Sunday, March 31, 2013

Iron Kick of BBC.

Pakistan Federal Union of journalists (PFUJ) expresses deep concern over the decision of the BBC Urdu Service management to layoff forcibly majority of its reporters in Pakistan. “The decision is autocratic, arbitrary, unfair, without any justification and based on prejudice” Last week, the BBC managers and HR officer suddenly made an announcement of retrenching of 10 reporters out of 14 across Pakistan claiming the move will help to save them 180,000 pounds during the next year. The management’s argument lacks rationale because the service has horde of managers that claims a major share of the salary budget and they remain unaffected by the recent announcement. PFUJ President Pervaiz Shaukat and Secretary General Amin Yousuf said that the BBC Urdu Service itself had announced that 11 percent of the total budget saved in previous restructuring would be taken forward until 2014, which clearly means that the latest restructuring is unjustified.

 “The decision means depriving reporters from livelihood whose years of hard work has played a significant role in making BBC one of the most credible news sources in Pakistan. They said that “The BBC reporters in Pakistan have been working under constant stress for several years due to an unusual increase in their workload and have at times risked their lives while performing their duties, or received threats for the kind of stories they were doing,” “Instead of recognizing their hard work, they are being constantly bullied, harassed, terrified, abused, mistreated and at times threatened with job sacking by the top management. “Bullying, harassment and discrimination is reported to be widespread in BBC Urdu Service. This is clear negation of BBC’s its own policy about respect at work place” PFUJ urge the BBC’s top management to immediately intervene and stop the BBC Urdu Service management from taking such arbitrary action“. We assure reporters of BBC Pakistan of our all-out support. PFUJ also demand that BBC’s management should probe circumstances under which they were sacked. REFERENCE: PFUJ expresses deep concern over layoff of the BBC Urdu Service Reporters by PFUJ

JUI (Fazal) Praise & Curse Osama Bin Laden.

ISLAMABAD/QUETTA: Parliamentarians were stunned on Tuesday when a lawmaker led prayers for al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, defying calls from Deputy Speaker Faisal Karim Kundi that he needed permission to do so. At the National Assembly session, Maulvi Asmatullah, an independent candidate from NA-264 stood up and said Bin Laden had reportedly been given funeral services by the Americans and “we should pray for him”. The prayer service hardly lasted a minute in which two JUI-F legislators from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, former federal minister Attaur Rehman and Laiq Muhammad Khan, participated.

US National Taliban Azam Khan Swati (JUI) Condemns Osama Bin Laden. (Capital Talk - Geo TV May 2010)


Azam Khan Swat JUI (F), WikiLeaks, Maualan Fazlur Rehman & Osama bin Laden.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011, Jamadi-us-Sani 07, 1432 A.H

Deobandi Azam Khan Swati Funded War on Terror.


The deputy speaker was administering the proceedings on a private members day, but he could not convince the lawmakers to stick to the rules of business. Osama bin Laden was killed in a US operation in Abbottabad in the early hours of May 2. Earlier, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani said in the National Assembly that “Osama bin Laden was the most wanted terrorist and enemy number one of the civilized world. Elimination of Osama bin Laden, who launched waves after waves of terrorist attacks against innocent Pakistanis, is indeed justice done. However, we are not so naïve to declare victory; missions accomplished, and turn around.” The first of its kind prayer service at the floor of the National Assembly reflected a divergent view from the official stance over the killing of Bin Laden.

Corrupt Deobandi Maulana Fazlur Rehman is Exposed (Wiki Leaks)


Chaos in Balochistan Assembly

Meanwhile in Quetta, Five PPP ministers have demanded the immediate expulsion of JUI-F from the provincial cabinet for promoting terrorism by supporting the Taliban in Balochistan. Taking up the floor during Assembly proceedings on Tuesday afternoon, PPP Minister Mir Sadiq Umrani staged a walk-out and accused the JUI of being involved in terrorism. He was joined by four other PPP Ministers – Ali Madad Jatak, Yunus Mullahzai, Jan Ali Changezi and Jaffar George. Addressing a news conference after the session, Umrani said that the JUI-F is imposing policies to only protect its own interests. He alleged that JUI-F annually take away 60 per cent of the total funds of the province. “The entire budget of the Balochistan government has been monopolised by JUI Ministers,” he claimed. Talking to the media, Chief Minister Nawab Aslam Raisani termed the allegations false and baseless, while JUI-F Parliamentary Leader Maulana Wasey said his party has supported the PPP to form a coalition government. REFERENCES: Prayers for Bin Laden in National Assembly Published in The Express Tribune, May 11th, 2011. PPP ministers say JUI-F supporting terrorism By Amanullah Kasi | From the Newspaper

Maulana Fazlur Rehman Curses Jang Group, GEO TV & Ansar Abbasi


Ansar Abbasi [Jang Group] Exposes Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA)


"QUOTE" After WikiLeaks disclosures about Maulana Fazlur Rahman, not only the Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership have decided to sever links with him but various religio-political parties have also hinted at staying away from him. “Maulana Fazlur Rahman, who has been an ally of the Pervez Musharraf regime and is also a partner in the present ruling coalition, had strong contacts with militant groups in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan but nobody did even imagine until now that he is constantly in touch with the Americans also,” said a former Taliban official, currently based in Peshawar, while talking to The News on Tuesday. Talking to The News via telephone, the former Taliban official said on condition of anonymity that although the Jamaat-e-Islami leadership had expressed its reservations several times about Maulana Fazlur Rahman, majority of the people believed it is because of political differences between the JUI-F and Jamaat-e-Islami. The time has, however, proven that the reservations and fears of the Jamaat-e-Islami about the JUI-F chief were absolutely genuine, he added. “As the WikiLeaks have unmasked the truth, now Maulana Fazlur Rahman will have to be extremely careful because his acts and attitude fall in the category of betrayal,” commented the former Taliban official. A Taliban commander told The News from Afghanistan via telephone that the Taliban leaders, who have been in contact with Maulana Fazlur Rahman in the past, are extremely disappointed and angered.

He said now all doors of the Taliban have been closed for the JUI-F chief as his real face has finally been exposed. “We may forgive him [Fazlur Rahman] for the sake of his father’s services for Islam but we have shut all doors for him,” he said. When contacted, former spokesman for Jamaat-e-Islami Ameerul Azeem, who has been attending meetings of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) of which the JUI-F was also a part, said now the time has come for the JUI-F chief to review his entire political life, particularly his manoeuvres to become part of every government. He said the role of the JUI-F chief in the Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MRD), when his politics was based on mere principles, is no secret. He recalled that even (late) Benazir Bhutto had once dumped (late) Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan but the Maulana had extended unflinching support to the Nawabzada. “Now the political moves of the JUI-F chief are completely different as of late he has been preferring gains to principles,” the former Jamaat-e-Islami spokesman said. “If Maulana Fazlur Rahman failed in returning to his old political path, he would remain all alone,” he remarked.

Ameerul Azeem pointed out that currently there are many leaders in the JUI-F who strongly believe in the politics of principles and are extremely valued by different quarters. He said the Jamaat-e-Islami would definitely maintain its contacts with such leaders. The News contacted several religious figures that have been close to the Taliban leadership in the past and sought their comments on the latest situation, they were unanimous that Maulana Fazlur Rahman would pay a heavy price for what they called his deceit and betrayal. The JUI-F chief, who is facing scathing criticism from various religious circles following WikiLeaks disclosures about him, is likely to face very difficult situation in the near future because the religious parties are unanimous that he would not be included in any alliance of religio-political parties. "We have firmly decided that Maulana Fazlur Rahman or any leader of his party will not be included in the alliance of religious parties before the next general elections. Nor will we maintain any contact with the JUI-F or its leadership,” said a leader of another religious party, pleading anonymity. This correspondent made several attempts to contact the JUI-F chief for his comments but failed while any other leader of his party was also not ready to speak on the issue. REFERENCE: Fazlur Rehman getting isolated after WikiLeaks exposure By Mazhar Tufail Wednesday, December 08, 2010


Saturday, December 18, 2010, Muharram 11, 1432 A.H

LAHORE, Dec. 30: Referring to Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s pulling out of the government, he said for the last three years, the Maulana had been a part of a pro-US government that had been shedding the blood of the tribal people. Therefore, he was equally responsible for the bloodshed of the tribal people and all other ills of the rulers.             JI chief from Tribal areas, Sahibzada Haroonur Rashid, addressing the Jirga, said that the tribal people had been the sword arm of Pakistan, they had always sacrificed their lives for the security of Pakistan but they had never accepted US slavery.  JI deputy chief, Sirajul Haq, and provincial secretary Shabbir Ahmed khan, and notable tribal elders speaking on the occasion, thanked the JI for voicing their demands. Those addressing the Jirga included Sardar Khan from Bajaur, Zarnau Aafridi, Hakim Syed Haleemzai, Mehmand, Malik uhammd Yar Khan Salarzai, and others.



Just a few days back the same "Sanctimonious Ansar Abbasi" and Jang Group had to say this on Maulana Fazlur Rehman through WikiLeaks which was used by Ansar Abbasi shamelessly.

ISLAMABAD: Against his public perception of being an anti-American, Maulana Fazlur Rehman is reflected in a cable released by WikiLeaks as a frequent and cooperative American interlocutor, who professes his support for cooperation with the United States. The JUI-F leader has been described in the secret US cable as “more politician than mulla”, and “a frequent and cooperative interlocutor” with the post (US Embassy Islamabad). The Maulana is also shown as professing his “support for cooperation with the United States.” US embassy’s CDA Peter Bodde wrote in his April 3, 2008 cable, released by WikiLeaks, that Rehman, more politician than mulla, has been a prominent and legitimate figure in Pakistani politics since the 1980s. He “has publicly denounced terrorist attacks, but prefers to use negotiations rather than military force against militants. Although he is known to have contacts with Taliban and their sympathisers, he has negotiated with religious militants on the government’s behalf, garnering him criticism from the more hard-line religious sectors.”

The primary purpose of the message was to request the FBI to recall information about Fazlur Rehman, which indicated that an individual “Fasilur Rehman” believed to be associated with Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) is behind the March 2008 bombing in Islamabad. The cable said that the information suggests that Fasilur Rehman refers to political party leader Fazlur Rehman of the JUI-F. The embassy “requests that FBI recall this information from all hardcopy and database records due to discrepancies and errors in the report.” It noted that prominent Pakistan politician Fazlur Rehman is not associated with the JI, but instead leads his own political party, the JUI-F. From 2002-2007, the two parties allied with other religious parties in the coalition Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA). However, the JUI-F and JI retained separate leadership structures as well as separate political objectives and methods, it said.

The cable said that Fazlur Rehman’s JUI-F is a conservative Deobandi religious party that has recently joined the new Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) led government. The JI is a religious party that appeals to a narrow sector of the educated, conservative urban middle class. JI, which has a vibrant student wing, began as a movement for social change based on Sharia. “The JI party policy does not support violence as a means to achieve their political agenda, however, the party quietly has supported Jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir by providing recruits from their student corps. The party does not support violence perpetuated within Pakistan, such as the recent attack on the restaurant in Islamabad. In addition, Fasilur Rehman and Fazlur Rehman are extremely common Pakistani names, making it impossible to accurately identify the individual with the prominent JUI-F politician.” In an earlier cable, the WikiLeaks showed the Maulana approaching the then US Ambassador Anne Patterson to become the Prime Minister. It was revealed that the leader of the country’s most fiercely pro-Taliban religious party, hosted a jovial dinner for Patterson at which the Maulana sought her backing to become prime minister and expressed a desire to visit America. Maulana-like Maulana’s lieutenant Abdul Ghafoor Haideri acknowledged that “All important parties in Pakistan had to get the approval of the US (to get power).” Fazl keeps regular contact with US embassy, says cable By Ansar Abbasi Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Tuesday, December 07, 2010, Zilhajj 30, 1431 A.H

US behind WikiLeaks disclosures: Munawar

Updated at: 1209 PST, Wednesday, December 01, 2010

US behind WikiLeaks disclosures: Munawar

MULTAN: Jamat e Islami Ameer Syed Munawar Hassan has said that the US orchestrated the WikiLeaks disclosures, adding that the purpose of the mass release is to destablise Pakistan. He was taking to media personnel in Multan Airport. Munawar said that US wanted to hide its defeat in Afghanistan and wished to give new agenda to the people through the mass leaks. He told that Jamat e Islami will protest on Friday against the possible release of Aasia Bibi, who was convicted for saying blasphemous remarks. Munawar said that government would not be able to restrain the Jamat e Islami sit-in on December 5 in Islamabad. If democracy exists in the country then the government should welcome the upcoming long march, he added. 

Friday, March 22, 2013

Edict of Heresy (Takfir) is just a Slogan!

For all its faults, the outgoing democratic government had put no leash whatsoever on the media. From Kerry-Lugar-Berman act to the Rental Power Plant cases the media dragged the politicians over the coals and kept the government on its toes. But one area where the media either remained mum and worse underreported or misreported the events was the ongoing Shia genocide in Pakistan. Initially, the media self-censored and did not report identity of the victims as Shia being killed solely for their faith. But when the killings rose exponentially, media, and even human rights activists, squabbled over whether the magnitude of extermination of the Shia ‘justifies’ calling it as genocide. When finally the international media started taking cognizance of the Shia genocide in Pakistan, the apologists of the killers in the local media sprang into action presenting the vicious hatemongers as some benign reformists seeking reconciliation. The English press was relatively immune to this affliction but one English weekly hit a new low last week, publishing an interview of the Ahle-Sunnat-wal-Jamaat (ASWJ) — another name for the banned terrorist group Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) — leader Muhammad Ahmad Ludhianvi. The weekly asked the rabblerousing cleric that his outfit is known for chanting the slogan ‘Kafir, Kafir Shia Kafir (apostate, apostate, the Shia are apostate)’ in public rallies but does it not provoke the people to attack the Shia? Ludhianvi’s response was: “Kafir, Kafir Shia Kafir is just a slogan, like any other, such as Roti, Kapra aur Makaan (bread, clothing and shelter). It does not tell anyone to kill Shias. Speeches of Haq Nawaz Jhangvi are available online and in the market. He used this slogan throughout his life but never said Shias should be killed. We call Shias kafir on the basis of a unanimous edict issued by highly reputable jurists of Deoband. This slogan is not the reason behind the killing of Shias, and we don’t force people to chant the slogan in our rallies.” A slogan like Roti, Kapra aur Makaan? Give me a break, dear editors. No follow up questions were asked about what right does an individual or a seminary — even Deoband — has to ostracise and condemn a community as apostates. Ludhianvi was not confronted with the content from the hundreds of speeches in which he and his cohorts have pledged to make the life miserable for the Shia, made barely concealed calls to arms against the Shia and innuendo about exterminating them. The ostensibly liberal publication gave space quite liberally to Ludhianvi to bash the Shia without a single challenging question being asked. Granted that journalists have to deal with all manner of unsavoury characters but giving projection with such kid-glove treatment to ranting clerics who openly and/or off-the-record threaten the very existence of the Shia seriously impugns the liberal credentials of the editors of the weekly. While politicians are rightly chastised for a spineless and toothless stint but puff interviews like Ludhianvi’s make one wonder if the media has served as a watchdog or lapdog of terrorists. REFERENCE: COMMENT : Terrorism: is media a watchdog or lapdog? — Dr Mohammad Taqi Thursday, March 21, 2013\03\21\story_21-3-2013_pg3_2

Barelvis on Deobandis - 1

Barelvis on Deobandis - 2

March 15-21, 2013: The Friday Times: Your outfit is known for chanting the slogan Kafir Kafir Shia Kafir in public rallies. Doesn't that provoke people to attack Shias? --- Maulana Muhammad Ahmed Ludhianvi: Kafir Kafir Shia Kafir is just a slogan, like any other, such as Roti, Kapra aur Makaan. It does not tell anyone to kill Shias. Speeches of Haq Nawaz Jhangvi are available online and in the market. He used this slogan throughout his life but never said Shias should be killed. We call Shias Kafir on the basis of a unanimous edict issued by highly reputable jurists of Deoband. This slogan is not the reason behind the killing of Shias, and we don't force people to chant the slogan in our rallies. REFERENCE: 'Sectarianism has nothing to do with recent terrorism in Pakistan' March 15-21, 2013 - Vol. XXV, No. 05

Barelvi Scholar Kaukab Noorani Okarvi says Deobandis are Kaafir


It has become very convenient for Pakistani Muslims to blame anyone (mostly Non-Muslims) for Blasphemy and then Murder him/her whereas Books by South Asian Mullahs and Sufis (mostly Deobandis and Barelvis) are full of extremely Blasphemous narrations, read The Pure Faith by Late. Dr Masooduddin Usmani (Captain. Retd)

Blasphemous Data Ganj Bakhsh aka Ali Hujwiri


Deobandi Fatwa Against Dr Zakir Naik


Salafi Sheikh Tauseef ur Rehman says Barelvis are Blasphemous


Sufi might have been a little Kafir too: Munawar (Jamat-e-Islami)


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." REFERENCE: 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) Munir Commission Report (1954)

Monday, March 18, 2013

Dhimmi Republic of Pakistan.

The Objectives Resolution was where religion first crept into the constitutional debate. It was a foot in the door but even this document paid some lip service to equality and freedom of religion etc. Now here we are in the 21st century still procedurally, substantially and constitutionally unsure of ourselves. Consider Ansar Abbasi’s article in response to the Joseph Colony incident. He mercifully condemns the incident, which is, no doubt, a big improvement on what he generally has to say. However, he then goes on to speak of Pakistani non-Muslims as dhimmis. It is clear to me that Abbasi has not bothered to investigate this issue. Even under the Islamic law, not all non-Muslims are dhimmis. We have clear Islamic precedent in the case of Mesaq-e-Medina where the Jews of Medina and Muslims were declared one ummah. That document was approved by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) himself. The distinction is a clear one. Dhimmis were protected people in the immediate aftermath of conquest. They were de-militarised but their civil rights were kept intact and they were allowed to continue with their religion, business and lives as before. This does not apply to people who were not conquered, such as Pakistani non-Muslims who are at least promised equal citizenship under the constitution. Therefore, the Mesaq-e-Medina precedent is more applicable to our case. Pakistani non-Muslims are not dhimmis but equal citizens and form one community just as Jews and Muslims did under the Mesaq-e-Medina.Pakistan was not conquered by Jinnah. He envisaged a free and democratic state, which would not discriminate on the basis of religion. Unfortunately, Pakistan has become everything else but that. Our democracy is dysfunctional and patchy and we discriminate on the basis of religion at every level. A few token examples aside, minorities are discriminated against. Civil service and the armed forces do not promote non-Muslims beyond a certain level. Even in the judiciary where you have had Cornelius, Dorab Patel and Bhagwandas, there is hardly any hope for a religious minority in Pakistan to make it to the top. Then of course there is the constitutional bar against non-Muslims becoming president or the prime minister of Pakistan. Heck, they cannot even become the interim prime minister of Pakistan. The situation is even worse for Ahmadis in Pakistan as I have stated many times earlier. Their existence on the same electoral rolls as Muslims seems to threaten the faith of millions. This is despite the fact that the country has joint electorates in place. In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan there seem to be two lists: Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis. One hopes that the Chief Justice of Pakistan will undo this patent injustice against a patriotic Pakistani community. No Pakistani is a dhimmi. All of us, whatever our faith, are equal citizens with equal obligations and equal responsibilities. It is high time that we all have equal rights as well and this means absolutely no bar against any community. So long as a Pakistani — on merit — deserves a job, his or her religious beliefs should not be hindrance to him getting his fair share, be that the job of the president of Pakistan. Let us build a Pakistan on truly inclusive and democratic lines. Or else we will continue to slide down a slippery pole. REFERENCE: COMMENT : Are Pakistan’s non-Muslims ‘dhimmis’? — Yasser Latif Hamdani Monday, March 18, 2013\03\18\story_18-3-2013_pg3_3 Ansar Abbasi on Pakistani Zimmis Daily Jang March 11, 2013

Ram Jethmalani on Jinnah and Hindus in Sindh

Deobandi Scholar Husain Ahmad Madni of Indian National Congress was of the view that Hindus and Muslims of India are one Ummah Nation


Madni was also a leading Muslim political activist, and was closely involved in the Congress Party in pre-1947 India. At a time when the Muslim League under Jinnah had raised its demand for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan, based on the so-called ‘two nation’ theory, Madni came out forcefully as a champion of a free and united India. He insisted, arguing against the claims of both the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha (which, too, subscribed to a ‘two nation’ theory of its own version), that all the inhabitants of India were members of a ‘united nationality’ (muttahida qaumiyat) despite their religious and other differences. Hence, he argued, Muslims, Hindus and others must join hands to work for an independent, united India, where all communities would enjoy equal rights and freedoms. Madni elaborated on his theory of ‘united nationalism’ in a book penned in the early 1940s as a reply to Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s critique of his own political position. By this time, Iqbal had turned into an ardent pan-Islamist and had clearly distanced himself from his earlier nationalist stance. Madni’s book ‘Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam’ (‘United Nationalism and Islam’) was published before 1947, and long remained unavailable after that, being only recently reprinted by the Jami’at ul-‘Ulama-i Hind’s headquarters in Delhi. Madni’s central argument is that Islam is not opposed to a united nationalism based on a common motherland (vatan), language (zaban), ethnicity (nasl) or colour (rang), which brings together Muslims and non-Muslims sharing one or more of these attributes in common. REFERENCE ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES The 'United Nationalism' of Maulana Madni - i By Yoginder Sikand Published in the 1-15 Aug 2004 and 16-31 Aug 2004


Cleansing of Hindus in Sindh Marvi Sirmed

Congress leaders advised Hindus to leave Sindh which was viewed by the Sindhi Muslim leadership as a ploy to deprive Sindh of its merchants, bankers, and sanitation workers. According to Brown University’s associate professor of history Vazira Zamindar’s book The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia (Columbia University Press, 2007) : “Ayub Khuhro, the premier of Sindh, and other Sindhi leaders also attempted to retain Sindh’s minorities, for they also feared a loss of cultural identity with the Hindu exodus.” The Sindh government “attempted to use force to stem” the exodus “by passing the Sindh Maintenance of Public Safety Ordinance” in September 1947. On September 4, 1947 curfew had to be imposed in Nawabshah because of communal violence. It turned out that the policies of a local collector resulted in the exodus of a large Sikh community of Nawabshah to make room for an overflow of refugees from East Punjab. The Sindh government took stern action to suppress the violence. The Sindh government set up a Peace Board comprising Hindu and Muslim members to maintain order in the troubled province. PV Tahilramani was secretary of the Peace Board. He is the one who rushed to Khuhro’s office on January 6, 1948, at around 11am to inform the chief minister that the Sikhs in Guru Mandir areas of Karachi were being killed. According to Khuhro, senior bureaucrats and police officials were nowhere to be found and he rushed to the scene at around 12.30 pm where he saw “mobs of refugees armed with knives and sticks storming the temples”. Khuhro tried to stem the violence and Jinnah was pleased with his efforts. The prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was angry with Khuhro when he went to see him on January 9 or 10. Liaquat said to Khuhro: “What sort of Muslim are you that you protect Hindus here when Muslims are being killed in India. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself!” In the third week of January 1948, Liaquat Ali Khan said the Sindh government must move out of Karachi and told Khuhro to “go make your capital in Hyderabad or somewhere else”. Liaquat said this during a cabinet meeting while Jinnah quietly listened. The Sindh Assembly passed a resolution on February 10, 1948, against the Centre’s impending move to annex Karachi. The central government had already taken over the power to allotment houses in Karachi. Khuhro was forced to quit and Karachi was handed over to the Centre in April 1948. Reference: REFERENCES: Who orchestrated the exodus of Sindhi Hindus after Partition? By Haider Nizamani Published: June 4, 2012 Vazira Zamindar’s book The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia (Columbia University Press, 2007)

 Last Interview of Pakistan's Minority Minister Shahbaz Bhatti

Objective Resolution and Minorities: 5 Adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures. Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to [1][freely] profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures; - Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality; Wherein adequate provisions shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes; Ed. note: Mr. Ardeshir Cowasjee's article 'The sole statesman - 4' - published in Dawn on July 9, 2000 - makes an interesting observation about a potential disparity between the original Objectives Resolution and the Annex inserted into the Constitution by P. O. 14 of 1985. The word "freely", which appears in the original Resolution, notes Mr. Cowasjee, is missing from the clause: "Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures;" The Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 (Article 99), with effect from April 19th, 2010, has corrected this by inserting the word "freely" at the correct place. REFERENCE: ANNEX [Article 2(A)] The Objectives Resolution Editor's note about Objectives Resolution

In response to all these objections of the opposition, Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the mover of the Resolution, reminded the House that ‘Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of this Subcontinent wanted to build up their lives in accordance with the teachings and traditions of Islam.’ He assured the minority members that in an Islamic state their rights and interests would be fully protected.40 The leader of the PNC, Chandra Chattopadyaya referring to the Quaid-i-Azam’s declaration made in the Assembly on August 11, 1947, said that it was a clear indication that Pakistan would be based on ‘eternal principles of equality and democracy’. He asserted that the minorities considered that declaration as a guarantee against the imposition of an Islamic state on them.41 In reply to Chattopadyaya’s point of view, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, the president of JUI, referred to a letter of Quaid-i-Azam to Pir Sahib of Manki Sharif, in November 1945, in which he assured him that ‘it is needless to emphasize that the Constituent Assembly which would be predominantly Muslim in its composition would be able to enact laws for Muslims, not inconsistent with the Shariat laws and the Muslims will no longer be obliged to abide by un-Islamic laws’.42 Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar on behalf of the government replied to most of the arguments put forward by Hindu members. He contended that the criticism emanated from a misunderstanding of the relevant provisions by the Hindu members. He explained the concept of Divine Sovereignty was a mere statement of fact to indicate that the Almighty is the sovereign of the whole universe. It also implied the principle of brotherhood of men all over the world. He pointed out that the political sovereignty of the people was not in any way limited by the provision. He told the House that more emphasis was placed on terms like ‘the people’, ‘the right of the people’, and ‘the representatives of the people’ and ‘the authority of the people’ in the Objectives Resolution.43 Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar contended that the inclusion of non-Muslims in the ‘enabling clause’ would have been to their disadvantage because they would certainly not like the state or the majority community to interfere in their religion and regulate their religious and cultural affairs. In meeting the argument that the Objectives Resolution flouted the assurances given to the minorities by Quaid-i-Azam, he contended that the former had also given pledges to the majority. He claimed that the demand for Pakistan was based on a particular ideology and the Resolution was in accordance with those pledges, which both the League and Quaid-i-Azam had given to the minority as well as to the majority.REFERENCE: The Role of Opposition in ConstitutionMaking: Debate on the Objectives Resolution BY Kausar Parveen

Deobandi (Sunni) Scholars were the brain behind Objective Resolution and some of the Sunni Scholars (mostly Barelvis) are also of the view that Deobandis are Apostate (Dhimmis)

Barelvi Decree of Apostasy on Deoband (Hussam ul Haramain)

Chattopadyaya further elaborated that ‘people of different religions live in a state. Therefore its position must be neutral with no bias for any religion and should help all the religions equally. The state must respect all religions and, therefore, a state religion is a dangerous principle. Previous instances are sufficient to warn us as people were burnt alive in the name of religion. Therefore, sovereignty must reside with the people and not with anybody else’.18 Raj Kumar Chakraverty, a member of the PNC from East Pakistan, moved another amendment in the same clause: the words ‘state of Pakistan through its people’ should be substituted with the words ‘people of Pakistan’. He further elaborated that ‘a state is the organized will of the people. A state is formed by the people, guided by the people and controlled by the people.’ Thus, the clause must be substituted as ‘people of Pakistan’ as ‘the state should be responsive to public opinion’. REFERENCE: The Role of Opposition in ConstitutionMaking: Debate on the Objectives Resolution BY Kausar Parveen

In case people forget that in Pakistan every Pakistani Muslim is a Dhimmi for another Pakistani Muslim

“To my utter regret it is to be stated that after partition, particularly after the death of Quaid-i-Azam, the scheduled castes have not received a fair deal in any matter” Resuming the painful narrative of Pakistan’s long journey backwards on which we had set out with the resignation of the newborn country’s first law minister, Joginder Nath Mandal, from the cabinet of Prime Minister Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan on October 8, 1950 (‘The long journey backwards’, Daily Times, May 4, 2011), we find ourselves at a fork — the road more travelled leads ahead to Liaquat’s assassination a year later and so on. Let us not proceed on that yet. There is many a chapter of our collective guilt that must be first revisited on the road less travelled before history in its ruthless fashion confines the nation to the dustbin of oblivion. Most of all, names have to be named now. Let us start with the first villain of the piece called Noorul Amin (literally meaning, the light of the trustworthy, no less). Actually, there is tough competition for the highest place of dishonour in our gallery of rogues. But, one at a time, not necessarily in order of precedence. So, insofar as Liaquat Ali Khan is concerned, he had snatched Jinnah’s Pakistan from the Quaid-i-Azam even before the country appeared on the world map. Over to Mandal, again. Below are some select direct quotes from his resignation letter:

 “My dear Prime Minister,

 “It is with a heavy heart and a sense of utter frustration at the failure of my lifelong mission to uplift the backward Hindu masses of East Bengal that I feel compelled to tender resignation of my membership of your cabinet. It is proper that I should set forth in detail the reasons, which have prompted me to take this decision at this important juncture of the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent...

 “Before I narrate the remote and immediate causes of my resignation, it may be useful to give a short background of the important events that have taken place during the period of my cooperation with the League. Having been approached by a few prominent League leaders of Bengal in February 1943, I agreed to work with them in the Bengal Legislative Assembly. After the fall of the Fazlul Haq ministry in March 1943, with a party of 21 Scheduled Caste MLAs, I agreed to cooperate with Khwaja Nazimuddin, the then leader of the Muslim League parliamentary party who formed the Cabinet in April 1943.

 “Our cooperation was conditional on certain specific terms, such as the inclusion of three scheduled caste ministers in the cabinet, sanctioning of a sum of Rs 500,000 as annual recurring grant for the education of the scheduled castes, and the unqualified application of the communal ratio rules in the matter of appointment to Government services...

 “...For the sake of truth I must admit that I had always considered the demand of Pakistan by the Muslim League as a bargaining counter. Although I honestly felt that in the context of India as a whole, Muslims had legitimate cause for grievance against upper class Hindu chauvinism, I held the view very strongly indeed that the creation of Pakistan would never solve the communal problem. On the contrary, it would aggravate communal hatred and bitterness.

 “Besides, I maintained that it would not ameliorate the condition of Muslims in Pakistan. The inevitable result of the partition of the country would be to prolong, if not perpetuate, the poverty, illiteracy and miserable condition of the toiling masses of both the states. I further apprehended that Pakistan might turn to be one of the most backward and undeveloped countries of Southeast Asia.

 “I must make it clear that I have thought that an attempt would be made, as is being done at present, to develop Pakistan as a purely ‘Islamic’ state based on the shariat and the injunctions and formulae of Islam. I presumed that it would be set up in all essentials after the pattern contemplated in the Muslim League resolution adopted at Lahore on March 23, 1940. That resolution stated inter alia that...‘adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units and in these regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them’.

 “...I was fortified in my faith in this resolution and the professions of the League Leadership by the statement Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah was pleased to make on the August 11, 1947 as the President of the Constituent Assembly giving solemn assurance of equal treatment for Hindus and Muslims alike and calling upon them to remember that they were all Pakistanis.

 “...Every one of these pledges is being flagrantly violated apparently to your knowledge and with your approval in complete disregard of the Quaid-e-Azam’s wishes and sentiments and to the detriment and humiliation of the minorities.

 “It may also be mentioned in this connection that I was opposed to the partition of Bengal. In launching a campaign in this regard I had to face not only tremendous resistance from all quarters but also unspeakable abuse, insult and dishonour...but I remained undaunted and unmoved in my loyalty to Pakistan. It is a matter of gratitude that my appeal to seven million scheduled caste people of Pakistan evoked a ready and enthusiastic response from them. They lent me their unstinted support, sympathy and encouragement. “After the establishment of Pakistan on August 14, 1947 you formed the Pakistan Cabinet, in which I was included and Khwaja Nazimuddin formed a provisional Cabinet for East Bengal. On August 10, I had spoken to Khwaja Nazimuddin at Karachi and requested him to take two scheduled caste ministers in the East Bengal cabinet. He promised to do the same sometime later. What happened subsequently in this regard was a record of unpleasant and disappointing negotiation with you, Khwaja Nazimuddin and Mr Nurul Amin, the present chief minister of East Bengal...

 “But alas! You did not perhaps mean what you said. Khwaja Nazimuddin did not keep his promise. After Mr Nurul Amin had become the chief minister of East Bengal, I again took up the matter with him. He also followed the same old familiar tactics of evasion...

 “When the question of partition of Bengal arose, the scheduled caste people were alarmed at the anticipated dangerous result of partition. Representations on their behalf were made to Mr Suhrawardy, the then chief minister of Bengal who was pleased to issue a statement to the press declaring that none of the rights and privileges hitherto enjoyed by the scheduled caste people would be curtailed after partition and that they would not only continue to enjoy the existing rights and privileges but also receive additional advantages. This assurance was given by Mr Suhrawardy not only in his personal capacity but also in his capacity as the chief minister of the League ministry.

 “To my utter regret it is to be stated that after partition, particularly after the death of Quaid-i-Azam, the scheduled castes have not received a fair deal in any matter. You will recollect that from time to time I brought the grievances of the scheduled castes to your notice. I explained to you on several occasions the nature of inefficient administration in East Bengal. I made serious charges against the police administration. I brought to your notice incidents of barbarous atrocities perpetrated by the police on frivolous grounds. I did not hesitate to bring to your notice the anti-Hindu policy pursued by the East Bengal government, especially the police administration and a section of Muslim League leaders...” So, what else is new in the Islamic Republic?

It was politically expedient for Liaquat Ali Khan to force both Islam and Urdu down the throats of his adoptive homeland of Pakistan as only that could provide him with the basis for legitimising his rule as the prime minister. REFERENCES: COMMENT: Naming names — I —Ghani Jafar Friday, May 13, 2011 COMMENT: Naming names — II —Ghani Jafar Wednesday, May 25, 2011 COMMENT: The long journey backwards —Ghani Jafar Wednesday, May 04, 2011