN - ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on Tuesday praised the parliament for undoing a wrong done by the legislature in 1985 (through a constitutional amendment) when it removed the word ‘freely’ from a clause of the Objectives Resolution that upheld the minorities’ right to practise their religion. The word “freely” was deleted from the Objectives Resolution when parliament passed the 8th Amendment after indemnifying all orders introduced through the President’s Order No 14 of 1985 and actions, including the July 1977 military takeover by Gen Zia-ul-Haq and extending discretion of dissolving the National Assembly, by invoking Article 58(2)b of the Constitution. After the passage of the 18th Amendment, the Objectives Resolution now reads: “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their culture.” The CJ said: “Credit goes to the sitting parliament that they reinserted the word back to the Objectives Resolution.” He said that nobody realised the blunder right from 1985 till the 18th Amendment was passed, even though the Objectives Resolution was a preamble to the Constitution even at the time when RCO (Revival of Constitution Order) was promulgated. REFERENCES: CJ lauds parliament for correcting historic wrong By Nasir Iqbal Wednesday, 09 Jun, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/ziaera-deletion-from-objectives-resolution-criticised-cj-lauds-parliament-for-correcting-historic-wrong-960 - CJP raps change in Objectives Resolution * Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry says deletion of clause on rights of minorities was ‘criminal negligence’ * Appreciates incumbent parliament for taking notice of removal of clause by Gen Zia’s govt in 1985 By Masood Rehman Wednesday, June 09, 2010 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=201069\story_9-6-2010_pg1_1 CJ lauds parliament for undoing changes in Objectives Resolution Wednesday, June 09, 2010 Says minorities’ rights have to be protected; Hamid says parliament should have no role in judges’ appointment By Sohail Khan http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=29367
"Religion did not mix well with the state. He said talk of ijtihad was meaningless because there was no guarantee that any Muslims would accept it. He said every time someone did ijtihad it gave birth to a new sect. He said the two-nation doctrine was no longer valid in Pakistan. The concept of ummah was equally irrelevant." end quote of Mr Mubarak Ali [PhD (on Mughal Period, India) from Ruhr University, Bochum,Germany] - Religious ‘scholars’ who could not even agree on the definition of a Muslim when they were questioned by Justice M. Munir and Justice M. R. Kayani in the court of inquiry into the Punjab disturbances of 1953. The inquiry was launched after the campaign against the Ahmadis initiated by the then Jamaat-e-Islami chief Maulana Mawdudi.
The Munir Commission Report (Lahore, 1954) states:
“Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulema, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental? If we attempt our own definition, as each learned divine has, and that definition differs from all others, we all leave Islam’s fold. If we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulema, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim, but kafirs according to everyone else’s definition.” The report elaborated on the point by explaining that the Deobandis would label the Barelvis as kafirs if they are empowered and vice versa, and the same would happen among the other sects. The point of the report was that if left to such religious ‘scholars’, the country would become an open battlefield. Therefore, it was suggested that Pakistan remain a democratic, secular state and steer clear of the theological path.
Unfortunately, this suggestion was not heeded and, consequently, the exact opposite happened. Pakistan became hostage to the mullahs and is now paying a heavy price. Our politicians played into the hands of these fanatics for expedient political reasons and overlooked the diminishing returns from such an unwise overture.
The journey of politicising Islam began with the Objectives Resolution. Jinnah envisioned a secular Pakistan, but Liaquat Ali Khan made the mistake of adopting the Objectives Resolution in 1949 that stated, “Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone but He has delegated it to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred trust.” This stipulation gave the mullahs the chance they were looking for, a chance to flash their religious card and put fear in the heart of the ignorant masses. After moving the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, Liaquat Ali Khan said, “As I have just said, the people are the real recipients of power. This naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy.” Although he believed in the power of the people and aimed for a secular, democratic rule, yet by bringing the name of religion into the Objectives Resolution, he gave an edge to the mullahs who later claimed it as their licence to impose the Shariah. And so began the rise of the fanatics.
Ulema did not wait long to demand their share of power in running the new state. Soon after independence, Jamat-i-Islami made the achievement of an Islamic constitution its central goal. Maulana Maududi, after the creation of Pakistan, revised the conception of his mission and that of the rationale of the Pakistan movement, arguing that its sole object had been the establishment of an Islamic state and that his party alone possessed the understanding and commitment needed to bring that about. Jamat-i-Islami soon evolved into a political party, demanding the establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan.
It declared that Pakistan was a Muslim state and not an Islamic state since a Muslim State is any state which is ruled by Muslims while an Islamic State is one which opts to conduct its affairs in accordance with the revealed guidance of Islam and accepts the sovereignty of Allah and the supremacy of His Law, and which devotes its resources to achieve this end. According to this definition, Pakistan was a Muslim state ruled by secular minded Muslims. Hence the Jamat-i-Islami and other religious leaders channeled their efforts to make Pakistan an "Islamic State."
Maulana Maududi argued that from the beginning of the struggle for Pakistan, Moslems had an understanding that the center of their aspirations, Pakistan, would be an Islamic state, in which Islamic law would be enforced and Islamic culture would be revived. Muslim League leaders, in their speeches, were giving this impression. Above all, Quaid-i-Azam himself assured the Muslims that the constitution of Pakistan would be based on the Quran.
This contrasts to his views about the Muslim League leaders before independence: Not a single leader of the Muslim League, from Quad-i-Azam, downwards, has Islamic mentality and Islamic thinking or they see the things from Islamic point of view. To declare such people legible for Muslim leadership, because they are expert in western politics or western organization system and have concern for the nation, is definitely ignorance from Islam and amounts to an un-Islamic mentality. On another occasion, Maulana Maududi said it was not clear either from any resolution of the Muslim League or from the speeches of any responsible League leaders, that the ultimate aim of Pakistan is the establishment of an Islamic government.....Those people are wrong who think that if the Muslim majority regions are emancipated from the Hindu domination and a democratic system is established, it would be a government of God. As a matter of fact, in this way, whatever would be achieved, it would be only a non-believers government of the Muslims or may be more deplorable than that.
When the question of constitution-making came to the forefront, the Ulema, inside and outside the Constitutional Assembly and outside demanded that the Islamic Shariah shall form the only source for all legislature in Pakistan.
In February 1948, Maulana Maududi, while addressing the Law College, Lahore, demanded that the Constitutional Assembly should unequivocally declare:
1. That the sovereignty of the state of Pakistan vests in God Almighty and that the government of Pakistan shall be only an agent to execute the Sovereign's Will.
2. That the Islamic Shariah shall form the inviolable basic code for all legislation in Pakistan.
3. That all existing or future legislation which may contravene, whether in letter or in spirit, the Islamic Shariah shall be null and void and be considered ultra vires of the constitution; and
4. That the powers of the government of Pakistan shall be derived from, circumscribed by and exercised within the limits of the Islamic Shariah alone. On January 13, 1948, Jamiat-al-Ulema-i-Islam, led by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, passed a resolution in Karachi demanding that the government appoint a leading Alim to the office of Shaikh al Islam, with appropriate ministerial and executive powers over the qadis throughout the country. The Jamiat submitted a complete table of a ministry of religious affairs with names suggested for each post. It was proposed that this ministry be immune to ordinary changes of government. It is well known that Quaid-i-Azam was the head of state at this time and that no action was taken on Ulema's demand. On February 9, 1948, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, addressing the Ulema-i-Islam conference in Dacca, demanded that the Constituent Assembly "should set up a committee consisting of eminent ulema and thinkers... to prepare a draft ... and present it to the Assembly.
It was in this background that Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, on March 7, 1949, moved the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, according to which the future constitution of Pakistan was to be based on " the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam."
While moving the Resolution, he said: "Sir, I consider this to be a most important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to the achievement of independence, because by achieving independence we only won an opportunity of building up a country and its polity in accordance with our ideals. I would like to remind the house that the Father of the Nation, Quaid-i-Azam, gave expression of his feelings on this matter on many an occasion, and his views were endorsed by the nation in unmistakable terms, Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of this sub-continent wanted to build up their lives in accordance with the teachings and traditions of Islam, because they wanted to demonstrate to the world that Islam provides a panacea to the many diseases which have crept into the life of humanity today."
The resolution was debated for five days. The leading members of the government and a large number of non-Muslim members, especially from East Bengal, took a prominent part. Non-Muslim members expressed grave apprehensions about their position and role in the new policy.
Hindu members of the Constitutional Assembly argued that the Objectives Resolution differed with Jinnah's view in all the basic points. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya said: "What I hear in this (Objectives) Resolution is not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan - the Quaid-i-Azam, nor even that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan the Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, but of the Ulema of the land." Birat Chandra Mandal declared that Jinnah had "unequivocally said that Pakistan will be a secular state." Bhupendra Kumar Datta went a step further: ...were this resolution to come before this house within the life-time of the Great Creator of Pakistan, the Quaid-i-Azam, it would not have come in its present shape...."
The leading members of the government in their speeches not only reassured the non-Muslims that their position was quite safe and their rights were not being impaired but also gave clarifications with regard to the import of the Resolution. Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, the Deputy Leader of the House, while defending the Resolution said: "It was remarked by some honorable members that the interpretation which the mover of this Resolution has given is satisfactory and quite good, but Mr. B.C. Mandal says: "Well tomorrow you may die, I may die, and the posterity may misinterpret it." First of all, I may tell him and those who have got some wrong notions about the interpretation of this resolution that this resolution itself is not a constitution. It is a direction to the committee that will have to prepare the draft keeping in view these main features. The matter will again come to the House in a concrete form, and all of us will get an opportunity to discuss it."
In his elucidation of the implications of the Objectives Resolution in terms of the distribution of power between God and the people, Omar Hayat Malik argued: "The principles of Islam and the laws of Islam as laid down in the Quran are binding on the State. The people or the state cannot change these principles or these laws...but there is a vast field besides these principles and laws in which people will have free play...it might be called by the name of 'theo-cracy', that is democracy limited by word of God, but as the word 'theo' is not in vogue so we call it by the name of Islamic democracy.
Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi further elaborated the concept of Islamic democracy: Since Islam admits of no priest craft, and since the dictionary meaning of the term "secular" is non-monastic -- that is, "anything which is not dependent upon the sweet will of the priests," Islamic democracy, far from being theocracy, could in a sense be characterized as being "secular." However, he believed that if the word "secular" means that the ideals of Islam, that the fundamental principles of religion, that the ethical outlook which religion inculcates in our people should not be observed, then, I am afraid,...that kind of secular democracy can never be acceptable to us in Pakistan.
During the heated debate, Liaquat Ali Khan stressed:
the Muslim League has only fulfilled half of its mission (and that) the other half of its mission is to convert Pakistan into a laboratory where we could experiment upon the principles of Islam to enable us to make a contribution to the peace and progress of mankind. He was hopeful that even if the body of the constitution had to be mounted in the chassis of Islam, the vehicle would go in the direction he had already chosen. Thus he seemed quite sure that Islam was on the side of democracy. "As a matter of fact it has been recognized by non-Muslims throughout the world that Islam is the only society where there is real democracy." In this approach he was supported by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani: " The Islamic state is the first political institution in the world which stood against imperialism, enunciated the principle of referendum and installed a Caliph (head of State) elected by the people in place of the king."
The opposite conclusion, however, was reached by the authors of the Munir Report (1954) who said that the form of government in Pakistan cannot be described as democratic, if that clause of the Objectives Resolution reads as follows: " Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone, and the authority which He has delegated to the state of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust." Popular sovereignty, in the sense that the majority of the people has the right to shape the nation's institutions and policy in accordance with their personal views without regard to any higher law, cannot exist in an Islamic state, they added.
The learned authors of the Munir Report felt that the Objectives Resolution was against the concept of a sovereign nation state. Corroboration of this viewpoint came from the Ulema themselves, (whom the Munir Committee interviewed) "including the Ahrar" and erstwhile Congressites with whom before the partition this conception of a modern national state as against an Islamic state was almost a part of their faith. The Ulema claimed that the Quaid-i-Azam's conception of a modern national state....became obsolete with the passing of the Objectives Resolution on 12th March 1949.
Justice Mohammad Munir, who chaired the committee, says that "if during Quaid-i-Azam's life, Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister had even attempted to introduce the Objectives resolution of the kind that he got through the Assembly, the Quaid-i-Azam would never have given his assent to it.
In an obvious attempt to correct the erroneous notion that the Objectives Resolution envisaged a theocratic state in Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan repeatedly returned to the subject during his tour of the United States (May-June 1950). In a series of persuasive and eloquent speeches, he argued that "We have pledged that the State shall exercise its power and authority through the chosen representatives of the people. In this we have kept steadily before us the principles of democracy, freedom equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam. There is no room here for theocracy, for Islam stands for freedom of conscience, condemns coercion, has no priesthood and abhors the caste system. It believes in equality of all men and in the right of each individual to enjoy the fruit of his or her efforts, enterprise, capacity and skill -- provided these be honestly employed."
The Objectives Resolution was approved on March 12, 1949. Its only Muslim critic was Mian Iftikhar-ud-din, leader of the Azad Pakistan Party, although he believed that "the Islamic conception of a state is, perhaps as progressive, as revolutionary, as democratic and as dynamic as that of any other state or ideology."
According to Munir, the terms of the Objectives Resolution differ in all the basic points of the Quaid-i-Azam's views e.g:
1. The Quaid-i-Azam has said that in the new state sovereignty would rest with the people. The Resolution starts with the statement that sovereignty rests with Allah. This concept negates the basic idea of modern democracy that there are no limits on the legislative power of a representative assembly.
2. There is a reference to the protection of the minorities of their right to worship and practice their religion, whereas the Quaid-i-Azam had stated that there would be no minorities on the basis of religion.
3. The distinction between religious majorities and minorities takes away from the minority, the right of equality, which again is a basic idea of modern democracy.
4. The provision relating to Muslims being enabled to lead their life according to Islam is opposed to the conception of a secular state.
It was natural that with the terms of the Resolution, the Ulema should acquire considerable influence in the state. On the strength of the Objectives Resolution they made the Ahmadis as their first target and demanded them to be declared a minority.
After the adoption of Objectives Resolution, Liaquat Ali Khan moved a motion for the appointment of a Basic Principles Committee consisting of 24 members, including himself and two non-Muslim members, to report the house on the main principles on which the constitution of Pakistan is to be framed. A Board of Islamic Teaching was set up to advise the Committee on the Islamic aspects of the constitution.
In the course of constitutional debates, a number of very crucial issues were raised that caused much controversy, both inside and outside the Constituent Assembly over specific questions such as the following:
1) The nature of the Islamic state: the manner in which the basic principles of Islam concerning state, economy, and society were to be incorporated into the constitution.
2) The nature of federalism: questions of provincial autonomy vis-a-vis federal authority with emphasis on the problems of representation on the basis of population and the equality of the federating units; the structure of the federal legislature -- unicameral or bicameral.
3) The form of government: whether it was to be modeled on the British or the U.S. pattern -- parliamentary or presidential.
4) The problem of the electorate: serious questions of joint (all confessional groups vote in one election) versus separate (each confessional group votes separately for its own candidates) electorate.
5) The question of languageboth national and regional. These very fundamental issues divided the political elites of Pakistan into warring factions that impeded the process of constitution-making.
Source for further reading: Report of the Court of Inquiry constituted under Punjab Act II of 1954 to enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953 (Lahore: Government Printing Press, 1953), pp. 201-235. Section numbers have been added by FWP. Paragraphs in the original text have been lettered for convenience in discussion, and then broken into shorter ones for ease in reading. Punctuation has occasionally been adjusted for clarity, and small errors have been corrected. All editorial annotations in square brackets are by FWP. All italicized transliterations are those of the original text. Selections from Part IV of the MUNIR REPORT (1954) http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_munirreport_1954/index.html
"The street was short and narrow. Lying like the garbage across the street and in its open gutters were bodies of the dead," writes Bourke-White's biographer Vicki Goldberg of this scene. ---- In pictures: India's partition -----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." He could not have been more explicit. ---- Our learned men have it that the first steps taken in the Republic of Pakistan towards the framing of a constitution was the moving of the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly on March 7, 1949, by the prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan. The view is that this Resolution was intended to be a mish-mash of the general principles of an 'Islamic' state and the accepted concepts of a modern 'democratic' state. What the mish-mash has resulted in is a variety of conflicting interpretations, the orthodox and the obscurantists claiming that the Islamic tenets dominate and the more progressive, forward-looking plumbing for the democratic parliamentary way of governance. ----- When it was moved, the non-Muslim members of the Assembly expressed their fears that were the Resolution to be passed maulanas would gain the upper hand, and some questioned the phrase stipulating that the "state will exercise authority within the limits provided by Him." What are the limits proscribed by God, they asked, and who will define those limits? Will it be the mullas or the gentlemen of a more liberal bent of mind? Could a non-Muslim become the head of state, for example? Liaquat Ali Khan's response was rather ambivalent--in an Islamic state, he said, it would be "absolutely wrong to say that a non-Muslim cannot be the head of administration under a constitutional government." Maulanas held differently and firmly : "The Islamic state means a state which is run on the exalted and excellent principles of Islam [and it] can be run only by those who believe in those principles....". ---- Dispute and divergence of view, disagreement and differences from day one. Yet, the honourable gentlemen of the Assembly, most of whom must have been present on August 11, 1947, when Mohammad Ali Jinnah laid down for them the principles which he wished to be embodied in the constitution of his country, took it upon themselves that day to repudiate the man responsible for putting them where they were. ---- Hasan Zaheer, of the erstwhile all-powerful CSP, in his book 'The Separation of East Pakistan', writing on constitution making, has this to say on the contentious Resolution: "Liaquat Ali Khan, while moving the Objectives Resolution, claimed that since it provided for the exercise of power and authority of the state 'through the chosen representatives of the people', the Resolution naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy. ------ Little did he realize the opening that the Resolution was giving to the obscurantists and what the Munir Report called 'political brigands and adventurers, even nonentities' to exploit the name of Islam in mundane political affairs and jolt the foundations of the state from time to time. None of the three covenants of the Muslims of the subcontinent, which spelled out the unanimous demand for a separate Muslim homeland, or homelands--the Lahore Resolution of 1940, the Madras Resolution of 1941, and the Pakistan Resolution of the Legislators' Convention of 1946--or the debates leading to these resolutions had mentioned anything about an Islamic state. Over the years, the Resolution proved a perennially divisive point of reference in the polity of Pakistan." ----- It is this Resolution which forms the preamble to the Constitution of 1973, and it is this Resolution which, as Article 2A, is a substantive part of the Constitution, and which has more than proven that it is indeed not only highly divisive but also destructive. And, to boot, our great makers, breakers and amenders cannot even get it right. In the preamble, in one sentence, the original resolution has been adhered to: "Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures;" whereas in Article 2A which forms the Annex to the Constitution in the very same sentence the word "freely" has been omitted. Whether this was done wittingly or unwittingly is not known, but the question is that after the passage of 16 years since 2A was inserted by PO No.14 of 1985 why has it not been corrected? Is there a motive behind the omission of the highly pertinent and important word? Were our amenders plain sloppy, or were they wicked? REFERENCE: Back to Jinnah By Ardeshir Cowasjee 03 February 2002 Sunday 19 Ziqa'ad 1422 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20020203.htm Special Thanks to BBC for the Picture http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/south_asia_india0s_partition/html/7.stm
Blatant and Flagrant Racism of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in 1887
"QUOTE"
A LECTURE was given by the Hon'ble Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, before a large and very influential audience of Mahomedans in Lucknow, on 18th December, 1887, at 8.30 P.M., in the Baradari, Kaisarbagh, on the attitude the Mahomedan community ought to assume towards the Government, the political questions of the day, and the Bengali movement. The meeding was attended not only by the Mahomedans of Lucknow, but by gentlemen who had come from all parts of Upper India to be present at the Mahomedan Educational Congress. It represented the intellect and the aristocracy, the brain and the muscle, of the Mahomedan community. There were present the taluqdars of Oudh, members of the Government Services, the Army, the Professions of Law, the Press and the Priesthood; Syeds, Shaikhs, Moghals and Pathans belonging to some of the noblest families in India; and representatives of every school of thought, from orthodox Sunni and Shiah Maulvis to the young men trained in Indian colleges or in England. The Syed's speech lasted an hour and a half, and was delivered with great eloquence. It was received with enthusiastic applause. The chair was occupied by Munshi Imtiaz Ali, the [[2]] legal adviser of the Oudh Taluqdars' Association, a distinguished pleader belonging to an ancient and noble Arab family of Oudh. The speech was delivered in Urdu, taken down by Munshi Aziz-ud-din, and afterwards revised by Sir Syed himself. The substance of the lecture was as follows:--
{10}[*10*] Think for a moment what would be the result if all appointments were given by competitive examination. Over all races, not only over Mahomedans but over Rajas of high position and the brave Rajputs who have not forgotten the swords of their ancestors, would be placed as ruler a Bengali who at sight of a table knife would crawl under his chair. (Uproarious cheers and laughter.) There would remain no part of the country in which we should see at the tables of justice and authority any face except those of Bengalis. I am delighted to see the Bengalis making progress, but the question is — What would be the result on the administration of the country? Do you think that the Rajput and the fiery Pathan, who are not afraid of being hanged or of encountering the swords of the police or the bayonets of the army, could remain in peace under the Bengalis? (Cheers.) This would be the outcome of the proposal if accepted. Therefore if any of you — men of good position, Raïses, men of the middle classes, men of noble family to whom God has given sentiments of honour — if you accept that the country should groan under the yoke of Bengali rule and its people lick the Bengali shoes, then, in the name of God! jump into the train, sit down, and be [[12]] off to Madras,/6/ be off to Madras! (Loud cheers and laughter.) But if you think that the prosperity and honour of the country would be ruined, then, brothers, sit in your houses, inform Government of your circumstances, and bring your wants to its notice in a calm and courteous manner. REFERENCE: SPEECH OF SIR SYED AHMED AT LUCKNOW [1887] http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_sir_sayyid_lucknow_1887.html
“PEOPLE from both sides behaved like beasts,” says Sarjit Singh Chowdhary, a retired brigadier, offering an indisputable overview of the events in Punjab during the year that India was partitioned. His testimony is among the innumerable first-person accounts that comprise the core of Ishtiaq Ahmed’s meticulously researched thesis on the direst events of 1947, The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed (Oxford University Press). Essentially an invaluable oral history of events in the Punjab during that decisive year, it serves as an overarching cautionary tale. A number of themes emerge from its pages as the circumstances of 65 years ago are graphically resurrected in the words of those who experienced them firsthand. Among the crucial incidents that preceded the bloodbath was Master Tara Singh’s provocative waving of the kirpan outside the Punjab Assembly in Lahore following the resignation of the Unionist-led Khizr ministry, in the wake of a Muslim League agitation. Here, one of the numerous counterfactuals of that period rears its head. The League, hitherto not particularly influential in provincial affairs, won the largest number of seats in the 1946 elections but fell short of a majority. A coalition with the Congress was within the realm of possibility, but the largest nationalist party’s hierarchy decided against it. On the one hand, its demurral is perfectly understandable. On the other, it is hard not to wonder whether such an arrangement might not have saved lives. Some of the initial instances of communal strife involved attacks by Muslim mobs on Sikhs in villages near Rawalpindi in March 1947, as well as clashes in the garrison town itself. There was turmoil in Lahore during the same period. It was still unclear at that point whether a Muslim-majority state called Pakistan would emerge — and the question of the shape it might take was even murkier. Many Sikhs and Hindus believed, for instance, that if a divide occurred, Lahore would be a part of India; after all, much of the city’s property belonged to non-Muslims, and it hosted crucial Sikh shrines. At the same time, quite a few Muslims in Amritsar and Jalandhar expected those cities to be assigned to a putative Pakistan, notwithstanding their non-Muslim majorities. These seemingly unrealistic notions were prodded in some cases by political leaders. It’s useful to remember, though, that in those days reality was a rapidly morphing construct. As Ishtiaq Ahmed points out time and again, the Radcliffe boundaries — delineated by an Englishman who had arrived in India for the first time just a few weeks earlier — were officially announced a couple of days after partition. The mid-August cut-off point wasn’t public knowledge until Lord Mountbatten’s June 3 announcement. The haste with which the British colonial power withdrew from the subcontinent has often been cited as a leading cause of the gory disarray that followed. After all, the initial deadline for the transfer of power was June 1948. Whether the Punjab situation would have been ameliorated to some extent by a longer deadline and an earlier demarcation of the new international boundary is a moot point, although it’s certainly possible that a more orderly transition would have facilitated a less rancorous divide. It might have helped, too, had Mountbatten been able to fulfil his ambition of serving as governor-general of both countries in the immediate aftermath of independence. Another question that the book raises is whether a division of Punjab was an inevitable consequence of the subcontinent’s partition along communal lines. The Muslim League was keen to claim the province as a whole, and entered into comprehensive negotiations with the Sikh leadership as a means of facilitating this outcome. The Sikhs were understandably wary of Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s assurances of virtual autonomy, given the focus on Islam as a determining factor for the forthcoming divide. The vast majority of witnesses, including many of those who lost most of their families in the Punjabi holocaust, testify to a broad communal harmony in the run-up to 1947. Some Muslims resented the deplorable Hindu tradition of excluding them from kitchens, but many others accepted the prohibitions on breaking bread together as a cultural norm. The extent to which class resentment might have contributed to the conflict is insufficiently explored in the testimonies, possibly because it was largely a subliminal factor. It is universally accepted that innocents were subjected to the vilest atrocities, but it’s vital to remember that they were perpetrated by Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus alike — with reports or experiences of incredible cruelty elsewhere commonly cited as a provocation. It is perhaps even more important to note the innumerable instances of folks from all backgrounds keeping their heads when all about them were losing theirs, and not letting the vitriol that was seeping through the land of the five rivers poison their hearts. An incredible number of survivors acknowledge that they owe their lives to awe-inspiring acts of kindness by friends, neighbours and sometimes even strangers belonging to supposedly rival communities. In some cases, political affiliations clearly played a role: for instance, nationalist Muslims resistant to the clarion call for a separate homeland and communists on both sides of the deepening divide often did what they could to ameliorate the consequences of the communal frenzy that climaxed in the weeks following freedom at midnight. The appearances of the resolutely secular Jawaharlal Nehru are often cited as a crucial factor in quelling or pre-empting outbreaks of violence. By the same token, the instigative acts and rhetoric of the Muslim League National Guard, the RSS and the Akalis frequently figure as retrograde influences. Could anything short of a renunciation of the partition project have prevented the bloodbath? Eventually, well-armed military escorts protected many a refugee convoy. It should, of course, never have come to that. Although the tragedy lies 65 years in the past, it has vitiated relations between India and Pakistan ever since and continues to undermine the powerful logic of harmonious coexistence. Ishtiaq Ahmed’s probingly piteous account of how the Punjab suddenly went pear-shaped in 1947 ought to serve as prescribed reading particularly for those who continue to pursue the pathetic notion that the carnage was either inevitable or necessary. REFERENCE: Blood on the tracks of history Mahir Ali 18th April, 2012 http://dawn.com/2012/04/18/blood-on-the-tracks-of-history/
ILYAS Chattha’s book, Partition and Locality: Violence, Migration, and Development in Gujranwala and Sialkot, 1947–1961, aims to “further the study of the impact of Partition and its aftermath in the Pakistani Punjab.” (page 252) On that score at least, it has succeeded; and then some. By its own modest admission, this book is the latest offering to the vast corpus of literature that already exists on Partition. That in itself is reflective of Partition’s enduring legacy (enough for it to become a proper noun). Not only is it a wound that has yet to completely heal but it is also an event, or as some would argue, a process, that has yet to be fully understood. Indeed, Chattha too, as with virtually everyone who has ever worked on Partition, tries to grapple with how communities living relatively harmoniously over generations could turn on one another so viciously. As he suggests, there certainly were societal divisions and conflicts, religious and otherwise, but none that would warrant the sheer barbarity and visceral hatred that characterised Partition. To make sense of this, Chattha looks at the cities of Sialkot and Gujranwala and their experiences of Partition-related violence, resettlement, and recovery. This focus on localities is a welcome approach and one that is a distinguishing feature of the recent writings on Partition. Even in those instances, however, Lahore and Amritsar have predictably attracted greater attention in relation to other districts and towns. In contrast to its regional and national variants, this approach highlights the differentiated nature of violence and recovery across various localities.
Despite this variation, both Sialkot and Gujranwala have much in common. According to the author, both were plagued by intense violence and the consequent migration of Hindus and Sikhs. Both also played host to large numbers of Muslim refugees and managed to recover and develop following the chaos of Partition. That said, much the same could be said about any other district in central and northern Punjab. What marks them out though, are their contrasting local and industrial profiles. Gujranwala’s position in central Punjab distinguished its pattern of violence, resettlement, and recovery from Sialkot which was a thriving industrial city, remade into a border town by a callously drawn line which divided the subcontinent in August, 1947.
In the first of the three parts to the book, Chattha examines the pre-Partition history of both cities. Starting from pre-colonial times through to 1947, he sketches a brief history of their differentiated patterns of urban settlement and economic activities. The “colonial inheritance” of both cities is also examined in detail, which makes for interesting reading in its own right. Gujranwala and its satellite towns were important sites within the railway network while their artisan castes, especially the Muslim Lohars and Tarkhans, were renowned for their skills in metalworking and carpentry. Sialkot, on the other hand, became a thriving export-led industrial centre for surgical and sports goods. Having introduced us to both cities, Chattha then embarks on the second section of his book which looks at the patterns of violence and displacement that began in March, 1947. This is where the book gets really interesting. While recognising the “spontaneity” of Partition violence, he also emphasises its organised nature. This is a very important argument. While other historians have also looked at the meticulous planning and organisation that went into massacres and forced evictions, Chattha masterfully locates the agents that were involved in violence and examines the local specificities that led to violence in both Sialkot and Gujranwala.
The case of Gujranwala is particularly interesting. In this instance, violence against Hindus and Sikhs was orchestrated by the Lohars who drew on an ample stockpile of weapons — knives, daggers, swords, carbines et al. — which they were famous for producing. Among many incidents, this group, in connivance with individual railway drivers who were at times drawn from the same caste, ambushed trains carrying Hindu and Sikh refugees to India. What followed was a systematic slaughter of non-Muslims and the looting of their possessions. In both cases, violence accompanied and was often encouraged by the rapid breakdown of state authority. This in turn was further worsened by the active participation of policemen and state functionaries whose job it was to ensure law and order. For a visual depiction of this trend, look no further then the scene in the movie Earth in which Amir Khan expresses his satisfaction at the firemen pouring fuel onto the flames consuming the houses of non-Muslims in Lahore. As with Amir Khan’s character, the actual protagonists involved in massacres, rapes, forced conversions and looting justified their actions in terms of seeking revenge for their hapless co-religionists who were being put to the sword in East Punjab. As should be obvious, the killing teams in East Punjab used exactly the same justifications for their actions. Having established that, the author then leads us into the third part of his book which examines the post-Partition period and the challenges of resettlement and economic recovery in both cities. Both localities were demographically transformed by the en-masse migration of non-Muslims and the influx of Muslim refugees from East Punjab. Chattha makes the interesting point that this displacement created opportunities for both locals and refugees in different sectors of the economy. In this sense, both cities also ‘gained’ from Partition. Also intriguing is his analysis of the state’s role in refugee resettlement and economic development.
The real strength of this book though, is in the source material that Chattha has collected. Amongst the many materials this book is based on, are FIRs that he has collected from thanas. As someone who has had the distinct privilege (sarcasm intended) of working in Pakistani archives and record offices, I can only admire Chattha for his perseverance in getting hold of these records. He also supplements these sources with his use of interviews with both the perpetrators and victims of Partition. Particularly poignant are the accounts of “dindars” who chose conversion to Islam over certain death and dispossession. One only wishes, though, that more space could have been devoted to what is undoubtedly the strength of this book: its superb analysis of localised violence. That in itself would have made a great monograph. But in dwelling on the pre- and post-Partition period this book reads more like a collection of distinct (though well-argued) sections rather then a harmonious whole. Returning to one of his important arguments in relation to organised violence, Chattha suggests that “violence was politically, rather then religiously or culturally motivated. The political aims were not so much tied into the wider All-India issues but were to attain local power and territorial control.” (page 255) Like others, I am also sympathetic to this view. Yet, (and this is a general comment, not a criticism of this book) these explanations often betray an eagerness to understand violence in largely functionalist or materialist terms.
Clearly, barbarity is more comprehendible when wrapped up in motives considered to be ‘rational’ and ‘calculated.’ And yet, there remains the uneasy ‘irrationality’ of violence to contend with, which invokes the abstract (read incomprehensible) notions of ‘community’ and ‘faith.’ Both can’t be easily reconciled, especially by those who despair at the sheer ‘irrationality’ or ‘madness’ of Partition violence. And so we end from where we began. Does this book advance our understanding of Partition? The answer to that is unequivocally yes. And yet, as any historian would acknowledge, there are no easy answers. This is where writers like Saadat Hasan Manto and poets like Amrita Pritam step in; for they evocatively capture the sense of bewilderment that lies behind any work on Partition. And therefore, even after all is said and done, Partition continues to defy comprehension. For the moment though, Ilyas Chattha’s book is as good. REFERENCE: COVER STORY: The bewildering violence of Partition Reviewed by Ali Raza 15th April, 2012 The reviewer has a PhD in South Asian History from Oxford University Partition and Locality: Violence, Migration, and Development in Gujranwala and Sialkot, 1947–1961 (HISTORY) By Ilyas Chattha Oxford University Press, Karachi ISBN 9780199061723 http://dawn.com/2012/04/15/cover-story-the-bewildering-violence-of-partition/
YOU have to take a maulana seriously when he says that founding a modern state on the basis of religion is no guarantee of its success. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was one such person whose 54th death anniversary passed quietly by on Feb 22. The life and works of this multidimensional man have indispensable value for aficionados of Urdu, students of the Independence movement and those concerned with the future of South Asia. My intention here is not to write a hagiographic portrait of Azad, but to pick up vignettes to shed light on his personality and relevance. Azad was a firm believer in unity in diversity but the unwavering nationalist was let down by key Congress leaders in the run-up to Partition, a disappointment he did not divulge during his lifetime but that he instructed be incorporated in the posthumous edition of his book India Wins Freedom. His assessment of the personal and political characteristics of the domineering figures of the 1940s helps us understand not just the high politics of Partition but also the resultant bitterness that afflicted Azad until his death. Jawaharlal Nehru and Azad were more than lifelong political comrades. Azad’s affection for Nehru was based on a personal bond that evolved over years of friendship. But he was mindful of Nehru’s weaknesses which at crucial times clouded his political judgment. He felt Nehru was an ‘impulsive’ man, prone to succumbing to flattery. In his Ghubar-i-Khatir (1946), a masterpiece of Urdu prose, Azad mentions how in Ahmednagar Fort prison he would be up before dawn and at that quiet hour, the only disturbance would be Nehru’s mild snores and sleep-talk — always in English. Azad observes that sleep-talk is often the trait of people guided more by emotions than reason. “Whether awake or asleep, Jawaharlal’s actions are dictated by emotions,” he wrote. Azad was saddened when his favourite, Nehru, conceded to the idea of Partition. He warned that “history will never forget us if we agree to Partition. The verdict would be that India was divided not by the Muslim League but by Congress”. Moreover, for Azad, “Vallabhbhai Patel was the founder of Indian partition”. Patel was a pro-Hindu Congress leader who became independent India’s first home minister and deputy prime minister. These harsh assessments, as Azad had willed, appear in posthumous editions of India Wins Freedom. To avoid cracks in Congress unity, he chose not to make disagreements public during his lifetime. Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Azad followed divergent political paths. Both towering Muslim politicians, they often clashed politically about the future of India and the place in it of Muslims. According to Azad, “Pakistan was for Jinnah a bargaining counter” and the division of India, instead of resolving the communal problem, would turn it into inter-state rivalry with Muslims in Hindu-majority regions being in a state of permanent disadvantage. Azad chose to remain quiet about the role of Congress stalwarts in expediting Partition and blamed Jinnah for India’s division. In retrospect, a more valuable contribution may have been calling the bluff of the likes of Patel instead of staying quiet in the name of party unity. Partition continued to haunt Azad after 1947. Presciently, he warned that dividing India on religious grounds would turn the communal conflict into inter-state rivalry leading to militarisation at the expense of human development. He reminded the Muslims who were leaving for Pakistan that religious affinity would not override cultural differences between the migrants and the natives. For him, a shared religion was an inadequate foundation for a state in South Asia given the religious and cultural diversity of the region. In Pakistan, the elite did not heed the pitfalls identified by Azad. He blamed Congress for not accommodating the demand for regional autonomy as propounded by the Muslim League. Post-Independence Pakistan’s ruling elite repeated that mistake, leading to the break-up of the country in 1971. The event also proved Azad right in his belief that religion cannot be the foundation of a state in ethnically, denominationally and religiously diverse societies. The Islamisation of Pakistan has strengthened sectarianism, leaving Muslim and non-Muslim in a state of perpetual vulnerability. Over-centralised states identified with a particular religion cannot come together to form a peaceful region for South Asians. The Muslims in Bharatiya Janata Party’s Hindutva-inspired India, Hindus in Buddhist-dominated Sri Lanka or non-Sunnis in Islamic Pakistan will always be vulnerable citizens, and states not at peace within will not be at peace with each other as neighbours. Azad dreamt of a decentralised subcontinent where diverse ethnic and religious groups could live without fear in a composite culture. Partition shattered his dream and today’s Pakistan, with its rising tide of religious intolerance, would be Azad’s nightmare. What he proposed for undivided India in 1946 — a decentralised state with equal respect for all religions — is precisely what Pakistan needs in 2012. I would conclude with two assessments, one about Azad and one that he made. Azad was president of the Congress party in 1940 and wanted to start a dialogue with Jinnah about the future of India. Jinnah refused to engage in parleys, dubbing Azad a Congress ‘show boy’. Observers may point out that the description would not fit Azad who earned his place in the frontline of the anti-colonial movement. Ghubar-i-Khatir remains readable not only for its flowing prose but also for its superb collection of quoted Persian and Urdu couplets. Being a lover of Urdu and Persian poetry, Azad nevertheless chose to ignore Iqbal and did not include any of his work. Jinnah’s assessment and Azad’s omission might be seen by some as having been dictated by political partisanship. REFERENCE: Politics of Azad 28th February, 2012 http://dawn.com/2012/02/28/politics-of-azad/
The communal riots of 1947 have been the subject of literature, films and scholarly research. Yet, despite scores of works on the subject, there was still a need for an objective and scholarly account of the way they happened in undivided Punjab. This need has been filled by Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed who was already well-known in scholarly circles for his work on social science issues in the Asian context (State, Nation and Ethnicity in Contemporary South Asia (1998) and an edited book on religion in Asia). But his latest book is so magisterial in its thoroughness and so meticulous in its research that it should establish him as a major historian of contemporary South Asia. The book begins with a theoretical introduction which describes what ethnic cleansing is and then goes on to give a historical background of the Punjab and the genesis of its partition. This is followed by three 'stages'. The first is the period between January 1945 till 31 March 1947. This is the period of the violence against the Hindu and Sikh population of northern Punjab, especially the area around Rawalpindi. Then comes the period between 24 March till 14 August when, among communal attacks on both sides of the border, the main tragedy was the attack and arson of the Hindus of Lahore. Then is the third stage from 15 August till 31 December of the year when, though the attacks on the Hindus and Sikhs did continue in West Punjab, the real crisis was in the East Punjab where much of the Muslim population was killed or forced to flee to Pakistan by armed Sikh bands. The same kinds of events took place in the princely states of the Punjab and have been described in detail. In the end there are Ahmed's analysis and conclusions which help us answer questions about whether there were organized plans by the Muslims to drive the non-Muslims out of the Punjab or vice versa. In the end, as at the end of each chapter, there are lists of sources used and names of interviewees. This is followed by annexures and an index which make the book very useful for scholars. All accounts establish the fact that pre-Partition Punjab was a tolerant and peaceful society in which Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus lived mostly peacefully. The Hindus did have religious restrictions in terms of eating or mixing too intimately with Muslims, and these must have been resented by some people; but they did not translate into violence. However, the Hindus and Sikhs were generally richer and if they were moneylenders there is ground to believe that they were resented by the Muslim peasants who owed them money. Yet, there is incontrovertible evidence that communal hatred was injected into the equation when the Muslim League used the evocative symbol of religion and promised an Islamic state to the ordinary gullible people. The slogans they used against the Unionist government of Sir Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana included the most scurrilous attacks on him and his family and portrayed him as an enemy of Islam. From 24 January to 26 February 1947 the Muslim League confronted the Khizar Minstry directly by force and there was much incitement to violence. On 02 March Khizar resigned and from then on the Sikhs and Hindus knew that they would be discriminated against in a Muslim-dominated Punjab. Meanwhile it was becoming clear that the Punjab would be partitioned and this urged the Sikhs to demand a state of their own which would contain Lahore, Nankana Sahib and other Sikh holy places. The violence was precipitated by Master Tara Singh's brandishing of his dagger (kirpan) and aggressive speeches by Hindu Mahasabha leaders. Violence was thus triggered, but the Hindus and Sikhs were quickly outnumbered. Moreover, when it spread to Rawalpindi, it became almost a communal cleansing. Hindus and Sikhs were killed, burnt and the women were raped in attacks which seemed to have been planned by former soldiers. The lower strata of the police did nothing to stop the carnage. But what is especially shocking and inexplicable is that the army, which was still under British officers, did not reach the villages in time to save people. These atrocities had their blowback effect, as we shall see later. REFERENCE: Chain of events Books By Dr. Tariq Rahman Dr. Tariq Rahman reviews an extraordinary new work that traces the causes - and apportions the blame - for the seemingly random violence that erupted across Punjab in 1947 TFT CURRENT ISSUE| April 13-19, 2012 - Vol. XXIV, No. 09 http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?issue=20120413&page=16
In Stage Two, Ishtiaq Ahmed reaches the conclusion that the roughs (badmashes) of Lahore and Amritsar, who were mostly Muslims, had a predominant role in the carnage. The roughs of Amritsar sent bangles to their counterparts of Lahore, signifying that they were not avenging attacks on Muslims in the Sikh areas. This resulted in a quantum leap in violence against the non-Muslims in Lahore. The fire at Shahalami Gate of June in which the Hindus were harmed on such a massive scale left them completely disillusioned. After this they started leaving for India en masse. The role of some officials, including police and judicial functionaries, has been described probably for the first time by this author. In the Eastern Punjab the Sikh armed groups started attacking Muslims even from early in the year, but the communal cleansing started only in August when the Sikh leadership knew they would lose by the division of the Punjab without accommodating their demands. Here the atrocities of Rawalpindi and Lahore were repeated on an even bigger scale: murder, arson, rape and pillage were reported on a staggering scale. Here too some functionaries of the state aided and abetted the attackers and even some of the rulers of the Punjab princely states such as the Maharajah of Kapurthala and the Maharajah of Patiala abetted the violence against Muslims. The most important contribution of the author is that he maintains his scholarly objectivity in a subject in which his own emotions are obviously deeply involved. He reaches the conclusion that there was no plan by the Muslims in general or the Muslim League in particular to cleanse Pakistan of non-Muslims. However, in the case of Sikhs, the author concludes that some Sikh leaders such as the Akalis and rulers did have a contingency plan to use force against Muslims in case they did not obtain a Sikh state. Whether this conclusion is correct or otherwise can only be contested by someone who has as formidable a knowledge of this subject as Ishtiaq Ahmed, so I will not argue about it here. However, one thing does seem obvious: the Pindi riots injected the spirit of vengeance among the rank and file of Sikhs in East Punjab. The non-Muslims who left Northern Punjab from March onwards, and the Hindus of Lahore with their tales of atrocities, could not but have created an implacable desire for vengeance among the armed Sikhs. But, being of Pakistani Muslim origin does not mean that in this particular the author is siding with his co-religionists. On the contrary, Ishtiaq Ahmed is probably the only historian of Pakistani origin who suggests that the 'demand for a partition of India on a religious basis was inherently discriminatory' (p. 544). He also points out that the Muslim League leaders were 'fatuously complacent and irresponsible since they did not realize that their Pakistan scheme would inevitably imperil the lives of millions of unarmed Muslims' (p. 545). I would go further and add that if the leaders of the Muslim League had stopped Muslims for using violence against non-Muslims in the Rawalpindi area in March and used the army to help them cross over to India in peace the massacres would not have taken place or, at least, not in the present-day Pakistan area. And it would not have taken place in East Punjab if the Congress and Sikh leaders had pacified the Sikhs and used the army to help Muslims emigrate to Pakistan. But, unfortunately, neither the Indian nor the British leadership took any effective step to save human lives. Ishtiaq Ahmed suggests that Mr Jinnah's decision to become the Governor General of Pakistan instead of allowing Mountbatten to become the joint Governor General of both dominions harmed the Muslims and Pakistan as Mountabetten was no longer responsible for both sides after 15 August. REFERENCE: Chain of events Books By Dr. Tariq Rahman Dr. Tariq Rahman reviews an extraordinary new work that traces the causes - and apportions the blame - for the seemingly random violence that erupted across Punjab in 1947 TFT CURRENT ISSUE| April 13-19, 2012 - Vol. XXIV, No. 09 http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?issue=20120413&page=16
The research methods used by Ishtiaq Ahmed contribute to the authenticity of this work. He uses government reports, letters of officials, intelligence reports, autobiographies, eyewitness accounts and a very large number of interviews of people on both sides of the border. This is a magnum opus, the one major work one writes in a lifetime, and it must have taken the author years of meticulous recording, reading and interviewing. Moreover, as he was dealing with a very emotional subject, the interviewing must have had a deep personal effect upon him. As such, the author should be commended for having written such a masterly account of the partition of the Punjab.
Among the few minor improvements I would suggest are that references to scholarly accounts of language and education, especially with reference to Punjabi, should be added. The author makes no mistake when he refers to these factors but he gives no reference to recent scholarly sources, which needs correction. Another omission, and this is more serious, is the reference to Hobbes while talking about human nature (p. 560), whereas one of the most influential accounts of how ordinary people commit evil by Philip Zimbardo (The Lucifer Effect, 2007)-that certain contingent conditions make us play roles which dehumanize us if differentials of power exist between groups-as well as other theories of how we focus hatred on the out-group and love on the in-group, effectively dehumanizing it, are missing. For a masterly work like this, one would like some inclusion of such theories to explain why people go berserk in such situations like the ones that arose in 1947.
But these are minor quibbles that do not detract from the scholarly stature of the book. I would like to sum up by congratulating the author for undertaking this work, which will remain a milestone in our understanding of the Partition and the roots of violence which threaten this ancient cradle of civilizations. If we have to exist at all, especially when we are nuclear-armed nations, we need to come to terms with the ghosts of 1947 in order to build a South Asia on the model of the Schengen states. This is only possible if, among other things, we understand the past we share, which Ishtiaq Ahmed's work will help us to do. I recommend the book to not only scholars on South Asia but all interested readers and the media. REFERENCE: Chain of events Books By Dr. Tariq Rahman Dr. Tariq Rahman reviews an extraordinary new work that traces the causes - and apportions the blame - for the seemingly random violence that erupted across Punjab in 1947 TFT CURRENT ISSUE| April 13-19, 2012 - Vol. XXIV, No. 09 http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?issue=20120413&page=16
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
